Pelican Bay State Prison*

Conclusions 9

• CL1
  Three independent agencies have important roles at the school, yet there are no formal controls or coordination among them. Two administrators stated they were not aware of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the agencies that would clearly delineate roles of each when conflicts arise. The third stated that "The MOU for services between Mental Health Alcohol and Drug Programs and Probation (for services to Juvenile Hall) is currently being reviewed by Probation for accuracy of content."
• CL2
  Line management authority was not properly employed to resolve the conflict regarding appropriate punishment of the student. Initial communication regarding this incident was between agencies and bypassed the formal 'chain-of-command' but, it appeared that the teacher's general assertiveness was the issue and not abuse of position. Conclusions: Although there appear to be personality conflicts, the Grand Jury found there are no grounds for conflict of interest or abuse of power in this case.
• CL3
  did not appear broken to the officers on duty. When it was called to their attention by this incident, however, it was immediately repaired by jail maintenance. The injured inmate was taken to the emergency room, treated and returned to the jail.
• CL4
  Tow truck drivers are responsible for cleanup at the scene of an accident. However, the CHP is willing to be responsive to citizen complaints and will see to it that highways within their jurisdiction are cleaned up if they are alerted. City maintenance crews will clean up city streets littered with glass and/or other debris from collisions upon notification by concerned citizens. Recommendations: The Grand Jury commends both agencies for their willingness to respond to citizen complaints and recommends that the two agencies track patterns of neglect by tow truck drivers/companies. If there are signs of significant irresponsibility discontinue contracts. The Grand Jury further recommends that glass remaining on the street at the site of an accident be included as an indication of irresponsibility. Response Required: None Del Norte County Unified School District Reason for Investigation: The 2004-2005 Grand Jury requested information from the Del Norte County Unified School District regarding absenteeism and truancy at Del Norte High School. The Grand Jury had a concern that there are more absences and actual truancy than recorded. The Grand Jury interviewed the Del Norte County Unified School District Administrator in charge of the Student Attendance Review Board (SARB), as well as the Principal at Del Norte High School. The purpose was to gain knowledge about the policies and procedures in place dealing with absenteeism and truancy at Del Norte High School. The Grand Jury made an unannounced visit to the campus of Del Norte High School to observe policies and procedures for daily attendance. Findings: The SARB committee is made up of representatives from the School District, District Attorney's office, Department of Social Services, Mental Health, Rural Human Services, Healthy Start, Substance Abuse Prevention, and the County Probation Department. The purpose of a SARB hearing is to explore ways of increasing a student's school attendance. Due to low staffing in the district Attorney's office, currently the SARB process does not lead to prosecution. Prosecution tended to be punitive towards people receiving assistance or benefits by a reduction of their financial aid. Thus, each school site works on its own system for improving attendance—some schools award prizes for good attendance. Del Norte High School has an automated recording system that alerts parents by telephone that their child has missed one or more periods in a given day. The daily attendance is reportedly also taken each period for each student. The Average Daily Attendance (ADA) is based on the attendance taken at the beginning of first period each day. Thus, if a student leaves after that, this is not part of the tally that is reported to the state for school funding. During the campus visit at the high school, the Grand Jury observed students in the hallways during class time who were talking amongst themselves and individually on cell phones, studying each other's physical geography, etc. A student in the hall was asked if class was in session. The student said yes, and, in response to a direct question, indicated casually, that students had left class early. It was further observed that many classrooms had empty seats. Conclusions: Due to time constraints the 2004-2005 Grand Jury was unable to investigate this matter further. At this time our findings remain inconclusive. The concern is that, although each parent receives a phone report that "your child has been absent or tardy one or more periods" the day before, the general public is likely not aware of the actual number of students who are missing from school each period and/or each day. The Grand Jury recognizes that observations made on one day when students were lounging in the hall during class and when classrooms have empty seats is not clearly indicative of an ongoing problem, but, based on a variety of miscellaneous reports, feels that there is a bigger problem than the ADA figures would show. Recommendations: It is recommended that the 2005-2006 Grand Jury continue to investigate this matter. Additionally, because it takes a whole village to raise a child, the community—parents, citizens and teachers—work diligently on supporting school attendance. The Grand Jury further recommends that representatives from the various cultural populations participate on the ٠ SARB Board. Response Required: None Crescent City Harbor District Reason for Investigation: The Grand Jury was concerned about conditions of the public restrooms at the harbor, including but not limited to holes in the wall. The Grand Jury investigated, and photographed, the conditions. Findings: Restrooms, upon investigation, were clean and freshly painted. The hole in the wall (observed previously by the Grand Jury) had been repaired. New restrooms west of the harbor office were in the process of construction at the time of investigation. Conclusions: The problem appears to have been resolved. Recommendations: The Grand Jury recommends the Harbor District maintain the restrooms in the newly repaired condition. Response Required: None, Del Norte County Department of Mental Health Reason for Investigation: The investigation was conducted in response to concerns regarding the qualifications for Alcohol and Other Drug (AOD) counselors. Findings: Upon interviewing the Director of Mental Health, the Grand Jury found that all seven AOD counselors working within the Department of Mental Health meet all minimum requirements set by law. Currently only one counselor is certified. Effective 4/1/05, the State of California has revised the regulations so that all AOD counselors must register to be certified by 10/1/05; and they must actually have certification within five years of the 4/1/05 revision. Conclusion: The Department of Mental Health is in compliance with all regulations related to the qualifications for AOD counselors. Recommendations: The Grand Jury recommends that the Department continue to follow the State regulations and meet the deadline set by the state to certify all AOD counselors. Response Required: None Del Norte County Drug Task Force Reason for Investigation: The Grand Jury received complaints alleging that a member of the Drug Task Force used undue force during interactions with citizens. Complaints further stated they had received no response to complaints filed directly with the Sheriff's Office. Findings: The Grand Jury interviewed the Patrol Commander from the Del Norte County Sheriff's Office regarding protocols for citizen contact and complaint procedures. The