Responses to Prior Grand Jury Reports

recommends informing the public about experimental systems. Staff makes every effort already to work with the parcel owner and their consultant about all types of systems and options. By the end of the process, the owner or contractor of record has been informed about what will actually be installed in the ground. They are also informed of the proper care and maintenance of the system. GRAND JURY DETERMINATION, 2005-2006 The response by the Calaveras County Building Official has been adequately met. FINDING 3, 2004-2005 Although there are many experimental system manufacturers, one company, based out-of-state, has planted itself firmly in Calaveras County by setting up training classes locally and maintaining a well orchestrated marketing campaign.

makes a recommendation that staff familiarize themselves with all types of septic systems. Not a month goes by where we don’t get calls from new vendors wanting to have their system approved by the County. The regulations in place allow just about any type of system; provided that there is technical test data that 69 proves the desired outcome and that a licensed consultant designs the system. Therein lies the problem - local consultants do not want to jeopardize their licenses by designing systems they are not familiar or comfortable with. In addition, many of these new proposed systems are maintenance intensive, and we require that the homeowner be offered some type of pre-paid maintenance contract from the local provider. If the vendor is not capable of putting a process in place to provide this protection, their systems are not approved. The Department, however, is always ready to research and possibly approve proven technology. GRAND JURY DETERMINATION, 2005-2006 The response by the Calaveras County Building Official has been adequately met. FINDING 4, 2004-2005 It came to the attention of the Grand Jury that some staff members at the Building Department recommend specific septic engineers and installers. For example, without any investigation or soil report, Building Department staff made statements that an engineered system would be mandatory in the Valley Springs area. The Building Official was made aware of this issue and stated that the staff would be instructed to end any such practice.

has been dealt with by instructing staff that they cannot make blanket statements about the types of systems required until field staff has made an investigation and filed a report for each parcel in question. GRAND JURY DETERMINATION, 2005-2006 The response by the Calaveras County Building Official has been adequately met. FINDING 5, 2004-2005 At the time of the March 2005 interview with the Building Official, the Grand Jury was denied access to the Policies and Procedures Manual; therefore, we were unable to determine whether the Department adheres to their own policies and procedures.

Area 12 should continue the training and monitoring of service providers. Penalties should be imposed upon service providers for non-compliance with training and procedural requirements. NOTE In the Calaveras County Grand Jury Final Report of 2004-2005 it was noted that Area 12 had not responded to the Final Report of 2003-2004. A letter had been sent to Area 12 Agency on Aging near the end of the grand jury year of 2004-2005 requesting this response, and no response was received. Once again, a letter was written to Area 12 on February 14, 2006 informing Area 12 of Penal Code 933 ©, which states a response is required and that no response had been received. On February 21, 2006, Area 12 responded to the letter of February 14, 2006 requesting their response and stated that they had, in fact, responded to the Final Report of 2003-2004 on March 14, 2005. Since the Grand Jury had no record of this letter, a copy was sent with the February 21, 2006 letter from Area 12. RESPONSE Area 12 Agency on Aging has provided significant training and input to Common Ground Senior Services. Enclosed with this letter is a print out of the provider matrix that is kept on all providers. In addition, there are provider meetings, nutrition committee meetings, and Advisory Council meetings that the provider could attend and learn. There are no penalties that can be imposed. Only sanctions can be imposed. The Agency has attempted to place sanctions on providers. Just recently, last week, there was a comprehensive training attended by all providers. They were given information on what is required by law. The Area Agency has suggested that all providers work together on meeting the requirements of the federal program. We have arranged a meeting for Wednesday, March 16, 2005 to begin working with providers on meeting federal and state requirements. In addition, our Counsel attempted to set up a meeting with Common Ground to go over some of the problems that were outstanding in November/December, but that meeting did not occur. DETERMINATION, 2005-2006 The Grand Jury determines that the response from Area 12 Agency on Aging is adequate. ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATION, 2003-2004

During the needs-assessment process and the meal-delivery process, it must be made clear to the meal recipients that they are expected to pay for the meals to the extent that they are able. Procedures for collection and recording of collection must be instituted. ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATION, 2004-2005 The 2004-2005 Grand Jury repeats the recommendation to Area 12 that they should develop and implement procedures for informing meal recipients that they may make contributions toward the cost of meals received to the extent they are capable and for the collection and reporting of collected contributions. RESPONSE Several trainings have occurred over the past three years with the Calaveras provider for training of home delivered meal assessors. Clients cannot be charged for meals, but they can donate to the extent that they are able. We have attempted to have providers write procedures for collection and recording of donations. It was again brought to the providers attention at the training last week. We hope to work on the procedures this Wednesday, March 16, 2005. NOTE An Executive Director, no longer with Area 12 Agency on Aging, wrote the above response. Therefore, the 2004-2005 Calaveras County Grand Jury felt the need for a further response. RESPONSE Your letter requesting follow-up information regarding our letter to the Grand Jury dated March 14, 2005 has been received. The previous Executive Director left our agency in early April 2005. Our Nutrition Program Director was also out on leave at the same time. We are unable to locate any evidence that the March 14, 2005 meeting was held. We do have records indicating that on December 16, 2005 a regularly scheduled Provider Meeting was held. The Calaveras County provider was present. The topic of donations and procedures was reviewed. We would like you to be aware that the Older Americans Act does not allow for the recording of donations by a participant. The participants are to be given every opportunity to make donations but it is done anonymously. The word “fee” must never be used. The attached material was distributed at the December Provider Meeting. An example of the information to be posted regarding donations at 44 congregate sites is one of the enclosures. The other enclosure is a summary of suggestions for donations pertaining to signage/requests, and donation statements and unacceptable practices. There are written procedures for the collection and recording of donations in the Area 12 Agency on Aging’s ‘Senior Meals Program Manual’. Every provider has a copy of this manual including the Calaveras County Provider. It is referred to regularly for the purposes of training and monitoring. The material in this manual was also used at the December 16, 2005 meeting. GRAND JURY DETERMINATION, 2005-2006 The Grand Jury determines that the response from Area 12 Agency on Aging is adequate.