District Attorney's Office

Recommendations 3

• R1
  ٠, : ê ٠: Section of the second ٠: : ÷ STATE OF YUBA COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT 1991-92 MARYSVILLE LEVEE COMMISSION Introduction: The Board of Levee Commissioners was originally established by a Special Act of Legislature in 1876; today that commission is made up of three appointed commissioners, one of whom serves as President, and a Levee Foreman. The commission is charged with maintaining approximately 13.4 miles of levee in a constant state of preparedness. The levee system is divided into three units; Unit 1 is the north levee along Simmerly (or Jack) Slough; Unit 2 is the west levee along the Feather River; Unit 3 is the east levee along the Yuba River. The Marysville Levee Commission has an annual budget of approximately $61,000.00. The President of the commission and the Levee Foreman jointly conducted an informative briefing of the past and present levee development. Made available to the committee members were historical documents which diagrammatically displayed the development of the Marysville levee system with respect to size and constructional content. AREA INVESTIGATED: ADMINISTRATION Findings: 1, The commission, in the exercise of meeting its responsibilities, has adopted the "Slow Rise Flood Plan", in addition to the California Department of Water Resources manual, entitled "Levee Patrolling and Flood Fight Methods." THE PROPERTY OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PROPERTY O 2. Records of past state inspections strongly support the faith and confidence shown by the Levee Commission in their levee system. Recommendation: None. AREA INVESTIGATED: MAINTENANCE FACILITY Findings: 1. Shovels and other hand tools were hung on the wall, adjacent to thousands of burlap bags, awaiting emergency usage. 2. Generator-driven flood lights, mobile generators, a small boat, tractor, and other vehicular items were stored nearby in the maintenance facility and yard. 3. The locations of additional sand and bag sites throughout the levee area were charted, as were other pertinent facilities. Recommendation: None. Commendation: The Marysville Levee Commission is to be commended for the willing cooperation and the invaluable information it openly shared. YUBA COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT 1991-92 OLIVEHURST PUBLIC UTILITIES DISTRICT introduction: The Olivehurst Public Utilities District (OPUD) is responsible to provide water, sewage, fire protection, public parks, and recreation facilities to the district residents. To achieve these goals, a five member board is elected to serve a four year term and is charged with the overall accountability for the administration and management of the Utilities District. The Board of Directors contracted a full-time General Manager to supervise an administrative office and the four departments providing the required services. MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF THE DISTRICT AREA INVESTIGATED: Findings: The OPUD is self-supporting, operating efficiently without local taxes, bond issues, and 1. public loans, thereby avoiding the incurring of debt. All water and sewage maintenance and improvements are accomplished by a frugal and careful allocation of funds, obtained solely from monthly customer service charges. A recently completed sewage plant is now in operation and plans are underway to 2. construct a water purification plant in the near future. Self-help projects are evident throughout the district. An above-ground fuel storage З. facility, complete with a reinforced concrete spill retainer, has been built in the maintenance yard and another is under construction in the sewage compound. Additionally, an obsolete sewage digester-tank at the sewage plant compound was saved from destruction and, after a thorough cleaning and extensive modification, was converted into a very sizeable storage facility. Six fire-fighting vehicles, which date from about 1965 on, are maintained in immaculate 4. condition; district vehicles and servicing units are freshly painted and maintained in an outstanding manner. Morale appeared to be extremely high and, without exception, each person encountered 5. by Grand Jury members was courteous, helpful, and appeared to be very content in his or her job. There was no approved facility for storage of hazardous materials. 6. Recommendation: That an approved storage facility be utilized for all short- and long-term storage of hazardous materials. Commendation: The District General Manager, presently in the third year of a four year contract, appears to be an extremely capable "hands-on" type of manager. He is very knowledgeable of every facet of the utilities operation and obviously proud of his position, his personnel, and his district. The Grand Jury members are of the opinion that he has every right to be so. YUBA COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT 1991-92 RECLAMATION DISTRICT 10 ٦. Introduction: Reclamation District 10 is governed by a three member Board of Trustee/Landowners, who fulfill the duties of chairman, secretary, treasurer, etc. The Board employs a part-time Foreman to patrol, inspect, and assist in the maintenance of the 23 miles of levee encircling the district. This position is presently vacant due to the recent death of the former employee. The district extends from Simmerly Slough (more commonly referred to as Jack Slough) north to Honcut Creek and from the Feather River east to the Western Pacific Reilroad embankment. The district receives approximately $8,000.00 per year from a 1% assessment fee, plus an additional $17,000.00 augmentation fund from the state to Yuba County. All funds are held in trust by the County Auditor and necessary expenditures are made by warrant. The levees are inspected twice a year by the State Reclamation Board, usually in the spring and again in the fall. AREA INVESTIGATED: ADMINISTRATION Findings: 1. The Board related that all district farmers and/or ranchers have long ago accepted the fact that the levee system is a crucial part of the livelihood and willingly contribute their fair share to its upkeep. 