Anderson Union High School District Reason for Investigation:

Commendations 37

• CM1
  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.
• CM2
  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.
• CM3
  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.
• CM4
  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.
• CM5
  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.
• CM6
  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.
• CM7
  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.
• CM8
  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.
• CM9
  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.
• CM10
  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.
• CM11
  The Detention Annex, which was closed in January 2003, was a medium security jail facility for men, operated by the Shasta County Sheriff’s Office. The facility included an office, workshop, laundry room, four dorms with televisions, dining area, day room/library, and recreation area. The Sheriff’s Office Work Release Program, which is separate from the Detention Annex, utilizes the labor of both men and women. Various jobs within the program include gardening, painting, constructing needed buildings, roofing, picking up trash along the highways, or helping with community projects. If an inmate is given the opportunity to work in this program, he or she must sign a written agreement which states the rules and regulations for participation. A violation of this agreement will result in a warrant for the inmate’s immediate arrest and any days missed will be added to his or her sentence. The annual budget for the Detention Annex/Work Release Facility for fiscal year 2002-2003 was $1,501,359. METHOD OF INQUIRY: The Grand Jury toured the Detention Annex /Work Release Facility on October 22, 2002. The Grand Jury reviewed the following documents: • Sheriff’s Work Program – Rules and Regulations • Shasta County Sheriff’s Office Work Release Program Application and Agreement • 2002/2003 Detention Annex /Work Release Budget The Grand Jury interviewed the following: • One Captain • One Deputy • One Lieutenant FINDINGS: 1. The Sheriff closed the Detention Annex in January of 2003 as a result of serious staffing shortages within the Department due to the retirement of seasoned officers and the large number of newly hired personnel. The purpose of this action was to make staff available to supplement the Main Jail and Sheriff’s Patrol with experienced officers. The Detention Annex inmates were moved to the Main Jail, or if eligible, to the Home Electronic Confinement Program or to the Work Release Program, which continues to operate at the same location. When the Detention Annex is open, it’s 66-bed capacity helps relieve population loads at the Main Jail, where inmates are released early if capacity limits are reached. The Sheriff has been unable to estimate when sufficient staff might be recruited, hired and trained so as to allow for the reopening of the Annex.
• CM12
  As part of Phase I of the National Smallpox Vaccination Program, the Shasta County Health Department received 200 doses of smallpox vaccine the week of February 24, 2003. By the end of that week, the Department began implementing Phase I by inoculating 11 front-line responders. This included workers in hospital emergency rooms and response team members who volunteered for the program. Shasta County will have two response teams that will include nurses, epidemiologists, interpreters, and mental health specialists. This first phase may include as many as 400 vaccinations. Phase II will begin shortly after Phase I and will broaden to include other health providers, first responders and volunteers. This group is estimated at between 3,000 and 6,000 persons in Shasta County. In Phase III, smallpox inoculations will be offered to the general population; however, due to potential health risks, universal inoculation is not currently being recommended.
• CM13
  During the course of the review of the Shasta County Public Health Department, the Grand Jury found that this Department has been very proactive in implementing the County’s compliance with the Federal Smallpox Vaccination Program. The Department has implemented a series of programs which include participating in the Department of Health Services “Train the Trainer” series for smallpox vaccination programs; working with County Counsel and Support Services on liability and worker’s compensation issues; facilitating a county advisory committee; formulating a comprehensive education program in the form of community presentations and media releases; and soliciting the potential volunteers for the response teams.
• CM14
  The Shasta County Public Health Department was commended at a state conference for being at the “top of the curve” statewide in implementing the smallpox vaccination program. In the first week there were only 111 vaccines given in the state, 11 of which were in Shasta County. The extensive screening, educating, and monitoring by the Public Health Officer appears to have created a safe inoculation procedure for the volunteers thus far.
• CM15
  There appears to be sufficient evidence that a potential threat of a bioterrorist attack exists, even in rural counties. This evidence comes from the federal government and historical examples, such as the salmonella poisoning in The Dalles, Oregon in 1984; the production of ricin toxin in Minnesota in 1991; the release of sarin gas in a Tokyo subway in 1995; the finding of Shigella in muffins in Texas in 1996; and the 2001 incidence of mail containing anthrax. The Shasta County Public Health Department’s job is not risk assessment, but rather it is bioterrorism preparedness.
• CM16
  On January 28, 2003, at the Public Health Department’s request, the Shasta County Board of Supervisors took steps to encourage employees and volunteers to take part in the Smallpox Vaccination Program. The Board extended the Paid Releae From Duty Program to allow County employees to take up to 24 hours of release-from-duty time, rather than sick leave, should they experience vaccination reactions serious enough to interfere with their work. The Board also agreed to reimburse employees for their co-payment for vaccination-related medical consultations. Finally, the Board agreed to include vaccination volunteers in the County’s workers’ compensation program so that their medical bills could be covered if they were to suffer adverse reactions to the vaccine. The following was stated by one of the County Supervisors during the meeting: “… when we’re pursuing the public good and we place volunteers and employees in harm’s way, there’s a reciprocal responsibility on the part of the county to provide … assistance to the people.” The Grand Jury found this to be prudent county policy.
• CM17
  The Grand Jury observed hundreds of bicycles which are repaired and/or distributed to those in need within Shasta County as part of the Work Release Program.
• CM18
  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.
• CM19
  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.
• CM20
  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.
• CM21
  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.
• CM22
  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.
• CM23
  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.
• CM24
  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.
• CM25
  The Western Shasta Resource Conservation District has experienced rapid growth during the past two years. During this time, the District has organized and developed a staff of experienced and qualified employees.
• CM26
  It is the District’s policy to dedicate a fixed percentage of revenue from each funding source to overhead expenses. This practice is well within the grantors’ maximum allowable overhead allocation. This policy, on occasion, has resulted in a surplus of funds in the overhead account. During fiscal year 2001/2002, the agency’s overhead account had a substantial surplus. The District did not project a significant surplus for fiscal year 2002/2003.
• CM27
  During the past few years, WSRCD has completed several projects which are beneficial to the physical environment of Shasta County, its landowners, and general population. WSRCD has done this through the acquisition of a number of different types of grants. No county funds or local tax money have been requested or used.
• CM28
  Since some of the District’s work is done on private land, one of the limiting factors of WSRCD projects is landowner permission. Some projects, such as fire fuel breaks, are limited by the degree of landowner participation.
• CM29
  The District has annual audits performed by a Certified Public Accountant.
• CM30
  WSRCD has made an excellent effort in educating the public in the identification and control of invasive weeds through publications and handouts. National estimates indicate invasive plants are spreading at a rate of about 4,600 acres a day on western federal lands.
• CM31
  WSRCD is involved in several projects within the following watersheds: Battle Creek, Bear Creek, Clear Creek, Cow Creek, Cottonwood Creek, Keswick Basin, Shasta West/Middle Creek, and Stillwater Creek.
• CM32
  Ongoing watershed restoration in Clear Creek has been extremely successful. Through annual grants, WSRCD has been able to complete phases of restoration, resulting in an almost 500% increase in the population of Fall-run Chinook salmon.
• CM33
  WSRCD’s gravel injection projects have also benefited the salmon population. WSRCD’s Clear Creek Gravel Project at the Placer Road Bridge (newly named the Shasta County Vietnam Veterans Memorial Bridge) is one of a number of successful gravel injection projects.
• CM34
  Illegal trash dumping from the Veterans Memorial Bridge into Clear Creek is contaminating the creek with garbage, household appliances, vehicle batteries, yard chemicals, etc. Fencing at the bridge would discourage the illegal trash dumping. WSRCD is willing to apply for funding to provide fencing at the bridge if maintenance can be ensured.
• CM35
  WSRCD maintains an informational web site, providing interested parties a list of topics. The web site includes landowner assistance information, reports on current and past projects, on-line newsletter, guide to weed identification, on-line survey, and organizational information.
• CM36
  The District’s fire and fuel projects have reduced the danger of catastrophic wildfires in Western Shasta County. The goal of WSRCD is to assist private landowners in reducing fuel buildup and constructing fuel breaks. WSRCD has an on-going working relationship with federal, state, and local fire districts/departments to reduce the risk of fire in high risk areas in the foothills east and west of Redding, or those near urban areas.
• CM37
  The Grand Jury met with a private landowner who has participated in a WSRCD fuel break project. The landowner stated that WSRCD staff members were polite, cooperative, and informative. A fuel break was created along a roadway and extended 150 feet beyond the roadway shoulder into the landowner’s property. The landowner indicated the fuel break was completed at no cost to the landowner. The landowner also stated that other agencies involved in the project, including California Department of Forestry (CDF), were helpful in explaining what fire dangers were apparent and how the landowner could do work around the property to lessen the fire danger. In general, the landowner gave WSRCD high marks.