Grand Jury learned that the complaints were already under investigation. The Commander provided criteria for an officer to stop a car and the acceptable procedures for questioning the individual(s) in the car. Given the latter, the behaviors alleged did not fit within these acceptable procedures. The procedure for making complaints regarding any officer of the Task Force follow: There is a "Public Complaint" form available through the Sheriff's Office, which contains a cover sheet basically stating the intent of the department to maintain a "relationship of trust and confidence with the public." Within "a couple of weeks" of receipt of the completed complaint form, the Sheriff's Office will send the complainant a standard response letter, which acknowledges receipt of the form and that the matter is under investigation. If no further communication is received by the complainant for what seems to be a lengthy period of time, the complainant may call the department and ask about the progress of the investigation. The complainant may expect to be told approximately how far along the investigation has progressed at the time of the call (i.e. half way, one third of the way, etc.) and how much longer it is expected to take. Upon completion of the investigation, the complainant is sent a letter advising them of the determination. The Grand Jury also learned that staffing/budget issues may cause some delays in the investigation. Conclusions: Because the complaints were already under investigation, they do not fall within the jurisdiction of the Grand Jury. Recommendations: None Response Required: None Del Norte County Planning Department Reason for Investigation: A complaint was received alleging the County was denying a certificate of occupancy for a newly constructed single-family residence. The individuals felt that certain county officials were denying them a certificate of . occupancy unless they agreed to give a specified amount of their property as an easement to the County without compensation. The complaint also stated that eleven of their trees were cut down by the County, using inmate labor. The property owners stated they were neither consulted nor compensated for their timber. They further alleged that some of their neighbors were offered incentives from the County, i.e. land, trade of land, building permits etc. in trade for easements; and that the County wanted to close the only road that allowed access to all of the properties, in essence leaving the complainants land locked. The individuals felt that they were singled out by the County and if the County wanted their property they should purchase it or claim eminent domain. The complaint continued with allegations that the County had to close the aforementioned road in order to widen the airport runway. The complainants felt the County should purchase the land so that there was enough land to make runway measurements legal. They further felt that if the County was not willing to purchase the necessary portion of their land, then the airport should be closed. Findings: The Grand Jury interviewed both the complainants and a County official involved in this situation. Since the initial complaint to the Grand Jury, the County has issued the certificate of occupancy. The County owns the airport, and Cal Trans Division of Aeronautics requires the County to maintain what is known as an "airport clear zone". During the investigation, the Grand Jury found that the clear zone is much like that of the bleachers in a football stadium, such that the zone begins at ground level and rises to 125 feet. Like stadium bleachers, the clear zone rises up and out. This clear zone is legally defined in the county easement and it is required that there be clear zone set backs. Approximately six to nine months prior to the complaint, Cal Trans Division of Aeronautics stated that they did not want any moving objects in the clear zone. This meant that the County may have to close the road and find other alternatives for the landowners to access their property. The County has asked to have such ruling in writing. As of this writing, the County has not yet received a letter of determination from the Cal Trans Division of Aeronautics. The Grand Jury learned that sometimes recorded easements may not appear on a deed. Conclusions: The investigation showed the County was not trying to take the complainant's property. In fact, county officials appeared to be trying to do all they could to ensure safety for all who live near and who use the airport. In addition, county officials were maintaining the "airport clear zone" as defined by Cal Trans Division of Aeronautics. Recommendations: The Grand Jury recommends that the County continue to seek a written recommendation/ruling from Cal Trans Division of Aeronautics regarding the need to close the current access road. Further, if the road must be closed, the County is encouraged to continue its efforts toward a viable solution to creating access to those properties affected. Response Required: None Secretary's Report On June 23, 2004, the Honorable Robert Weir impaneled the 2004-2005 Grand Jury. Dee Mattz was appointed Foreperson of the nineteen member panel. Five of the nineteen members held over from the previous year in continued service to this community. Eight current members have elected to stay on the Jury for another year. This Grand Jury met three times a month during the fiscal year 2004-2005 and as a body did on-site inspections of correctional facilities and other public agencies. The 2003-2004 Grand Jury passed on only one complaint that had been received too late to act upon. In addition, twenty-two written complaints were received by this Jury for investigation, of which one will be passed on as unresolved with a recommendation for continued investigation. Each complaint received a timely response and when necessary, investigations were documented. It was my personal pleasure to work with these committed people over the past year. I was impressed by the seriousness and determination with which these individuals approached each task. I appreciate the opportunity to serve this community and its citizens. Berni Rimack Secretary, 2004-2005 Grand Jury RESPONSE INSTRUCTIONS FOR LOCAL PUBLIC AGENCIES This Grand Jury's report contains findings and recommendations directed to the boards of various local public agencies subject to the "watchdog" functions of the Grand Jury. Pursuant to Penal Code §933, no later than 90 days after the grand jury submits a final report on the operations of any public agency subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of the public agency shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body. And every elective county officer or agency head for which the grand jury has responsibility shall comment with in 60 days to the presiding judge of the superior court. Pursuant to Penal Code 933.05 as to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: The respondent agrees with the finding. The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefore. As to each grand jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: The recommendation has been implemented with a summary regarding he implemented action. The re commendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or director 2004-2005 Del Norte County Grand Jury Formal Submittal of Report The undersigned, being duly sworn and acting members of the 2004-2005 Del Norte County Grand Jury, and comprising of at least twelve (12) members thereof, hereby affix their signatures, and submit this Final Report. reson MM Susan M. Andrews Dee Mattz Alison Baxter RAGUIAN Sandra Morrison Betty Brown Hay Harrott Kay Parrott Kurt Cooke Deme JEHF DIEKSO- Rosemary Reed Jeff Dickson rother Berni Rimack Dorothy Fay Linda Sanford Donna Haynes Cheryl Scott Marshall S. Jones Dean Valero, Jr. Byron Lundberg . . .
