📋
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.

Placer County Grand Jury • 2004-2005

Conflict of Interest and Record Keeping Practices

Published: October 20, 2006 96 pages
View PDF View Full Original

Findings 11 findings

F1
The Planning Commission of the City of Lincoln has a significantly higher incidence of recusal for conflict of interest by its members than any other city studied. The frequent occurrence of a conflict of interest sends a confusing message to the public about the objectivity of Planning Commission decisions. The City disagrees with Finding #1. The frequent occurrence we believe does not send a confusing message. In fact, we believe it sends a very clear message that the Planning Commission is paying close attention to the potential for a conflict of interest. Findings #2: A Lincoln Planning Commissioner's advocacy of his client's project before the commission on February 19, 2003 appears to be a conflict of interest under California law. This activity blurs the boundary between the role of a dispassionate public servant and the opposing role of an advocate for a client and can compromise the integrity of Planning Commission decisions. The City disagrees with Finding #2. The incident involved the unusual situation where the project involved the design review of a City project, a gazebo/grandstand in the City park. The Planning Commissioner's client was the City and his involvement at the meeting was merely to explain the project. In the future, the Planning Commissioner will not respond to Planning Commission inquiries regarding such projects. Findings #3: The Lincoln Design Review Board does not keep minutes for public review. While this may not be required under law, the effect is to limit public oversight of and participation in procedures which may significantly affect the quality of life in the community. The City disagrees with Finding #3. While the City does not keep minutes, we do in a staff report take the recommendations to the Planning Commission. Both Design Review and Planning Commission meetings are noticed and the public is invited to attend. The Design Review Board only makes recommendations, not decisions. Findings #4: None of the cities studied maintains a current listing on their website of both agendas and minutes of their Planning Commission and Design Review Board meetings. This presents a significant obstacle for citizens who wish to track the many sequential decisions made by these bodies in determining the progression and quality of growth in the community. The City disagrees with Findings #4 as to the City of Lincoln. All Planning Commission minutes and agenda packets are available on the City website. We do not currently place the Design Review Board agenda on the City website. We will do this. All citizens may review any and all plans of projects at any time. The Design Review Board only makes
F2
The several police jurisdictions have no common policy regarding intervention in the home of "at risk" persons, but try to work closely with citizen groups to arrive at a humane yet practical solution. Response: The Rocklin Police Department agrees with this finding.
F3
PGO lacks a definitive improvement plan. Response: I disagree partially with the finding. In November 2004, a new supervisor was assigned to the Public Guardian Office to oversee its operations. The Supervisor is charged by senior management with the responsibility to develop a PGO Improvement Plan containing various elements to correct and improve operations. Findings:
F4
None of the past Grand Jury recommendations were acted upon until the new HHS Director became personally involved. Response: I disagree partially with the finding. As indicated in the response of the HHS Director, steps were taken to correct and improve conditions of the PGO following the
F5
Until recently, warehousing tasks have been performed poorly. Response: I agree with the finding. Findings:
F6
Filing tasks have been neglected due to staffing shortages. Response: I agree with the finding. However, as indicated in the response of the HHS Director, extra help staffing is being used to correct this situation.
F7
There was a notable lack of standardization of policies, procedures, and workload management. Response: I agree with the findings. However, the PGO is working to correct these problems by the development of an improvement plan. Findings:
F8
The PGO supervisor spends (nominally) 1/3 of her time with the PGO tasks. Response: I agree with the finding. However, as indicated in the response of the HHS Director, other responsibilities of the PGO Supervisor (In-Home Support Services, IHSS) have been transferred to another employee thereby allowing more time for the PGO Supervisor to devote to the PGO. Findings:
F9
The PGO supervisor has responsibility for directing three distinct programs, but each has offices in different physical areas. Response: I disagree with the finding. The PGO, Public Administrator and Adult Protective Services, APS, are centrally located in Auburn where the supervisor for all of these programs has an office. There are additional offices in Roseville and Tahoe City with staff to more effectively respond to APS matters in these locations. Findings:
F10
All new PGO supervisors for the past several years have initially known nothing of the PGO work and have required basic PGO training. Response: I agree with the finding. However, the new PGO Supervisor has received initial training and this training will continue.
F11
Follow-up on the PGO situation by the 2005-2006 Grand Jury. Response: I have no objections if the 2005-2006 Grand Jury wishes to follow-up on the PGO. Sincerely, (Jan M. Christofferson, County Executive Officer Cc Placer County Grand Jury Placer County Board of Supervisors . . 4.1

Recommendations 11