📋

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.

Shasta County Grand Jury • 2002-2003

Shasta County Audit Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2002 Reason for Inquiry:

Published: June 30, 2002 95 pages

View PDF View Full Original

⚠️ 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 23 findings

While investigating two citizens’ complaints, the Grand Jury found that the Superintendent and the District complied with relevant sections of both District policy and the California Education Code in a timely manner.

During the tour of four campuses, the Grand Jury found the facilities to be in good repair and well maintained.

The California Department of Education publishes the Academic Performance Index (API) for each school in the state annually. The API is an index designed to measure the school’s overall academic performance. Test scores, socio-economic factors, and location (rural or urban) determine the API. For the 2001/2002 school year, Anderson High School had an API of

The California Education Code requires districts such as AUHSD to maintain a 3% budgetary reserve for economic uncertainties. As of July 2002, the District had accumulated a reserve of approximately 13.5% of its annual budget. In March of 2003, the Board of Trustees decided to use approximately $500,000 of this reserve in order to retain 11 teachers and some classes which would otherwise have been eliminated due to state budget cuts.

During fiscal year 2001/2002, the Anderson Union High School District had a financial deficit of $697,688. A deficit of $114,603 is projected for 2002/2003. Adequate funds were available from the reserve to cover the deficits.

According to Shasta County Office of Education information, AUHSD has experienced declining enrollment over the past four years, as have most other districts within the county.

During the investigation of a citizen’s complaint, the Grand Jury found the District’s administering of certain grant funds to be in order.

AUHSD provides a benefit to the elected Board of Trustees in the form of a paid health insurance policy. The cost of this comprehensive, family health insurance policy is $9,324 per year per Trustee. Some Trustees have declined the benefit. Other school districts in Shasta County that were contacted by the Grand Jury do not offer this benefit to their board members.

The Grand Jury conducted random checks of the credentials held by certain administrators of AUHSD and found the credentials held to be the proper ones for the current assignment.

F10

Early in the investigation, the Grand Jury interviewed the publisher of a local newspaper in Anderson. The newspaper had published several articles critical of AUHSD. These articles were of both the editorial and hard news type. During the interview, the publisher provided the Grand Jury with several allegations and “facts” in both written and verbal form regarding the District. These statements, if true, would indicate improper acts. The Grand Jury spent considerable time and effort attempting to corroborate these allegations and “facts”. The Grand Jury ascertained that nearly all of the “facts” and allegations were unfounded.

F11

The Grand Jury obtained information from seven other counties in the State, all of which have delegated the authority of approving and paying claims to the Auditor-Controller through resolution or other action of the Board. It appears that Shasta County’s process of categorizing some claims as board claims requires less scrutiny by the Auditor-Controller’s staff because if there is no obvious reference on the claim to a purchase order, contract, or other authorization, the claim is simply passed on to the Board for approval. This practice may save time during the initial steps of the process, but the time required for thorough review by members of the Board of Supervisors and the week-long delay in getting payments to vendors results in inefficiency.

F12

California Government Code section 29747 requires the Auditor-Controller to prepare a list of all claims allowed by the Auditor-Controller, showing the date allowed, warrant number, name of claimant, and amount allowed. The list is required to be certified by the Auditor-Controller and one copy filed in the office of the Board of Supervisors, which is not currently being done.

F13

The 2001/2002 Grand Jury recommended that the Auditor-Controller process claims for payment in a timely manner and that the Board of Supervisors authorize an outside contract auditor to conduct a management audit of the Auditor-Controller’s Office. On October 8, 2002, the Board of Supervisors voted to authorize such an audit. As of June1, 2003, the management audit had not been conducted.

F14

In 2003, SLFPD lost its authorization from the American Heart Association to conduct CPR training due to non-compliance with their policies. As a result, SLFPD was unable to conduct CPR training classes for a short period of time. SLFPD is now authorized to conduct the CPR classes through the National Safety Council.