2. The Board members expressed their satisfaction and confidence with the operations and achievements of their district: Recommendation: None. AREA INVESTIGATED: LEVEE SYSTEM Findings: 1. A tour of the south-western portion of the levee system confirmed the "Good" ratings given to the district on past inspections by State Inspectors. The state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of t 2. All levees visited were well maintained, free of trash and litter, crowns were graveled, bases were broad and free of brush and weeds. 3. Numerous test bores over the years have verified the excellence of the original construction. ** 1 ** 1 ** 1 ** 1 ** 1 ** Recommendation: None. Commendation: The Reclamation District Board of Trustees is to be commended for their willing cooperation and assistance. DATE OF THE RESERVE OF THE PARTY. YUBA COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT 1991-92 RECLAMATION DISTRICT 784 Introduction: Reclamation District 784 encompasses the area of southwest Yuba County, bounded by the Yuba River on the north, the Bear River on the south, the Feather River on the west, and by 40 Mile/Griffith Roads on the east. Within this area are approximately 38 miles of levee and 60 miles of drainage ditches, sloughs, and creeks. The Reclamation District is charged with the responsibility for flood control, levee maintenance, and drainage canal upkeep. Administration of the District is performed by an elected five member Board of Directors who, in turn, employ a full-time working manager, a full-time assistant, and a part-time secretary. Professional services (lawyer, engineer, auditor, etc.) are engaged as required. The District is inspected twice yearly by the State Reclamation Board, which is responsible to the U.S. Corps of Engineers. The annual operating budget is derived from county land assessments and is approximately $180,000.00. AREA INVESTIGATED: ADMINISTRATION Finding: Reclamation District 784 office management is operating in an efficient and competent mahner. Recommendation: None. Comment: Upon request, the Grand Jury was immediately supplied with the minutes of board meetings, working hours of employees, pay records, and other like data. AREA INVESTIGATED: LEVEE SYSTEM Findings: 1. Levee maintenance is satisfactory, but, as noted in previous Grand Jury visits, several problem areas remain unsolved: Α, Wildlife damage to the levees continues to be severe. ₿. Equipment and manpower are inadequate for the assigned task. 2. Law enforcement agencies provide insufficient emphasis to assure the existing laws are enforced, thereby controlling trespassing, vandalism, and illegal dumping. Recommendations: 1. That county law enforcement agencies be more aggressive in the apprehension and prosecution of violators. 2. That maintenance personnel of District 784 consult with the Marysville levee maintenance personnel who seem to have alleviated the wildlife damage by a procedure involving levee scraping. Comments: Until fiscal restraints imposed by ongoing 1986 flood litigation are alleviated, 1. recommendations for equipment and manpower can serve no useful purpose. 2. The problem areas cited are a repeat of prior years. VEHICLE MAINTENANCE FACILITY AREA INVESTIGATED: Findina: The maintenance facility was found to be clean and orderly, chemicals were stored safely, and equipment appeared to be in good operating condition, due in part to self- help efforts. Constitution of the first of the first operation of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of t Recommendation: None. Commendation: Despite operating under adverse financial conditions imposed by ongoing litigations, all personnel of Reclamation District 784 are to be commended for their willing efforts and their cooperative attitudes. 4. E. 4. 111 - 11 YUBA COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT 1991-92 RECLAMATION DISTRICTS 817 AND 2103 Introduction: The combined area of Reclamation Districts 817 and 2103 is bounded by the Bear River on the south, Dry Creek on the north, and extends from 40 Mile Road on the west, easterly to a north/south line approximately five miles east of the town of Wheatland, where the foothill elevation rises to that of the levees. Individual districts are created by Oakley Lane which divides the combined area into nearly equal parts, with 817 being on the west and 2103 on the east. Other than the physical boundaries, the two districts are virtually identical, sharing similar responsibilities, problems, and potential solutions. Each Reclamation District maintains approximately eight miles of levee and each is inspected twice a year by the State Reclamation Board. LEVEE SYSTEM AREA INVESTIGATED: Findings: Both districts are managed by a Board of three Trustee/Landowners. Each area, 1. however, is primarily maintained by a single landowner. Each district operates on an annual budget of approximately $7,000.00, of which 2. roughly $4,000.00 is expended for levee liability insurance. In each of the two districts, the persons contacted expressed the opinion that З. Reclamation Districts 817 and 2103 should be joined with Reclamation District 784 and so form a single South Yuba County District. Recommendation: That the Yuba County Board of Supervisors consider the feasibility and possible merits of unifying Reclamation Districts 784, 817, and 2103 into a common entity in order to consolidate maintenance capabilities, reduce the number of governing bodies, and unite all efforts under a single authority. Comment: The landowners contacted are genuinely concerned with their responsibilities toward levee maintenance. Both agree that it required more attention than they, as full time businessmen, could routinely provide. A comparison of past years' levee maintenance ratings with Reclamation Districts 784 and 10, and the Marysville Levee District seems to support this contention. YUBA COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT 1991-92 YUBA COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Introduction: The mission of the Public Works Department is to design, construct, and maintain the Yuba County road network; to insure land development processes are in accord with state law; to maintain the serviceability of county storm water drainage systems; to obtain federal and state funding for capital improvement projects; and finally, to provide automotive fleet services to other county departments. To accomplish this mission, the Public Works Department is comprised of a staff of 45 persons and current annual budget of approximately $3,682,000.00, of which $3,056,000.00 is derived from the gasoline tax fund and the balance from the county general fund. AREA INVESTIGATED: DEPARTMENT PROGRAMS AND ADMINISTRATION Findings: 1. The South Yuba Drainage Plan is scheduled to be in full operation within five years. 