📋
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.
Note: Missing finding numbers detected: F16
Findings 16 findings
F1
By unanimous vote of the City Council, the Interim Administrator was appointed as the City Administrator on January 30, 1992. 4641 160
F2
The organizational structure of the city is well aligned and serving the city's best interest. MW
F3
Due to the recent appointment of an Administrator and subsequent "reassignment of personnel, the job assignments no longer agree with the existing job descriptions.
F4
informed about the ongoing improvements taking place within the city. ď
F5
The City maintains three emergency dispatch centers: Police Department, Fire Department, and Department of Emergency Services.
F6
There is discord among the Council members which is having an adverse effect in representing the best interest of the city.
F7
for a County employee to park a County vehicle at his/her home on an emergency stand-by basis is not intended to provide gratis use of the County vehicle and its fuel for transportation of the employee to and from the place of dwelling and the location of work."
F8
A reduction in annual operating costs C. Elimination of duplication and possible confusion D. Enhanced response of proper personnel for specific emergencies
F9
Section 954, of the manual stated that, "A County employee shall not be required to reimburse the County for any use of a County vehicle while being utilized for County business."
F10
Section 955, stated that, "sections 952 and 953 do not affect vehicles under the direct control of the Sheriff's Department, or other vehicles specifically exempted by the Board of Supervisors." There were no records available to show that any County vehicles were exempt 11, from the requirement to reimburse the County.
F11
Due to the high demand for the Program Analyst's time, there is insufficient documentation of the programs which he has developed. This further compounds the need for his services in assisting and training operators in the use of these programs.
F12
The reimbursement rate for the use of County vehicles for other than County business was never established. Additionally, there are no records to indicate that reimbursement was ever made to the County between January 1980 and December 1991.
F13
The recently revised manual no longer requires that monthly reimbursement be made by County employees to the County for the use of County vehicles based on the mileage traveled between the point of work and the point of dwelling.
F14
An ordinance is a law or provision enacted by the Board of Supervisors for local TATABLE SOCIETY STREET STREET application. Ordinances were found to be out-dated. In some cases it was found that 15... official's titles were changed, but the Ordinance was never updated to reflect THE PROPERTY OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PARTY OF THE PARTY OF THE PARTY OF THE PARTY OF THE PARTY OF THE PARTY OF THE PARTY OF THE PARTY OF THE PARTY OF THE PARTY OF THE PARTY OF THE PARTY OF THE PARTY OF THE PARTY OF THE PART the new titles of officials responsible to perform certain duties. 16, Some County officials were not aware that, because of their title changes, they were responsible to perform certain acts as required by County Ordinances.
F15
That though the Disaster Council has not met to develop plans to respond to a declared emergency as required by the County Ordinance, the OES staff has developed the plans necessary to respond to a declared emergency. That in mld March of 1992, the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors directed the DOES to review the Disaster Council Ordinance and make appropriate
F17
Not all County Ordinances are being complied with nor are they being enforced. 8
Recommendations 21
-
R1print shop and, if necessary, take the proper steps to insure a safe and healthful environment for print shop personnel. That County procedures be reviewed and, if necessary, revised to insure that
-
R2The 1990-91 Grand Jury recommended the print shop coordinate with the County Health Department to see if a ventilation system was needed to address the problem of poor ventilation.
-
R3The County in its response to the Grand Jury Final Report stated, "With respect to ventilation, a large exhaust fan has been installed, and is performing to the satisfaction of print shop personnel."
-
R4The response to the Grand Jury recommendations did not address whether the fan installed met the requirements of the County Health Department or standards of the Division of Occupational Safety and Health.
-
R5The County Printer and the Department Head response, dated August 6, 1991, to the Grand Jury's recommendation stated, "As of this date a large exhaust fan with 1870 C.F.M. has been installed, is working, and should eliminate the airborne chemical smell and ventilation problem."
-
R6A professional survey has not been conducted to ascertain whether a ventilation problem exists in the print shop and if the installed fan is of the proper type and size.
-
R7The County Risk Manager, who is responsible for evaluating and minimizing risk, was not aware of a possible Health and Safety problem at the Print Shop. He was not aware that the 1990-91 Grand Jury had addressed this problem in its final report nor that the County had responded to the report.
-
R8Existing law requires every employer to furnish employment and places of employment which are safe and healthful for the employees therein. Recommendations: That the County ascertain whether a ventilation problem exists in the County
-
R9ISU staff indicated that they felt the majority of the trouble calls received were attributed to lack of operator training in the proper use of their systems and the associated software.
-
R10The County has directed the ISU Program Analyst to write programs. After writing these programs, a considerable amount of his time is required to debug the programs and to train operators in their use.
-
R11Due to the high demand for the Program Analyst's time, there is insufficient documentation of the programs which he has developed. This further compounds the need for his services in assisting and training operators in the use of these programs.
-
R12All ISU staff members are presently working an abnormal number of hours. Some members of the ISU staff have accumulated the maximum number of overtime and compensatory hours allowed. Recommendations:
-
R13The Disaster Council shall meet on the call of the Chairman or, in his absence from the County or inability to call such a meeting, on call of the Vice Chairman. There are no records or minutes of meetings to indicate that the Council has
-
R14ever met or that the membership of the Council has ever been established.
-
R15That though the Disaster Council has not met to develop plans to respond to a declared emergency as required by the County Ordinance, the OES staff has developed the plans necessary to respond to a declared emergency. That in mld March of 1992, the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors directed the DOES to review the Disaster Council Ordinance and make appropriate recommendations to insure compliance and/or revisions to provide the best possible protection to persons and property in the County. 24
-
R34-4334 ANIMAL CONTROL 35 BI-COUNTY JUVENILE HALL DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 36 37 JUVENILE TRAFFIC COURT 38 MARYSVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT 39 MUNICIPAL COURT WHEATLAND POLICE DEPARTMENT 40 41 YUBA COUNTY JAIL YUBA COUNTY PROBATION DEPARTMENT 42 YUBA COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT 43 DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES COMMITTEE
-
R44-49DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES 44 Casa de Esperanza 48 MEDICAL SERVICES 47 PUBLIC WORKS / WATER AGENCIES COMMITTEE
-
R50-57MARYSVILLE LEVEE COMMISSION 50 OLIVEHURST PUBLICE UTILITIES DISTRICT $1 RECLAMATION DISTRICT 10 52 RECLAMATION DISTRICT 784 53 RECLAMATION DISTRICTS 817 AND 2103 55 YUBA COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 56 SCHOOLS COMMITTEE
-
R58-60MARYSVILLE JOINT UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 58 YUBA COUNTY SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS OFFICE 59 WHEATLAND SCHOOL DISTRICT 60 CONTINUITY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE
-
R61-63Demographics study and survey of past grand jurors 61 MID-YEAR FINAL REPORT
-
R64-70BOARD OF SUPERVISORS / LOCAL PUBLIC AGENCIES 64 RESPONSE BY APPLICABLE PARTIES 68