F15

In January 2003, the U.S. Labor Department began an investigation of SLFPD regarding failure to pay overtime as required by law. The Labor Department’s ruling could require the District to remit back pay, plus penalties and interest. The Fire Chief became aware of this investigation in early 2003, yet he did not inform the Board of it at that time.

F16

In accordance with the Brown Act, agendas for Board meetings are to be posted 72 hours prior to a regular meeting and 24 hours prior to a special meeting in a location freely accessible to the public 24 hours a day. Prior to three different board meetings, members of the Grand Jury attempted to find an agenda in a public place but could not locate one, except on the inside bulletin board at the fire hall, which is not accessible to the public 24 hours a day. Several members of the public have also reported not being able to locate posted agendas. On October 14, 2002, the Board of Directors violated the Brown Act when they invited two members of the Grand Jury to attend a closed session regarding a personnel issue to which the Grand Jury was not a critical party. On February 10, 2003, Grand Jury members were again invited to a closed session, but declined. Closed sessions cannot be open to some members of the public and not others. Another violation of the Brown Act observed on the District agendas at least twelve times by the Grand Jury was the improper description of closed session agenda items. California Government Code section 54954.5 contains recommended language to describe closed session agenda items. The descriptions on the Boards’ agendas did not follow the recommended language. For example, the agenda for October 14, 2002, reads “Closed Session” with no further description; the agenda for June 10, 2002, reads “Closed Session to discuss personal [personnel] actions;” and the agenda for January 14, 2002, reads “Closed Session for discussion on letter from District Attorney.” Only matters properly disclosed on the agenda may be considered during a closed session.

F17

The Grand Jury was unable to confirm whether any of the current members of the SLFPD Board of Directors have attended any type of workshop or training session pertaining to the operation of a fire district or the Brown Act. Such training sessions are available through the California Fire Department Association and other agencies. Only one of the current Directors interviewed acknowledged having ever read the California Fire District Administration Handbook, which serves as a guide to special district board members and fire chiefs.

F18

The Grand Jury reviewed minutes of each regularly scheduled and special meeting of the Board from January 2001 through April 2003. Most of the minutes taken during that time were recorded by the Fire Chief, who is also responsible for reporting on District business during the meeting. The Board voted at the February 10, 2003, meeting to direct the Fire Chief to hire a secretary to take minutes in the future. As of the May 12, 2003, Board meeting, the secretary position remained unfilled.

F19

The By-Laws and Rules and Regulations for SLFPD currently being used are dated April 13, 1998, and do not contain a revision to Article IV, Procedures for Disciplinary Actions, that was approved at the April 9, 2001, Board meeting. During that meeting it was also recommended by legal counsel that the Board adopt Article IX, Policy Against Discrimination and Harassment. It was noted in the minutes that this would be considered “at a future date.” On March 10, 2003, the Board adopted the Fire Agencies Insurance Risk Authority’s (FAIRA) Risk Management Manual and Board members indicated that they will be working with that agency to revise the By-Laws and Rules and Regulations for the District.

F20

In June 2002, the District agreed to lease a water tender for a term of one year for $1.00 per year. However, on February 10, 2003, prior to expiration of the lease and at the recommendation of the Fire Chief and at the request of the lessor, the Board voted to purchase the water tender for $25,000. A member of the SLFPD Board of Directors is an owner and the CEO of the company that owned the water tender. This board member abstained from voting on the lease or the purchase. Nevertheless, California Government Code section 1090 prohibits a public official from having a financial interest in any contract entered into by the body or board of which he/she is a member, even if the official does not vote on the contract. Moreover, several employees reported that, in their opinion, the water tender was not useable due to mechanical defects resulting in safety issues and that the purchase was not a prudent use of District funds.