• CL5
  Due to time constraints the 2004-2005 Grand Jury was unable to investigate this matter further. At this time our findings remain inconclusive. The concern is that, although each parent receives a phone report that "your child has been absent or tardy one or more periods" the day before, the general public is likely not aware of the actual number of students who are missing from school each period and/or each day. The Grand Jury recognizes that observations made on one day when students were lounging in the hall during class and when classrooms have empty seats is not clearly indicative of an ongoing problem, but, based on a variety of miscellaneous reports, feels that there is a bigger problem than the ADA figures would show. Recommendations: It is recommended that the 2005-2006 Grand Jury continue to investigate this matter. Additionally, because it takes a whole village to raise a child, the community—parents, citizens and teachers—work diligently on supporting school attendance. The Grand Jury further recommends that representatives from the various cultural populations participate on the ٠ SARB Board. Response Required: None Crescent City Harbor District Reason for Investigation: The Grand Jury was concerned about conditions of the public restrooms at the harbor, including but not limited to holes in the wall. The Grand Jury investigated, and photographed, the conditions. Findings: Restrooms, upon investigation, were clean and freshly painted. The hole in the wall (observed previously by the Grand Jury) had been repaired. New restrooms west of the harbor office were in the process of construction at the time of investigation. Conclusions: The problem appears to have been resolved. Recommendations: The Grand Jury recommends the Harbor District maintain the restrooms in the newly repaired condition. Response Required: None, Del Norte County Department of Mental Health Reason for Investigation: The investigation was conducted in response to concerns regarding the qualifications for Alcohol and Other Drug (AOD) counselors. Findings: Upon interviewing the Director of Mental Health, the Grand Jury found that all seven AOD counselors working within the Department of Mental Health meet all minimum requirements set by law. Currently only one counselor is certified. Effective 4/1/05, the State of California has revised the regulations so that all AOD counselors must register to be certified by 10/1/05; and they must actually have certification within five years of the 4/1/05 revision. Conclusion: The Department of Mental Health is in compliance with all regulations related to the qualifications for AOD counselors. Recommendations: The Grand Jury recommends that the Department continue to follow the State regulations and meet the deadline set by the state to certify all AOD counselors. Response Required: None Del Norte County Drug Task Force Reason for Investigation: The Grand Jury received complaints alleging that a member of the Drug Task Force used undue force during interactions with citizens. Complaints further stated they had received no response to complaints filed directly with the Sheriff's Office. Findings: The Grand Jury interviewed the Patrol Commander from the Del Norte County Sheriff's Office regarding protocols for citizen contact and complaint procedures. The Grand Jury learned that the complaints were already under investigation. The Commander provided criteria for an officer to stop a car and the acceptable procedures for questioning the individual(s) in the car. Given the latter, the behaviors alleged did not fit within these acceptable procedures. The procedure for making complaints regarding any officer of the Task Force follow: There is a "Public Complaint" form available through the Sheriff's Office, which contains a cover sheet basically stating the intent of the department to maintain a "relationship of trust and confidence with the public." Within "a couple of weeks" of receipt of the completed complaint form, the Sheriff's Office will send the complainant a standard response letter, which acknowledges receipt of the form and that the matter is under investigation. If no further communication is received by the complainant for what seems to be a lengthy period of time, the complainant may call the department and ask about the progress of the investigation. The complainant may expect to be told approximately how far along the investigation has progressed at the time of the call (i.e. half way, one third of the way, etc.) and how much longer it is expected to take. Upon completion of the investigation, the complainant is sent a letter advising them of the determination. The Grand Jury also learned that staffing/budget issues may cause some delays in the investigation. Conclusions: Because the complaints were already under investigation, they do not fall within the jurisdiction of the Grand Jury. Recommendations: None Response Required: None Del Norte County Planning Department Reason for Investigation: A complaint was received alleging the County was denying a certificate of occupancy for a newly constructed single-family residence. The individuals felt that certain county officials were denying them a certificate of . occupancy unless they agreed to give a specified amount of their property as an easement to the County without compensation. The complaint also stated that eleven of their trees were cut down by the County, using inmate labor. The property owners stated they were neither consulted nor compensated for their timber. They further alleged that some of their neighbors were offered incentives from the County, i.e. land, trade of land, building permits etc. in trade for easements; and that the County wanted to close the only road that allowed access to all of the properties, in essence leaving the complainants land locked. The individuals felt that they were singled out by the County and if the County wanted their property they should purchase it or claim eminent domain. The complaint continued with allegations that the County had to close the aforementioned road in order to widen the airport runway. The complainants felt the County should purchase the land so that there was enough land to make runway measurements legal. They further felt that if the County was not willing to purchase the necessary portion of their land, then the airport should be closed. Findings: The Grand Jury interviewed both the complainants and a County official involved in this situation. Since the initial complaint to the Grand Jury, the County has issued the certificate of occupancy. The County owns the airport, and Cal Trans Division of Aeronautics requires the County to maintain what is known as an "airport clear zone". During the investigation, the Grand Jury found that the clear zone is much like that of the bleachers in a football stadium, such that the zone begins at ground level and rises to 125 feet. Like stadium bleachers, the clear zone rises up and out. This clear zone is legally defined in the county easement and it is required that there be clear zone set backs. Approximately six to nine months prior to the complaint, Cal Trans Division of Aeronautics stated that they did not want any moving objects in the clear zone. This meant that the County may have to close the road and find other alternatives for the landowners to access their property. The County has asked to have such ruling in writing. As of this writing, the County has not yet received a letter of determination from the Cal Trans Division of Aeronautics. The Grand Jury learned that sometimes recorded easements may not appear on a deed. Conclusions: The investigation showed the County was not trying to take the complainant's property. In fact, county officials appeared to be trying to do all they could to ensure safety for all who live near and who use the airport. In addition, county officials were maintaining the "airport clear zone" as defined by Cal Trans Division of Aeronautics. Recommendations: The Grand Jury recommends that the County continue to seek a written recommendation/ruling from Cal Trans Division of Aeronautics regarding the need to close the current access road. Further, if the road must be closed, the County is encouraged to continue its efforts toward a viable solution to creating access to those properties affected. Response Required: None Secretary's Report On June 23, 2004, the Honorable Robert Weir impaneled the 2004-2005 Grand Jury. Dee Mattz was appointed Foreperson of the nineteen member panel. Five of the nineteen members held over from the previous year in continued service to this community. Eight current members have elected to stay on the Jury for another year. This Grand Jury met three times a month during the fiscal year 2004-2005 and as a body did on-site inspections of correctional facilities and other public agencies. The 2003-2004 Grand Jury passed on only one complaint that had been received too late to act upon. In addition, twenty-two written complaints were received by this Jury for investigation, of which one will be passed on as unresolved with a recommendation for continued investigation. Each complaint received a timely response and when necessary, investigations were documented. It was my personal pleasure to work with these committed people over the past year. I was impressed by the seriousness and determination with which these individuals approached each task. I appreciate the opportunity to serve this community and its citizens. Berni Rimack Secretary, 2004-2005 Grand Jury RESPONSE INSTRUCTIONS FOR LOCAL PUBLIC AGENCIES This Grand Jury's report contains findings and recommendations directed to the boards of various local public agencies subject to the "watchdog" functions of the Grand Jury. Pursuant to Penal Code §933, no later than 90 days after the grand jury submits a final report on the operations of any public agency subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of the public agency shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body. And every elective county officer or agency head for which the grand jury has responsibility shall comment with in 60 days to the presiding judge of the superior court. Pursuant to Penal Code 933.05 as to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: The respondent agrees with the finding. The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefore. As to each grand jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: The recommendation has been implemented with a summary regarding he implemented action. The re commendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or director 2004-2005 Del Norte County Grand Jury Formal Submittal of Report The undersigned, being duly sworn and acting members of the 2004-2005 Del Norte County Grand Jury, and comprising of at least twelve (12) members thereof, hereby affix their signatures, and submit this Final Report. reson MM Susan M. Andrews Dee Mattz Alison Baxter RAGUIAN Sandra Morrison Betty Brown Hay Harrott Kay Parrott Kurt Cooke Deme JEHF DIEKSO- Rosemary Reed Jeff Dickson rother Berni Rimack Dorothy Fay Linda Sanford Donna Haynes Cheryl Scott Marshall S. Jones Dean Valero, Jr. Byron Lundberg . . .
• CL6
  The problem appears to have been resolved. Recommendations: The Grand Jury recommends the Harbor District maintain the restrooms in the newly repaired condition. Response Required: None, Del Norte County Department of Mental Health Reason for Investigation: The investigation was conducted in response to concerns regarding the qualifications for Alcohol and Other Drug (AOD) counselors. Findings: Upon interviewing the Director of Mental Health, the Grand Jury found that all seven AOD counselors working within the Department of Mental Health meet all minimum requirements set by law. Currently only one counselor is certified. Effective 4/1/05, the State of California has revised the regulations so that all AOD counselors must register to be certified by 10/1/05; and they must actually have certification within five years of the 4/1/05 revision. Conclusion: The Department of Mental Health is in compliance with all regulations related to the qualifications for AOD counselors. Recommendations: The Grand Jury recommends that the Department continue to follow the State regulations and meet the deadline set by the state to certify all AOD counselors. Response Required: None Del Norte County Drug Task Force Reason for Investigation: The Grand Jury received complaints alleging that a member of the Drug Task Force used undue force during interactions with citizens. Complaints further stated they had received no response to complaints filed directly with the Sheriff's Office. Findings: The Grand Jury interviewed the Patrol Commander from the Del Norte County Sheriff's Office regarding protocols for citizen contact and complaint procedures. The Grand Jury learned that the complaints were already under investigation. The Commander provided criteria for an officer to stop a car and the acceptable procedures for questioning the individual(s) in the car. Given the latter, the behaviors alleged did not fit within these acceptable procedures. The procedure for making complaints regarding any officer of the Task Force follow: There is a "Public Complaint" form available through the Sheriff's Office, which contains a cover sheet basically stating the intent of the department to maintain a "relationship of trust and confidence with the public." Within "a couple of weeks" of receipt of the completed complaint form, the Sheriff's Office will send the complainant a standard response letter, which acknowledges receipt of the form and that the matter is under investigation. If no further communication is received by the complainant for what seems to be a lengthy period of time, the complainant may call the department and ask about the progress of the investigation. The complainant may expect to be told approximately how far along the investigation has progressed at the time of the call (i.e. half way, one third of the way, etc.) and how much longer it is expected to take. Upon completion of the investigation, the complainant is sent a letter advising them of the determination. The Grand Jury also learned that staffing/budget issues may cause some delays in the investigation. Conclusions: Because the complaints were already under investigation, they do not fall within the jurisdiction of the Grand Jury. Recommendations: None Response Required: None Del Norte County Planning Department Reason for Investigation: A complaint was received alleging the County was denying a certificate of occupancy for a newly constructed single-family residence. The individuals felt that certain county officials were denying them a certificate of . occupancy unless they agreed to give a specified amount of their property as an easement to the County without compensation. The complaint also stated that eleven of their trees were cut down by the County, using inmate labor. The property owners stated they were neither consulted nor compensated for their timber. They further alleged that some of their neighbors were offered incentives from the County, i.e. land, trade of land, building permits etc. in trade for easements; and that the County wanted to close the only road that allowed access to all of the properties, in essence leaving the complainants land locked. The individuals felt that they were singled out by the County and if the County wanted their property they should purchase it or claim eminent domain. The complaint continued with allegations that the County had to close the aforementioned road in order to widen the airport runway. The complainants felt the County should purchase the land so that there was enough land to make runway measurements legal. They further felt that if the County was not willing to purchase the necessary portion of their land, then the airport should be closed. Findings: The Grand Jury interviewed both the complainants and a County official involved in this situation. Since the initial complaint to the Grand Jury, the County has issued the certificate of occupancy. The County owns the airport, and Cal Trans Division of Aeronautics requires the County to maintain what is known as an "airport clear zone". During the investigation, the Grand Jury found that the clear zone is much like that of the bleachers in a football stadium, such that the zone begins at ground level and rises to 125 feet. Like stadium bleachers, the clear zone rises up and out. This clear zone is legally defined in the county easement and it is required that there be clear zone set backs. Approximately six to nine months prior to the complaint, Cal Trans Division of Aeronautics stated that they did not want any moving objects in the clear zone. This meant that the County may have to close the road and find other alternatives for the landowners to access their property. The County has asked to have such ruling in writing. As of this writing, the County has not yet received a letter of determination from the Cal Trans Division of Aeronautics. The Grand Jury learned that sometimes recorded easements may not appear on a deed. Conclusions: The investigation showed the County was not trying to take the complainant's property. In fact, county officials appeared to be trying to do all they could to ensure safety for all who live near and who use the airport. In addition, county officials were maintaining the "airport clear zone" as defined by Cal Trans Division of Aeronautics. Recommendations: The Grand Jury recommends that the County continue to seek a written recommendation/ruling from Cal Trans Division of Aeronautics regarding the need to close the current access road. Further, if the road must be closed, the County is encouraged to continue its efforts toward a viable solution to creating access to those properties affected. Response Required: None Secretary's Report On June 23, 2004, the Honorable Robert Weir impaneled the 2004-2005 Grand Jury. Dee Mattz was appointed Foreperson of the nineteen member panel. Five of the nineteen members held over from the previous year in continued service to this community. Eight current members have elected to stay on the Jury for another year. This Grand Jury met three times a month during the fiscal year 2004-2005 and as a body did on-site inspections of correctional facilities and other public agencies. The 2003-2004 Grand Jury passed on only one complaint that had been received too late to act upon. In addition, twenty-two written complaints were received by this Jury for investigation, of which one will be passed on as unresolved with a recommendation for continued investigation. Each complaint received a timely response and when necessary, investigations were documented. It was my personal pleasure to work with these committed people over the past year. I was impressed by the seriousness and determination with which these individuals approached each task. I appreciate the opportunity to serve this community and its citizens. Berni Rimack Secretary, 2004-2005 Grand Jury RESPONSE INSTRUCTIONS FOR LOCAL PUBLIC AGENCIES This Grand Jury's report contains findings and recommendations directed to the boards of various local public agencies subject to the "watchdog" functions of the Grand Jury. Pursuant to Penal Code §933, no later than 90 days after the grand jury submits a final report on the operations of any public agency subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of the public agency shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body. And every elective county officer or agency head for which the grand jury has responsibility shall comment with in 60 days to the presiding judge of the superior court. Pursuant to Penal Code 933.05 as to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: The respondent agrees with the finding. The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefore. As to each grand jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: The recommendation has been implemented with a summary regarding he implemented action. The re commendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or director 2004-2005 Del Norte County Grand Jury Formal Submittal of Report The undersigned, being duly sworn and acting members of the 2004-2005 Del Norte County Grand Jury, and comprising of at least twelve (12) members thereof, hereby affix their signatures, and submit this Final Report. reson MM Susan M. Andrews Dee Mattz Alison Baxter RAGUIAN Sandra Morrison Betty Brown Hay Harrott Kay Parrott Kurt Cooke Deme JEHF DIEKSO- Rosemary Reed Jeff Dickson rother Berni Rimack Dorothy Fay Linda Sanford Donna Haynes Cheryl Scott Marshall S. Jones Dean Valero, Jr. Byron Lundberg . . .
• CL7
  The Department of Mental Health is in compliance with all regulations related to the qualifications for AOD counselors. Recommendations: The Grand Jury recommends that the Department continue to follow the State regulations and meet the deadline set by the state to certify all AOD counselors. Response Required: None Del Norte County Drug Task Force Reason for Investigation: The Grand Jury received complaints alleging that a member of the Drug Task Force used undue force during interactions with citizens. Complaints further stated they had received no response to complaints filed directly with the Sheriff's Office. Findings: The Grand Jury interviewed the Patrol Commander from the Del Norte County Sheriff's Office regarding protocols for citizen contact and complaint procedures. The Grand Jury learned that the complaints were already under investigation. The Commander provided criteria for an officer to stop a car and the acceptable procedures for questioning the individual(s) in the car. Given the latter, the behaviors alleged did not fit within these acceptable procedures. The procedure for making complaints regarding any officer of the Task Force follow: There is a "Public Complaint" form available through the Sheriff's Office, which contains a cover sheet basically stating the intent of the department to maintain a "relationship of trust and confidence with the public." Within "a couple of weeks" of receipt of the completed complaint form, the Sheriff's Office will send the complainant a standard response letter, which acknowledges receipt of the form and that the matter is under investigation. If no further communication is received by the complainant for what seems to be a lengthy period of time, the complainant may call the department and ask about the progress of the investigation. The complainant may expect to be told approximately how far along the investigation has progressed at the time of the call (i.e. half way, one third of the way, etc.) and how much longer it is expected to take. Upon completion of the investigation, the complainant is sent a letter advising them of the determination. The Grand Jury also learned that staffing/budget issues may cause some delays in the investigation. Conclusions: Because the complaints were already under investigation, they do not fall within the jurisdiction of the Grand Jury. Recommendations: None Response Required: None Del Norte County Planning Department Reason for Investigation: A complaint was received alleging the County was denying a certificate of occupancy for a newly constructed single-family residence. The individuals felt that certain county officials were denying them a certificate of . occupancy unless they agreed to give a specified amount of their property as an easement to the County without compensation. The complaint also stated that eleven of their trees were cut down by the County, using inmate labor. The property owners stated they were neither consulted nor compensated for their timber. They further alleged that some of their neighbors were offered incentives from the County, i.e. land, trade of land, building permits etc. in trade for easements; and that the County wanted to close the only road that allowed access to all of the properties, in essence leaving the complainants land locked. The individuals felt that they were singled out by the County and if the County wanted their property they should purchase it or claim eminent domain. The complaint continued with allegations that the County had to close the aforementioned road in order to widen the airport runway. The complainants felt the County should purchase the land so that there was enough land to make runway measurements legal. They further felt that if the County was not willing to purchase the necessary portion of their land, then the airport should be closed. Findings: The Grand Jury interviewed both the complainants and a County official involved in this situation. Since the initial complaint to the Grand Jury, the County has issued the certificate of occupancy. The County owns the airport, and Cal Trans Division of Aeronautics requires the County to maintain what is known as an "airport clear zone". During the investigation, the Grand Jury found that the clear zone is much like that of the bleachers in a football stadium, such that the zone begins at ground level and rises to 125 feet. Like stadium bleachers, the clear zone rises up and out. This clear zone is legally defined in the county easement and it is required that there be clear zone set backs. Approximately six to nine months prior to the complaint, Cal Trans Division of Aeronautics stated that they did not want any moving objects in the clear zone. This meant that the County may have to close the road and find other alternatives for the landowners to access their property. The County has asked to have such ruling in writing. As of this writing, the County has not yet received a letter of determination from the Cal Trans Division of Aeronautics. The Grand Jury learned that sometimes recorded easements may not appear on a deed. Conclusions: The investigation showed the County was not trying to take the complainant's property. In fact, county officials appeared to be trying to do all they could to ensure safety for all who live near and who use the airport. In addition, county officials were maintaining the "airport clear zone" as defined by Cal Trans Division of Aeronautics. Recommendations: The Grand Jury recommends that the County continue to seek a written recommendation/ruling from Cal Trans Division of Aeronautics regarding the need to close the current access road. Further, if the road must be closed, the County is encouraged to continue its efforts toward a viable solution to creating access to those properties affected. Response Required: None Secretary's Report On June 23, 2004, the Honorable Robert Weir impaneled the 2004-2005 Grand Jury. Dee Mattz was appointed Foreperson of the nineteen member panel. Five of the nineteen members held over from the previous year in continued service to this community. Eight current members have elected to stay on the Jury for another year. This Grand Jury met three times a month during the fiscal