2. The Ponderosa Landfill in Brownsville is nearing capacity and is scheduled for closure in the near future. З. The planning possibilities of the Third Bridge/Highway 70 Bypass is being coordinated with the state. 4. The 900 section (Automotive Transportation) of the Yuba County Administrative Procedures Manual, dtd. January 1987, was reviewed with the Department Head and several areas of possible concern were uncovered and discussed. Recommendation: That the Department Head scrutinize each proviso of the 900 section of the Yuba County Administrative Procedures Manual and make appropriate recommendations for revisions and/or deletions, in writing, to the County Administrative Officer. AREA INVESTIGATED: COUNTY ROAD MAINTENANCE Findings: 1. Public Works maintains a staff of 29 individuals and a maintenance fleet of 23 vehicles to keep the overall condition of county roads in a satisfactory state of repair, despite at least two major problem areas. The most obvious is the unavoidable wear and tear on these roads by heavy А, commercial vehicles and metal-treaded farming equipment. ₿, The needless consumption of departmental time, equipment, and manpower required to clean up flagrant dumping and littering alongside county roads. 2. Cooperation and coordination with the County Probation Department allows some relief in the manpower area by the utilization of juvenile and adult offender work program personnel. Recommendations: 1. In addition to the commendable actions already taken and/or planned by the Public Works Department to counter this problem, consideration be given to a public awareness program designed to publicize, by any means available, the wasteful expenditure of tax dollars by an uncaring and thoughtless few. 2. That increased effort be exerted toward the apprehension and prosecution of violators of anti-litter statutes already enacted into law. AREA INVESTIGATED: PUBLIC WORKS VEHICLE MAINTENANCE YARD Findings: 1. While fully aware of spending limitations imposed by budgetary constraints, the maintenance effort is somewhat handicapped by a few obsolete, but salvaged, small pieces of support equipment. 2. Housekeeping in and around the maintenance buildings requires attention. Recommendations: 1. That the upgrading of these pieces of support equipment with more up-to-date items, if and when funding becomes available and will allow such action. 2. That a general cleanup program be implemented to improve the overall appearance of this area as a Yuba County operated facility. Commendation: The Grand Jury found the Director of Public Works to be both knowledgeable and cooperative. He is acutely aware of his budgetary restrictions and attempts to get maximum value for each dollar spent. His resourceful efforts in the acquisition of a passenger-car servicing hydraulic hoist, at below market cost, is to be commended. 57 ٠: SCHOOLS COMMITTEE ..... Meseriale. . : : , 200 : . . .... : . . YUBA COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT 1991-92 MARYSVILLE JOINT UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Introduction: This District provides education for more than 10,000 students in grades K-12. The District operates 18 school facilities spaced over 50 square miles, from the Feather River on the west to the Camptonville School District on the east. Marysville Joint Unified School District employs about 900 classified and certificated personnel. AREA INVESTIGATED: IMPACT FEES Finding: The established impact fees with the District are insufficient to mitigate the impact of projected growth within the District. POPULATION CONTRACTOR STATE OF THE STATE OF THE STATE OF THE STATE OF THE STATE OF THE STATE OF THE STATE OF THE STATE OF THE STATE OF THE STATE OF THE STATE OF THE STATE OF THE STATE OF THE STATE OF THE STATE OF THE STATE Recommendation: That the District continue to work with the County Board of Supervisors to establish a unified fee structure that will meet the needs of projected growth in the County. 58 tini pilakataka karina na karina karina karina karina na ahain aran. Kitarakara aran aran aran kala YUBA COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT 1991-92 YUBA COUNTY SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS OFFICE Introduction: This office provides administration, specialists, and staff for seven special education schools, supplies an administrator for one elementary school, and staffs several board and advisory groups. It also offers various support activities to all Yuba County School Districts. The 1991 California Basic Educational Data System (CBEDS) reports The County approximately 196 students attend special education schools. Superintendent of Schools Office employs 110 personnel. SPECIAL EDUCATION AREA INVESTIGATED: Findings: Yuba and Sutter Counties share responsibilities where handlcapped students are 1. concerned. 2. There is concern about the rapid growth of special education students in the school population. Year round special education classes will begin this summer at Cedar Lane. 3. Recommendation: None. YUBA COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT 1991-92 WHEATLAND SCHOOL DISTRICT Introduction: Wheatland School District serves 1,700 students in grades K-12 on four separate campuses. More than 120 children from out of the District attend through interdistrict agreements. Staff consists of 175 classified and certificated personnel. AREA INVESTIGATED: IMPACT FEES Finding: The established impact fees with the District are insufficient to mitigate the impact of projected growth within the District. Recommendation: That the District continue to work with the County Board of Supervisors to establish a unified fee structure that will meet the needs of projected growth in the County. 60 . . . • : . . . . : . . . . ÷ . . . 0.7 and the latter ....................................... CONTINUITY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE • . . . and the second of the second of the second of the second of the second of the second of the second of the second of the second of the second of the second of the second of the second of the second of the second of the seco • • . . in the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state o . . . 1 1 ٠ ٠ . .... ٠. STORES OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PROPERTY OF THE YUBA COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT 1991-92 DEMOGRAPHICS STUDY AND SURVEY OF PAST GRAND JURORS Introduction: The 1991-92 Grand Jury conducted a study of the Yuba County Grand Jury System. Information was gathered from a number of sources, including a survey of the past 11 years of jurors. Sixty-one, or 38%, of past jurors polled responded to a questionnaire. One hundred THE PROPERTY OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PROPERTY O eighty-one questionnaires were mailed. Nineteen were returned, 17 by the postal service because of no forwarding address and two by family members because juror was deceased. The aim of this study was to improve the local Grand Jury process, to address the needs of the Grand Jury to better accomplish its goals, and to provide past Grand Jurors the opportunity to contribute input. Findings: 1. Median age of Grand Jurors is 59 years. 2. Few citizens under the age of 40 years serve on the Grand Jury. Of jurors responding to the survey, only three of the 56 that gave their age were 40 or less years of age. 3. Younger citizens rarely have time to serve on the Grand Jury or cannot because of employment constraints. 4. The composition of past grand juries averaged 58% men and 42% women. 5. The average years of residence in the County for Grand Jurors was 33 years. 6. The Grand Jury make-up consisted of 97% caucasian and 3% minority membership, which is not equal to the County ethnic ratio. 7. According to the survey, 33% of Grand Jurors were employed full time while on the jury, 16% were employed part time, 46% were retired and 5% did not respond to this question. 8. According to the survey, 39% of Grand Jurors impaneled were recommended by judges; 5% were recommended by past jurors; 3% independently volunteered; 25% were recommended by others (i.e., supervisors, city councilman, jury commissioner, etc.). There were 25% who had no idea how they were selected and 3% did not respond to this question. 9. Approximately 72% of the representation on the Grand Jury were from the Marysville area, comprising 60% of the County's population. 10. The Brownsville-Camptonville-Challenge areas are proportionally under represented. 11. As distance to the courthouse in Marysville increases, the demographic representation of the respective outlying communities declines. 61 12, Grand Jurors felt that limiting compensation to one-way travel discriminates against Grand Jurors and discourages citizens residing in the outlying areas of the County from serving on the Grand Jury. 13. Grand Jury duty, on the average, requires at least two meetings per month throughout the year, whereas the Grand Jury budget provides compensation for only one meeting per month throughout the year. ٠..; 14, County employees and officials receive $0.28 per mile round trip for use of private vehicles on County business with no limit on the number of trips. 15. All Grand Jurors are paid $0.28 per mile one way while attending Grand Jury meetings, 16. Of those responding to the survey, 61% scored juror compensation as "poor" to "fair." 17. Of those responding to the survey, 58% scored the adequacy of the Grand Jury budget. as "poor" to "fair." 18. Of those responding to the survey, 69% felt ill prepared for their role as Grand Jury members. 19, Effectiveness of past grand juries has been hampered by lack of training, orientation, and continuity. 20. Most past jurors stated that there is a need for orientation and training of new Grand Jurors, 21. Past Grand Jurors generally believed that they should have received more comprehensive training to better prepare them for their Grand Jury service. 22. Of those responding to the survey, 26% indicated that citizen complaints played a significant role in their Grand Jury agenda. 23. Other counties have reported that up to 90% of survey respondents indicated that citizen complaints played a significant role in their Grand Jury agenda. 24, Up until this year, Yuba County citizens have not had a "Grand Jury Complaint Form" on which to submit complaints. Additionally, citizens have expressed concerns with the mail routing in the courthouse and the possible compromise of the confidentiality of their complaints. 25. Of those responding to the survey, 60% felt "good" to "excellent" about their personal contribution to the Grand Jury process. 26, The civil watchdog duty of the Grand Jury is felt by past Grand Jurors to be the most important role of the jury. 27. Of those responding to the survey, 75% of survey respondents believed that the supervisor's responses to their final reports were "poor" to "fair." 28. Past grand juries have expressed their inability to properly perform jury business for lack of an office and the necessary office equipment. The grand juries, not having a permanently assigned County meeting room, over the 29. past years have held meetings at local banks, medical clinics, County library and numerous other sites throughout the County. 30. Survey respondents felt that they received reasonably good cooperation from the Presiding Judges, the County Counsel, and the District Attorney. 