F21

The SLFPD By-Laws state there shall be five members of the Board of Directors and that members are elected by the public for terms of four years each. The By-Laws further state that if a vacancy occurs during the term of office of a Board member, the Board shall post the vacancy to allow members of the public to apply for the position. The Board then appoints a person to serve until the next election. All of the current Board members were appointed to fill incomplete terms and none have ever run for election. There has not been a Board election since sometime prior to 1987 due to a lack of candidates. As of March 2003, there was one vacancy on the Board and three of the other four members’ terms expire at the end of 2003. California Government Code section 1780 states that a vacancy in an unexpired term of an elective office on the governing board of a special district shall be filled by appointment or by calling for an election within a period of 60 days. If the position is not filled as specified, the county board of supervisors may fill the vacancy within 90 days of the vacancy or order the district to call an election.

F22

At a special meeting of the SLFPD Board of Directors on March 27, 2003, the Board voted to hire legal counsel to represent and advise them on District matters.

F23

The Grand Jury believes that it is essential to provide those persons and bodies who are subject to a civil investigation a full opportunity to provide any and all relevant information to the Grand Jury. After compiling the results of this investigation into the above findings and conclusions, the Grand Jury requested a final interview with the members of the SLFPD Board of Directors and with the Fire Chief in order to obtain their input on the findings and conclusions. On May 23, 2003, the Board members and the Fire Chief declined a Grand Jury invitation to participate in a final interview.

Recommendations 23

R1

The Public Guardian Office, under the current Program Manager, appears to be staffed with dedicated, committed, professional individuals who take pride in their work.
R2

The Grand Jury observed the Public Guardian office to be neat, orderly, secure, and professional in appearance.
R3

The Sheriff’s Department should be more aggressive in recruiting qualified personnel to apply for vacancies in the Department. The Sheriff should report monthly to the Board of Supervisors on the progress in filling these vacancies.
R4

The Sheriff’s Department should analyze the results of the comprehensive staffing analysis and request additional staff positions as indicated. The Board of Supervisors should consider and support requests made by the Department to increase staffing positions at the jail in order to improve the level of staff and community safety.
R5

The County and the Sheriffs Department should pursue funding for the relocation of the kitchen and laundry, and renovations to add additional beds to the jail, as recommended by the feasibility study. RESPONSES REQUIRED: The Shasta County Board of Supervisors, as to Recommendations 4 and 5 Shasta County Sheriff, as to Recommendations 1 through 5
R6

An annual review of Public Guardian client files for compliance to policy, procedures, and proper client care is performed by the Shasta County Department of Social Services. In addition, the Superior Court reviews conservatorships annually, and the Public Guardian Office interviews clients on a regular basis to ensure that their needs are being met. RECOMMENDATIONS:
R7

In January 2001, the Board gave a confidential survey to the employees of the Shasta Lake Fire Department. Attached to the survey was a letter from the Board asking that the survey be completed and returned to the Board. The letter asked for employee’s assistance in formulating policy for the District and for written suggestions and criticisms. The letter stated that only the Board would see the results of the survey. After the new Fire Chief was hired in May of 2001, he was shown the confidential surveys by a member of the Board. The Fire Chief, who was a Battalion Chief at the time of the survey, was the subject of some of the criticism. Some employees reported that the Board’s disclosure of this confidential information created strained working relationships.
R8

The Shasta County Fire Marshall recommends that buildings occupied or visited by the public be periodically inspected by local fire departments. The Grand Jury found that SLFPD has not routinely performed building safety inspections within the District as recommended. The inspection records of one retail business, which employs approximately 50 people, show that it had not been inspected since 1991. The District’s Fire Marshall, who is also a Battalion Chief, is the only one who currently performs building safety inspections for SLFPD. Several employees expressed concerns over their inability to have prior knowledge (or “pre-plans”) of potentially dangerous situations because they do not have the opportunity to perform building inspections.
R9