year 2004-2005 and as a body did on-site inspections of correctional facilities and other public agencies. The 2003-2004 Grand Jury passed on only one complaint that had been received too late to act upon. In addition, twenty-two written complaints were received by this Jury for investigation, of which one will be passed on as unresolved with a recommendation for continued investigation. Each complaint received a timely response and when necessary, investigations were documented. It was my personal pleasure to work with these committed people over the past year. I was impressed by the seriousness and determination with which these individuals approached each task. I appreciate the opportunity to serve this community and its citizens. Berni Rimack Secretary, 2004-2005 Grand Jury RESPONSE INSTRUCTIONS FOR LOCAL PUBLIC AGENCIES This Grand Jury's report contains findings and recommendations directed to the boards of various local public agencies subject to the "watchdog" functions of the Grand Jury. Pursuant to Penal Code §933, no later than 90 days after the grand jury submits a final report on the operations of any public agency subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of the public agency shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body. And every elective county officer or agency head for which the grand jury has responsibility shall comment with in 60 days to the presiding judge of the superior court. Pursuant to Penal Code 933.05 as to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: The respondent agrees with the finding. The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefore. As to each grand jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: The recommendation has been implemented with a summary regarding he implemented action. The re commendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or director 2004-2005 Del Norte County Grand Jury Formal Submittal of Report The undersigned, being duly sworn and acting members of the 2004-2005 Del Norte County Grand Jury, and comprising of at least twelve (12) members thereof, hereby affix their signatures, and submit this Final Report. reson MM Susan M. Andrews Dee Mattz Alison Baxter RAGUIAN Sandra Morrison Betty Brown Hay Harrott Kay Parrott Kurt Cooke Deme JEHF DIEKSO- Rosemary Reed Jeff Dickson rother Berni Rimack Dorothy Fay Linda Sanford Donna Haynes Cheryl Scott Marshall S. Jones Dean Valero, Jr. Byron Lundberg . . .
• CL8
  Because the complaints were already under investigation, they do not fall within the jurisdiction of the Grand Jury. Recommendations: None Response Required: None Del Norte County Planning Department Reason for Investigation: A complaint was received alleging the County was denying a certificate of occupancy for a newly constructed single-family residence. The individuals felt that certain county officials were denying them a certificate of . occupancy unless they agreed to give a specified amount of their property as an easement to the County without compensation. The complaint also stated that eleven of their trees were cut down by the County, using inmate labor. The property owners stated they were neither consulted nor compensated for their timber. They further alleged that some of their neighbors were offered incentives from the County, i.e. land, trade of land, building permits etc. in trade for easements; and that the County wanted to close the only road that allowed access to all of the properties, in essence leaving the complainants land locked. The individuals felt that they were singled out by the County and if the County wanted their property they should purchase it or claim eminent domain. The complaint continued with allegations that the County had to close the aforementioned road in order to widen the airport runway. The complainants felt the County should purchase the land so that there was enough land to make runway measurements legal. They further felt that if the County was not willing to purchase the necessary portion of their land, then the airport should be closed. Findings: The Grand Jury interviewed both the complainants and a County official involved in this situation. Since the initial complaint to the Grand Jury, the County has issued the certificate of occupancy. The County owns the airport, and Cal Trans Division of Aeronautics requires the County to maintain what is known as an "airport clear zone". During the investigation, the Grand Jury found that the clear zone is much like that of the bleachers in a football stadium, such that the zone begins at ground level and rises to 125 feet. Like stadium bleachers, the clear zone rises up and out. This clear zone is legally defined in the county easement and it is required that there be clear zone set backs. Approximately six to nine months prior to the complaint, Cal Trans Division of Aeronautics stated that they did not want any moving objects in the clear zone. This meant that the County may have to close the road and find other alternatives for the landowners to access their property. The County has asked to have such ruling in writing. As of this writing, the County has not yet received a letter of determination from the Cal Trans Division of Aeronautics. The Grand Jury learned that sometimes recorded easements may not appear on a deed. Conclusions: The investigation showed the County was not trying to take the complainant's property. In fact, county officials appeared to be trying to do all they could to ensure safety for all who live near and who use the airport. In addition, county officials were maintaining the "airport clear zone" as defined by Cal Trans Division of Aeronautics. Recommendations: The Grand Jury recommends that the County continue to seek a written recommendation/ruling from Cal Trans Division of Aeronautics regarding the need to close the current access road. Further, if the road must be closed, the County is encouraged to continue its efforts toward a viable solution to creating access to those properties affected. Response Required: None Secretary's Report On June 23, 2004, the Honorable Robert Weir impaneled the 2004-2005 Grand Jury. Dee Mattz was appointed Foreperson of the nineteen member panel. Five of the nineteen