31. Of those responding to the survey, 59% volunteered to serve as a resource person to a standing Grand Jury. 32. Of those responding to the survey, 51% indicated that they would be willing to serve as a Grand Jurors again. Recommendations: 1. That the court encourage younger citizens to volunteer as candidates for the Grand Jury. 2. That the court encourage minority members of the County to volunteer as candidates for the Grand Jury. 3. That the court continue to encourage citizens of the outlying areas to volunteer as candidates for the Grand Jury. That members of the Board of Supervisors representing the autlying areas of the County 4, take a more active part to encourage citizens of their districts to volunteer for Grand 49200 BUT Jury duty. 5. That the Grand Jury travel expenses be reimbursed at the same rate as other County 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 PARTY OF THE PARTY OF THE PARTY OF T employees. 6. That the County provide additional training funds in the Grand Jury budget for orientation programs and American Grand Jury Foundation seminar training for all Grand Jurors. That the County provide the Grand Jury with adequate, centrally located office space 7. and necessary office equipment to carry out its functions. That the County provide the Grand Jury with an adequate, permanently assigned 8, meeting room to hold meetings and conduct interviews, 9. That the Grand Jury rent a mail box at the Marysville post office to allay citizen's concerns of the confidentiality of their complaints to the Grand Jury. Commendation: The 1991-92 Grand Jury wishes to thank and commend the past Grand Jurors that took time to assist in this effort, especially those that took time and gave serious thought to the comments they offered. It is through citizens like these that we can give meaning to the Grand Jury process and make government more responsive to the people. A A SECTION OF 63 . . . . . è • . . $1000(0.55) ###################################### S MID-YEAR FINAL REPORT . : . e . 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 AL CARO PARCO MINISTERIO POR CARO PARCO POR CARO PARCO PARCO PARCO PARCO PARCO PARCO PARCO PARCO PARCO PARCO PARCO PARCO PARCO PARCO PARCO PARCO PARCO PARCO PARCO PARCO PARCO PARCO PARCO PARCO PARCO PARCO PARCO PARCO PARCO YUBA COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT 1991-92 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS / LOCAL PUBLIC AGENCIES Introduction: Section 933 of the California Penal Code requires that at the end of their term each Grand Jury submit a final report on their findings and when appropriate make recommendations on these findings. After the Grand Jury submits its final report the Board of Supervisors and Officers of local public agencies subject to the reviewing authority of the Grand Jury shall comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under their control. The objective of the response requirement of Penal Code Section 933 is to focus attention of appointed and elected officials on Grand Jury recommendations, to help produce any necessary remedial actions, and to alert the public to potentially intractable management problems. Below is an excerpt from Penal Code Chapter 3, Article 2, Section 933, to clarify the duties and obligations of the Grand Jury and the Respondents. PENAL CODE CHAPTER 3 POWERS AND DUTIES OF GRAND JURY ARTICLE 2 - INVESTIGATION OF COUNTY, CITY, AND DISTRICT AFFAIRS THE RESIDENCE OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PROPERTY Section 933. Findings and recommendations; comment of governing bodies, elective officers or agency heads (a) No later than the end of each fiscal or calendar year of a county, each grand jury impaneled during that fiscal or calendar year shall submit to the presiding judge of the superior court a final report of its findings and recommendations that pertain to county government matters other than fiscal matters during the fiscal or calendar year. Final reports on any appropriate subject may be submitted to the presiding judge of the superior court at any time during the term of service of a grand jury. A final report may be submitted for comment to responsible officers, agencies, or departments, including the county board of supervisors, when applicable, upon finding of the presiding judge that the report is in compliance with this title. One copy of each report found to be in compliance with this title shall be placed on file with the county clerk and remain on file in the office of the county clerk. (b) No later than the end of each fiscal or calendar year, each grand jury impaneled during that fiscal or calendar year shall submit to the presiding judge of the superior court a final report of its findings and recommendations that pertain to fiscal matters of county government during the fiscal or calendar year of the county. (c) 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 pursuant to Section 914.1 shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court, with an information copy sent to the board of supervisors on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of that county officer or agency head and any agency or agencies which that officer or agency head をおうですが、これのできないというのできない。 では、これできないできない。 では、これできないできない。 では、これできないできない。 では、これできない。 では、これできない。 では、これできない。 では、これできない。 では、これできない。 では、これできない。 では、これできない。 では、これできない。 では、これできない。 では、これできない。 では、これできない。 では、これできない。 では、 supervises or controls. In any city and county, the mayor shall also comment on the findings and recommendations. All such comments and reports shall forthwith be submitted to the presiding judge of the superior court who impaneled the grand jury. A copy of all responses to grand jury reports shall be placed on file with the clerk of the public agency and the office of the county clerk, or the mayor when applicable, and shall remain on file in those offices. One copy shall be placed on file with the applicable grand jury final report by, and in the control of the currently impaneled grand jury, where it shall be maintained for a minimum of five years. (Italics added to highlight pertinent points) 64 RESPONSE TO GRAND JURY FINAL REPORTS AREA INVESTIGATED: Findings: The County of Yuba does not have an adopted uniform procedure or format for responding to Grand Jury reports pursuant to Section 933 of the Penal Code. The adoption of such a procedure and format would: Assist appointed County department heads and the County Administrative Officer 1. in providing appropriate draft responses. Enable the Board of Supervisors to evaluate the proposed responses more 2. effectively. Help ensure continuity in the Grand Jury process from year to year and assist the 3, Grand Jury in tracking recommendations. In recent years County officials have provided good cooperation with the Grand Jury in its oversight functions, however certain of the County department heads' response to the 1990-91 Grand Jury Final Report were not fully responsive. The draft response prepared for approval and signature of the Board of Supervisors differed from the proposed responses of the County department heads and did not address all of the findings and recommendations. Furthermore, it was found that not all department heads had read the entire 1990-91 Grand Jury final report and the response submitted to the presiding judge. These department heads, by not reading the entire Grand Jury report and response, did not apprise themselves of matters on which they may have had a duty to act. A uniform response format for Grand Jury recommendations should minimize the need for editing the proposed responses of the appointed department heads. Additionally, the including of the department heads' actual proposed responses with the response provided by the Board of Supervisors pursuant to Penal Code Section 933, would avoid any appearance of "sanitizing" and would better inform the Grand Jury and public of existing and potential problems within the County departments. The oversight functions of the Grand Jury are largely negated if the responsible elected officials rely too heavily upon appointed officials in evaluating their own performance. Accordingly, there should be adequate opportunity for the Board of Supervisors to consider responses to Grand Jury reports and there should be a realistic opportunity for public comment as well, prior to adoption of final responses. Finally, the response of public agencies to the Grand Jury's recommendations should be made available for public inspection and copying at the County libraries along with copies of the Grand Jury reports. It is the view of the 1991-92 Yuba County Grand Jury that, in order for Grand Jury oversight to be fully effective in accomplishing its purposes, the public must have ready access to both the Grand Jury's report and the public agencies' responses under Section 933 of the Penal Code. The 1991-92 Grand Jury has examined provisions extracted from an ordinance of the County of Humboldt and finds that the substance of many of its provisions should be considered for adoption by the Board of Supervisors of Yuba County and other public agencies, as set forth in the following recommendation. (A copy of the Humboldt County resolution is on file in the Yuba County Grand Jury Library.) 65 一をからしていることのできないというできないのできないのできないとなっていることできないできないできないできないできないと Recommendations: 1. That the Board of Supervisors and the governing body of each public agency (other than minor assessing districts) subject to the oversight responsibilities of the Yuba County Grand Jury adopt, by ordinance or resolution, a standard format for responding to Grand Jury reports, as follows: Α. As to each FINDING, the responding agency or officer indicate one of the following: Į, THE RESPONDENT AGREES WITH THE FINDING. 11. THE RESPONDENT DISAGREES WHOLLY OR PARTIALLY WITH THE FINDING. The response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and include an explanation of the reasons. В. As to each RECOMMENDATION, the response shall indicate one of the following actions: $$$$\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ THE RECOMMENDATION HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED. A summary ١. of significant detail shall be included. Ħ. THE RECOMMENDATION HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED, BUT IT IS THE INTENT OF THE AGENCY/DEPARTMENT TO IMPLEMENT IT. A time frame for implementation shall be included. ₩. THE RECOMMENDATION REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS. A detailed explanation shall be included stating the scope and parameters of the study with a time frame as to when the matter will be prepared for discussion by the respondent governing body or public officer. This time shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the Grand Jury Report. IV. THE RECOMMENDATION WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED, BECAUSE IT IS NOT WARRANTED OR IS NOT FEASIBLE. An explanation shall be included. A final response pursuant to Section 933 of the Penal Code shall be organized . . similarly to the Grand Jury's final report. Comments and responses shall be brief and to the point. Each finding and recommendation shall receive a ٠. separate reply. Comments and responses shall not refer to another reply or 1. .. previous response. 2. That the Board of Supervisors and other public officers and agencies responding 1. 1 pursuant to Penal Code Section 933 distribute copies of the responses to . members of the current and immediate past Grand Juries; that, in the case of 5 . No. 3 the County, response of the Board of Supervisors include the unedited 5 - 45 - 14 proposed responses of the appointed department heads in an appendix; that the Charles Services Board of Supervisors' responses be distributed to all County department heads; and that bound copies of all public agency responses be filed for public inspection with the Grand Jury report in the main and mobile libraries. Margaretta de la compansión de la compansión de la compansión de la compansión de la compansión de la compansión de la compansión de la compansión de la compansión de la compansión de la compansión de la compansión de la c And Carry And Artists entitle from the line 66 3. That the Board of Supervisors adopt, by ordinance or resolution, a standardized procedure for responding to Grand Jury reports as required by Penal Code Section 933 which includes the following components: If a finding or recommendation of the Grand Jury addresses budgetary or Α. personnel matters of a County department headed by an elected official, both the department head and Board of Supervisors shall respond, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those budgetary