It was reported to the Grand Jury that an accident took place in 2002 during a SLFPD training session involving one of the District fire trucks and a commercial semi-trailer dolly parked on a street near Shasta Lake Industrial Park. Both the fire truck and the semi-trailer dolly incurred damage. The semi-trailer dolly was repaired on scene by SLFPD personnel and the fire truck was returned to the fire station, where all repairs were made by the fire department. The Grand Jury interviewed the company that owned the semi-trailer dolly and found that no accident had been reported to them by the SLFPD. The Grand Jury contacted the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) and ascertained that no accident was ever reported. At the time of the accident, California law required traffic accidents on a California street/highway or private property to be reported to the DMV within ten days if there was property damage to anyone’s property in excess of $500.00. The actual amount of damage could not be ascertained because no estimate was ever obtained, but it was reported to the Grand Jury that the damage was well in excess of $500.
R10

It was reported to the Grand Jury that the training program for paid and volunteer firefighters is insufficient, although employees indicated that the program has improved greatly since the current Training Officer, who is also a Battalion Chief, took over the training program in 2001. The Training Officer is not provided with sufficient resources to fulfill his responsibilities. For example, equipment is sometimes not made available for training purposes and most training is done during off-duty time for both paid staff and volunteers. Furthermore, the Department does not have a basic training manual for new recruits and it was reported that the Fire Chief seldom approves expenditures of District funds to pay for fire fighting classes for employees or volunteers.
R11

The District received a $24,723 federal grant in November of 2002 to purchase training materials for the Department. The grant application required a 10% cost share from the District equaling $2,472, and specified that the funds would be used for training purposes. The money from the grant was deposited in the Shasta Lake Fire Protection District Volunteer Association checking account rather than into the District’s general funds, which are administered by the Shasta County Auditor- Controller’s office. It was reported to the Grand Jury that the volunteers’ checking account is not routinely audited, as is the District’s general fund account. A routine audit of District funds would include a test for compliance with certain provisions of a federal grant. After the funds were deposited, a desktop computer, a laptop computer, a power point projector, and training software were purchased and paid for through the volunteer account. The new computers are reportedly being used by the Fire Chief, Battalion Chiefs, and the District employees in the course of their regular work and are not dedicated to training.
R12

The Shasta Lake Fire Protection District does not currently have a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) manual. Policy changes and directives are given verbally rather than in writing and passed on from shift to shift, which leads to confusion. At the January 13, 2003, Board meeting, the District’s paid employees requested an opportunity to address the Board to request that the Department develop an SOP manual. The employees were not granted an opportunity to speak on the subject.
R13

In 2003, the District was audited by the DMV on its DL 170 program. This program is an employer testing program under which certain employees are certified to give driving tests only to other District employees for their Class B firefighters’ licenses. The auditor found that testing had been improperly provided to employees of other outside agencies. It was reported to the Grand Jury that such infractions could result in loss of the DL 170 program.
R14

In 2003, SLFPD lost its authorization from the American Heart Association to conduct CPR training due to non-compliance with their policies. As a result, SLFPD was unable to conduct CPR training classes for a short period of time. SLFPD is now authorized to conduct the CPR classes through the National Safety Council.
R15

In January 2003, the U.S. Labor Department began an investigation of SLFPD regarding failure to pay overtime as required by law. The Labor Department’s ruling could require the District to remit back pay, plus penalties and interest. The Fire Chief became aware of this investigation in early 2003, yet he did not inform the Board of it at that time.
R16

In accordance with the Brown Act, agendas for Board meetings are to be posted 72 hours prior to a regular meeting and 24 hours prior to a special meeting in a location freely accessible to the public 24 hours a day. Prior to three different board meetings, members of the Grand Jury attempted to find an agenda in a public place but could not locate one, except on the inside bulletin board at the fire hall, which is not accessible to the public 24 hours a day. Several members of the public have also reported not being able to locate posted agendas. On October 14, 2002, the Board of Directors violated the Brown Act when they invited two members of the Grand Jury to attend a closed session regarding a personnel issue to which the Grand Jury was not a critical party. On February 10, 2003, Grand Jury members were again invited to a closed session, but declined. Closed sessions cannot be open to some members of the public and not others. Another violation of the Brown Act observed on the District agendas at least twelve times by the Grand Jury was the improper description of closed session agenda items. California Government Code section 54954.5 contains recommended language to describe closed session agenda items. The descriptions on the Boards’ agendas did not follow the recommended language. For example, the agenda for October 14, 2002, reads “Closed Session” with no further description; the agenda for June 10, 2002, reads “Closed Session to discuss personal [personnel] actions;” and the agenda for January 14, 2002, reads “Closed Session for discussion on letter from District Attorney.” Only matters properly disclosed on the agenda may be considered during a closed session.
R17