members held over from the previous year in continued service to this community. Eight current members have elected to stay on the Jury for another year. This Grand Jury met three times a month during the fiscal year 2004-2005 and as a body did on-site inspections of correctional facilities and other public agencies. The 2003-2004 Grand Jury passed on only one complaint that had been received too late to act upon. In addition, twenty-two written complaints were received by this Jury for investigation, of which one will be passed on as unresolved with a recommendation for continued investigation. Each complaint received a timely response and when necessary, investigations were documented. It was my personal pleasure to work with these committed people over the past year. I was impressed by the seriousness and determination with which these individuals approached each task. I appreciate the opportunity to serve this community and its citizens. Berni Rimack Secretary, 2004-2005 Grand Jury RESPONSE INSTRUCTIONS FOR LOCAL PUBLIC AGENCIES This Grand Jury's report contains findings and recommendations directed to the boards of various local public agencies subject to the "watchdog" functions of the Grand Jury. Pursuant to Penal Code §933, no later than 90 days after the grand jury submits a final report on the operations of any public agency subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of the public agency shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body. And every elective county officer or agency head for which the grand jury has responsibility shall comment with in 60 days to the presiding judge of the superior court. Pursuant to Penal Code 933.05 as to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: The respondent agrees with the finding. The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefore. As to each grand jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: The recommendation has been implemented with a summary regarding he implemented action. The re commendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or director 2004-2005 Del Norte County Grand Jury Formal Submittal of Report The undersigned, being duly sworn and acting members of the 2004-2005 Del Norte County Grand Jury, and comprising of at least twelve (12) members thereof, hereby affix their signatures, and submit this Final Report. reson MM Susan M. Andrews Dee Mattz Alison Baxter RAGUIAN Sandra Morrison Betty Brown Hay Harrott Kay Parrott Kurt Cooke Deme JEHF DIEKSO- Rosemary Reed Jeff Dickson rother Berni Rimack Dorothy Fay Linda Sanford Donna Haynes Cheryl Scott Marshall S. Jones Dean Valero, Jr. Byron Lundberg . . .
• CL9
  The investigation showed the County was not trying to take the complainant's property. In fact, county officials appeared to be trying to do all they could to ensure safety for all who live near and who use the airport. In addition, county officials were maintaining the "airport clear zone" as defined by Cal Trans Division of Aeronautics. Recommendations: The Grand Jury recommends that the County continue to seek a written recommendation/ruling from Cal Trans Division of Aeronautics regarding the need to close the current access road. Further, if the road must be closed, the County is encouraged to continue its efforts toward a viable solution to creating access to those properties affected. Response Required: None Secretary's Report On June 23, 2004, the Honorable Robert Weir impaneled the 2004-2005 Grand Jury. Dee Mattz was appointed Foreperson of the nineteen member panel. Five of the nineteen members held over from the previous year in continued service to this community. Eight current members have elected to stay on the Jury for another year. This Grand Jury met three times a month during the fiscal year 2004-2005 and as a body did on-site inspections of correctional facilities and other public agencies. The 2003-2004 Grand Jury passed on only one complaint that had been received too late to act upon. In addition, twenty-two written complaints were received by this Jury for investigation, of which one will be passed on as unresolved with a recommendation for continued investigation. Each complaint received a timely response and when necessary, investigations were documented. It was my personal pleasure to work with these committed people over the past year. I was impressed by the seriousness and determination with which these individuals approached each task. I appreciate the opportunity to serve this community and its citizens. Berni Rimack Secretary, 2004-2005 Grand Jury RESPONSE INSTRUCTIONS FOR LOCAL PUBLIC AGENCIES This Grand Jury's report contains findings and recommendations directed to the boards of various local public agencies subject to the "watchdog" functions of the Grand Jury. Pursuant to Penal Code §933, no later than 90 days after the grand jury submits a final report on the operations of any public agency subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of the public agency shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body. And every elective county officer or agency head for which the grand jury has responsibility shall comment with in 60 days to the presiding judge of the superior court. Pursuant to Penal Code 933.05 as to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: The respondent agrees with the finding. The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefore. As to each grand jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: The recommendation has been implemented with a summary regarding he implemented action. The re commendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or director 2004-2005 Del Norte County Grand Jury Formal Submittal of Report The undersigned, being duly sworn and acting members of the 2004-2005 Del Norte County Grand Jury, and comprising of at least twelve (12) members thereof, hereby affix their signatures, and submit this Final Report. reson MM Susan M. Andrews Dee Mattz Alison Baxter RAGUIAN Sandra Morrison Betty Brown Hay Harrott Kay Parrott Kurt Cooke Deme JEHF DIEKSO- Rosemary Reed Jeff Dickson rother Berni Rimack Dorothy Fay Linda Sanford Donna Haynes Cheryl Scott Marshall S. Jones Dean Valero, Jr. Byron Lundberg . . .