or personnel matters over which it has decision-making authority. The response of the elected department head shall address all aspects of the finding or recommendation affecting his or her department and be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court within the time frame specified in Section 933 of the Penal Code. В. Each appointed County department head shall prepare a proposed response to a Grand Jury finding or recommendation affecting that department. The County Administrative Officer shall review all proposed responses of appointed County department heads for adequacy and completeness. The County Administrative Officer may comment on a department's response, but shall not alter the departmental response. Ç. After receipt of the departmental responses, the County Administrative Officer shall provide copies thereof to each member of the Board of Supervisors and shall prepare a recommended response for the Board of Supervisors as to the findings and recommendations of the Grand Jury. The draft responses shall be organized similarly to the Grand Jury's final report. Each finding and recommendation of the Grand Jury shall be typed in upper case and the proposed draft response shall be typed as usual. The members of the Board of Supervisors shall be allowed at least one week to review and comment on the draft response prior to including it on the Board's agenda. Ð, The County Administrative Officer shall then prepare a proposed final draft response and a proposed letter of transmittal from the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors, to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Copies of the County Administrative Officer's final draft response shall be distributed to all members of the current and immediate past Grand Juries and copies shall be made available to the public in the office of the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors. Members of the immediate past Grand Jury shall be invited to participate in the public hearing review of the responses to the Grand Jury Report which they authored. Ē. The proposed final draft response and letter of transmittal shall be submitted to the Board of Supervisors for discussion and approval at a hearing set for a time certain. Public comments shall be in order for these items. ۴. The final response adopted by the Board of Supervisors shall be sent within five working days thereafter and within the time frame specified in Section 933 of the Penal Code to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court, the current Grand Jury, and all affected County departments. Distribution of other copies shall be made no more than 30 days following adoption of the final response by the Board of Supervisors, Response Required: Board of Supervisors. The County of Yuba OFFICE OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ⋆ (916) 741-6461 May 12, 1992 The Honorable Robert Lenhard Presiding Judge of the Superior Court 215 Fifth Street Marysville, CA 95901 RE: Yuba County Grand Jury Report Dated March 12, 1992 Dear Judge Lenhard: Provided pursuant to Penal Code § 933(c) is the response of the Board of Supervisors to the findings and recommendations of the 1991-92 Grand Jury's report of March 12, 1992. We are in partial agreement with the findings and recommendations of the Jury, related to the process of responding to the Jury's Final Report. There is no formally adopted format for responding to the Report. Responses prepared by departments do differ in content from the formal response submitted by the Board to the Superior Court, and not all department heads may read the entire report before drafting responses associated with their own を行うというではない。 ないなどのないない。 ないないないないないないないないないないないないないないないないないない。 ないないないないないないないないないないないないないないないないないないない departments. We agree a copy of our response should be available for public inspection at the Library, in the same location as the Report, and we agree some departments could be more specific in detailing alternatives for implementing recommendations, particularly those which respond directly to the Court rather than through this Board. We do not agree a formal procedure and format should be adopted by ordinance or resolution, and we do not agree the Board's response to the report represents a "sanitized" version of department responses. Nor do we agree appointed officials are evaluating their own conduct by the manner in which responses are conveyed to us. Further, we believe the Board has adequate opportunity to evaluate and react to departmental responses, and the public has realistic opportunity to comment prior to adoption of our response. While unwritten, a procedure for responding to the Final Report has been in place for some years now. Departments are directed, via the County Administrator's Office, to respond to findings and recommendations. Department responses are reviewed by 68 COURTHOUSE . FIFTH STREET MARYSVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95901 The Honorable Robert Lenhard May 12, 1992 Page Two. the Board and Administration, and a Board response is drafted. Ample opportunity is available for us to comment on, and request changes before the draft is finalized, approved, and conveyed to the Court. The proposed response is made available for public inspection in the Clerk of the Board's Office, and is discussed and adopted in open session of the Board, where any member of the public wishing to may comment on its sufficiency. We would certainly be receptive to constructive public input, and to modifying our response if warranted. The Board's response differs from those of departments, and should. The Board is compelled by the Penal Code to respond to the Final Report, not individual departments (excepting elected department heads). The Board's response may closely resemble a department's, as it reviews, and often agrees with recommended courses of action provided by departments. Where the Board disagrees, however, responses differ, based not on editing but rather on differences in perspective. Department responses have always been made available for inspection by the public, and have been conveyed to the Courts and Grand Juries, and will continue to be made available for reference. It should be noted, with respect to concerns regarding thorough response to Grand Jury Findings, it is sometimes - difficult to isolate findings Juror's and recommendations from general comments, leaving question as to which items require response. In this regard, presentation of a Final Report which clearly segregates these elements from each other would greatly assist responsiveness to Jury concerns. In addition, with respect to the responses of elected officials, it should be noted Penal Code Section 933 requires those officials to respond directly to the Court rather than through the Board of Supervisors. Concerns that departments are left in the position of evaluating their own performance, are without merit. Department performance is continually evaluated based on a variety of factors including public comments, information presented at Board and Committee meetings, annual department head evaluations, experiences of individual Board members, and is not limited to responding to the findings of the Grand Jury. We do not agree a formal procedure and format for response be adopted by ordinance or resolution, and consequently will not implement that recommendation. Other entities can respond to the recommendation as they will. In our opinion, ordinances and resolutions implement legislative action, and are not the appropriate means of adopting an administrative procedure. As you know, an Administrative Procedures Manual exists for the County, and was recently revised. The Board will take the Jury's recommendation in this regard under advisement, and may include 69 The Honorable Robert Lenhard May 12, 1992 Page Three. some provisions for response at the next revision of the Manual. As you know, the Grand Jury directly provides copies of its Final Report to department heads. We cannot insure department heads read the entire report, but agree it is the best interest of good government for them to do so. Consequently, department heads will be directed, in the future, to read Final Reports in their entirety before drafting their responses to us, and to respond in full to all applicable findings and recommendations. In this regard, we will also direct departments to provide more specific and measurable alternative courses of action for responding to the Report. As we agree a copy of our response should be maintained in conjunction with copies of the Final Report available for public viewing, we will also direct this recommended change. . India bilan With respect to providing copies of our response, we will continue to provide copies to those entities entitled under statute. In the interest of economy, however, we will not provide copies to each Juror, or to members of past Grand Juries. We appreciate the efforts of the 1991-92 Grand Jury, thus far, and for this opportunity to comment on its report process. Chairman cc: Foreman, Grand Jury A CASE AND A SECURITY OF A SECURITY OF A SECURITY OF A SECURITY OF A SECURITY OF A SECURITY OF A SECURITY OF A SECURITY OF A SECURITY OF A SECURITY OF A SECURITY OF A SECURITY OF A SECURITY OF A SECURITY OF A SECURITY OF A County Clerk/Recorder 1. . The Straightful Artists of . in a patient in the property of the transfer for the “我就是我们的我们的，我们还有一点，我们就是有一块的时间，这样就是我们 Ben grand that is a few and properly to the section of Dorth Advanced to the A Section 1985 April 1985 April 1985 1966年 1970年 - 1966年 - 1970年 - 1966年 - 1966年 - 1966年 - 1966年 - 1966年 - 1966年 - 1966年 - 1966年 - 1966年 - 1966年 - 1997年，1997年，李明成立，王明建设，张明成立，张明成立，张明成立，张明成立，张明成立，1997年，1997年， ger alget, i breek i trigte bright blakt i i brokkele i britte blek upper une grand transport personal processors before the content of the content to 70 • • . . \mathcal{L}_{i} = \mathcal{L}_{i} + \mathcal{L}_{i} + \mathcal{L}_{i} + \mathcal{L}_{i} + \mathcal{L}_{i} + \mathcal{L}_{i} + \mathcal{L}_{i} + \mathcal{L}_{i} + \mathcal{L}_{i} + \mathcal{L}_{i} + \mathcal{L}_{i} + \mathcal{L}_{i} + \mathcal{L}_{i} + \mathcal{L}_{i} + \mathcal{L}_{i} + \mathcal{L}_{i} + \mathcal{L}_{i} + \mathcal{L}_{i} + \mathcal{L}_{i} + . . . . . è 1991-92 YUBA COUNTY GRAND JURY SURVEY OF THE ELEVEN GRAND JURIES 1981 through 1991
• R2
  effectively. Help ensure continuity in the Grand Jury process from year to year and assist the 3, Grand Jury in tracking recommendations. In recent years County officials have provided good cooperation with the Grand Jury in its oversight functions, however certain of the County department heads' response to the 1990-91 Grand Jury Final Report were not fully responsive. The draft response prepared for approval and signature of the Board of Supervisors differed from the proposed responses of the County department heads and did not address all of the
• R3
  That the Board of Supervisors adopt, by ordinance or resolution, a standardized procedure for responding to Grand Jury reports as required by Penal Code Section 933 which includes the following components: If a finding or recommendation of the Grand Jury addresses budgetary or Α. personnel matters of a County department headed by an elected official, both the department head and Board of Supervisors shall respond, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those budgetary or personnel matters over which it has decision-making authority. The response of the elected department head shall address all aspects of the finding or recommendation affecting his or her department and be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court within the time frame specified in Section 933 of the Penal Code. В. Each appointed County department head shall prepare a proposed response to a Grand Jury finding or recommendation affecting that department. The County Administrative Officer shall review all proposed responses of appointed County department heads for adequacy and completeness. The County Administrative Officer may comment on a department's response, but shall not alter the departmental response. Ç. After receipt of the departmental responses, the County Administrative Officer shall provide copies thereof to each member of the Board of Supervisors and shall prepare a recommended response for the Board of Supervisors as to the