The Grand Jury was unable to confirm whether any of the current members of the SLFPD Board of Directors have attended any type of workshop or training session pertaining to the operation of a fire district or the Brown Act. Such training sessions are available through the California Fire Department Association and other agencies. Only one of the current Directors interviewed acknowledged having ever read the California Fire District Administration Handbook, which serves as a guide to special district board members and fire chiefs.
R18

The Grand Jury reviewed minutes of each regularly scheduled and special meeting of the Board from January 2001 through April 2003. Most of the minutes taken during that time were recorded by the Fire Chief, who is also responsible for reporting on District business during the meeting. The Board voted at the February 10, 2003, meeting to direct the Fire Chief to hire a secretary to take minutes in the future. As of the May 12, 2003, Board meeting, the secretary position remained unfilled.
R19

The By-Laws and Rules and Regulations for SLFPD currently being used are dated April 13, 1998, and do not contain a revision to Article IV, Procedures for Disciplinary Actions, that was approved at the April 9, 2001, Board meeting. During that meeting it was also recommended by legal counsel that the Board adopt Article IX, Policy Against Discrimination and Harassment. It was noted in the minutes that this would be considered “at a future date.” On March 10, 2003, the Board adopted the Fire Agencies Insurance Risk Authority’s (FAIRA) Risk Management Manual and Board members indicated that they will be working with that agency to revise the By-Laws and Rules and Regulations for the District.
R20

In June 2002, the District agreed to lease a water tender for a term of one year for $1.00 per year. However, on February 10, 2003, prior to expiration of the lease and at the recommendation of the Fire Chief and at the request of the lessor, the Board voted to purchase the water tender for $25,000. A member of the SLFPD Board of Directors is an owner and the CEO of the company that owned the water tender. This board member abstained from voting on the lease or the purchase. Nevertheless, California Government Code section 1090 prohibits a public official from having a financial interest in any contract entered into by the body or board of which he/she is a member, even if the official does not vote on the contract. Moreover, several employees reported that, in their opinion, the water tender was not useable due to mechanical defects resulting in safety issues and that the purchase was not a prudent use of District funds.
R21

The SLFPD By-Laws state there shall be five members of the Board of Directors and that members are elected by the public for terms of four years each. The By-Laws further state that if a vacancy occurs during the term of office of a Board member, the Board shall post the vacancy to allow members of the public to apply for the position. The Board then appoints a person to serve until the next election. All of the current Board members were appointed to fill incomplete terms and none have ever run for election. There has not been a Board election since sometime prior to 1987 due to a lack of candidates. As of March 2003, there was one vacancy on the Board and three of the other four members’ terms expire at the end of 2003. California Government Code section 1780 states that a vacancy in an unexpired term of an elective office on the governing board of a special district shall be filled by appointment or by calling for an election within a period of 60 days. If the position is not filled as specified, the county board of supervisors may fill the vacancy of the vacancy or order the district to call an election.
R22

At a special meeting of the SLFPD Board of Directors on March 27, 2003, the Board voted to hire legal counsel to represent and advise them on District matters.
R23

The Grand Jury believes that it is essential to provide those persons and bodies who are subject to a civil investigation a full opportunity to provide any and all relevant information to the Grand Jury. After compiling the results of this investigation into the above findings and conclusions, the Grand Jury requested a final interview with the members of the SLFPD Board of Directors and with the Fire Chief in order to obtain their input on the findings and conclusions. On May 23, 2003, the Board members and the Fire Chief declined a Grand Jury invitation to participate in a final interview. RECOMMENDATIONS: