📋
Extracted from Consolidated Report
This investigation was originally published as part of a larger consolidated report containing multiple investigations. View the consolidated PDF for the complete document.
⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings 24 findings
F1
Page 36
The JPA and the SWA continues to be the most appropriate answer to the issues created by the landfill and the appropriate response to CalRecycle and state mandated regulations and laws.
F2
Page 36
Some decisions made by the Authority Board significantly affected the functioning of the operations of the SWA, reducing its effectiveness.
F3
Page 36
Multiple violations by Commissioners #1, 2 and 5 of the Code of Ethics occurred.
F4
Page 36
Commissioners #1 and #5 did not consistently conduct public affairs with honesty, integrity, fairness and respect for others.
F5
Page 36
Commissioner #1 committed numerous and varied violations of the Code of Ethics and Conduct.
F6
Page 36
Commissioner #1’s conduct is potentially harmful and divisive to the functioning and vested interests of the SWA and the community.
F7
Page 36
Commissioner #5 committed multiple violations of the Code of Ethics and Conduct.
F8
Page 36
No fiscal analyses or cost/benefit impact reports were produced to support some of the decisions the Authority Board rendered.
F9
Page 36
No fiscal analyses or independent impact reports were produced to support further privatization of the SWA or selling of the transfer station.
F10
Page 36
SWA has lower disposal rates than Curry County or Humboldt County.
F11
Page 36
The SWA has been understaffed since August 2013.
F12
Page 36
The Authority Board failed to modify the workload to accommodate staffing levels.
F13
Page 36
The SWA is presently out of compliance with its Mission Statement and some state agency regulations due to failure to produce mandated reports in a timely manner.
F14
Page 36
The costs for managing the SWA increased under the 2013/14 Authority Board.
F15
Page 36
Applications for grant monies ceased under the 2013/14 Authority Board.
F16
Page 36
The JPA and the SWA are at functional risk should a charter member choose to withdraw from the JPA.
F17
Page 36
The actions of Commissioners #1, 2 and 5 contributed to a hostile work environment. 36
F18
Page 37
Commissioners #1 and #5 demonstrated a lack of transparency in decision processes and outside activities.
F19
Page 37
Certain Commissioners made misleading statements as to the need and reason for the $33,000 spent on R3 study.
F20
Page 37
The tone and content of Commissioner #1 and #5’s communications with R3 were inappropriate and an attempt to influence the outcome of the consultant group's report.
F21
Page 37
Commissioners were varied in their understanding and knowledge of the JPA and state rules and regulations and operating standards.
F22
Page 37
COE #17 places the Executive Director in the precarious employment position of disciplining his employers.
F23
Page 37
The Grand Jury finds the continued assertions by Commissioner #1 regarding lowering rates without job loss and increasing privatization of the recycle/wastestream to be unsupported by facts and fiscal analysis.
F24
Page 37
SWA Commissioners can serve on the solid waste task force and board concurrently.
Recommendations 14
-
R1Page 37The Solid Waste Authority should return to full staffing with separate positions for the Executive Director and Program Manager.
-
R2Page 37All Commissioners should be educated about the history of the JPA and SWA and state rules and regulations. All Commissioners should read the 2014/2015 Grand Jury History of Solid Waste Authority.
-
R3Page 37The Solid Waste Authority should resume its applications for grant monies.
-
R4Page 37Commissioner #1 be removed from the Solid Waste Authority Board for misconduct and multiple violations of the Code of Ethics which affected the performance of his official duties.
-
R5Page 37The Grand Jury recommends Commissioner #1 be referred to the Board of Supervisors for consideration of disciplinary action.
-
R6Page 37The SWA Board recommend the removal of Commissioner #5 from the Solid Waste Task Force for multiple violations of the Code of Ethics.
-
R7Page 37The Solid Waste Authority should investigate adding Associate Members to the JPA.
-
R8Page 37The Solid Waste Authority should revisit its plans for a resource and recovery park as a backup and complement to the present recycler in Del Norte County. 37
-
R9Page 38The Board of Supervisors and City Council should appoint Commissioners who want the JPA and Solid Waste Authority to be successful.
-
R10Page 38The Solid Waste Authority Board study the Code of Conduct #17 and consider reorganizing the corrective process since it puts the Executive Director in a difficult position of correcting his employers.
-
R11Page 38The Solid Waste Authority should follow and act in accordance with its own Code of Ethics.
-
R12Page 38The Solid Waste Authority should conduct all its business in a transparent and public manner.
-
R13Page 38The Solid Waste Authority should prioritize an immediate return to compliance in all regulatory matters.
-
R14Page 38Solid Waste Authority Commissioners should not simultaneously be members of the Solid Waste Task Force as it has potential to be a conflict of interest.