Plumas County

Recommendations 9

• R1

  Page 20
  Citizens not elevate to the level of formal complaints second or third hand stories of official misconduct for which they have no supporting evidence and can not deliver important sworn testimony.
• R2

  Page 20
  PCSD implement a uniform policy of frequent, regular staff meetings to enhance the quality of supervision and intra-departmental communication. COMPLAINT SUMMARY COMPLAINT #05/06-1 Nature of Complaint Complainant reported “dishonest, improper, illegal and inefficient” behavior on the part of the Portola City Council. Response The Grand Jury sent a letter to complainant indicating that the complaint lacked adequate specificity for the Grand Jury to act and suggested that complainant resubmit with some specific details. COMPLAINT #05/06-2 Nature of Complaint This complaint was referred from the 2004/2005 Grand Jury. The complainant brought forth several issues regarding inspections, code violations and contractor licensure with the county Building and Planning Services Department. Response Following investigation of this complaint a letter was mailed to the complainant advising that personal consultation with the new administrator of this department is the most effective means of solving concerns. The new philosophy and reorganization of the department should prevent such concerns in the future. COMPLAINT #05/06-3 Nature of Complaint This complaint was Complaint #04/05-14 from the previous year’s Grand Jury. Response Complainant’s problem was solved without needing Grand Jury intervention. COMPLAINT #05/06-4 Nature of Complaint Building horse corrals close to complainant’s property and creating a nuisance with flies and odors. Response A letter was drafted referring complainant to the County Environmental Health Department and also recommending that complainant contact the Planning Department if there are questions concerning zoning issues. COMPLAINT #05/06-5 Nature of Complaint Complainant, a resident of Portola, reported that on January 16, 2004 complainant paid $100 down to the Portola Cemetery District (PCD) for a $300 plot adjacent to those of complainant’s parents and that same day an out-of- county relative (OCR) sent a check for the remaining $200 to the district. This check reportedly was a personal loan to the complainant. Complainant supplied copies of the check and receipts signed by the district manager. Complainant’s sibling (CS), with whom complainant is in litigation over the estate of their parent, was subsequently appointed to the board of directors of the PCD. The OCR later received a warrant, dated 04/29/04, in the amount of $300 from Plumas County along with a letter, dated 04/14/04, from the cemetery district secretary. The letter stated a mistake was made and that to a non-resident of Portola the price of the plot would be $500 and was under review to be increased to $785. The OCR wrote two letters to the district board. The first, dated 5/9/04 explained that the purchaser was the complainant, not the OCR, and a response was requested. The second, dated 6/21/04, addressed to the chairman of the district board asked for the minutes of the last three meetings of the board and a copy of the bylaws of the district. Complainant reports that no reply was received to either communication. Response The Grand Jury interviewed the Secretary of the PCD and reviewed his records of the matter. 21
• R3

  Page 20
  The next Grand Jury review all the cemetery districts, which do not receive much publicity and remain obscure to the public.
• R4

  Page 20
  The County Clerk include the cemetery districts in the list of special districts maintained by that office. COMPLAINT #05/06-6 COMPLAINT #05/06-7 COMPLAINT #05/06-8 COMPLAINT #05/06-9 COMPLAINT #05/06-10 Nature of Complaints These five complaints, all against the Feather River Canyon Community Services District (FRCCSD) addressed the issues of frequently interrupted, low pressure, and occasionally unsanitary water service at one of the seven systems maintained by the district. The complainants also reported a perceived lack of constructive response from the FRCCSD Board of Directors. Response The Grand Jury interviewed the Chairman of the FRCCSD Board of Directors and the Director of the Plumas County Community Development Commission (PCCDC) and gleaned the following information: The FRCCSD was formed in the 1980’s in response to California State Department of Health Services (CSDHS) newly enforced requirements on water systems. The district was form by multiple business owners with separate water systems in order to become eligible for grant funds necessary to update the water systems to meet new state requirements. These funds were made available to the district, largely as a result of the efforts of the PCCDC and the systems were upgraded by 1989. In the ensuing years the canyon population, and water demand, grew while the water systems equipment deteriorated. Necessary repairs became more and more frequent, with the district raising its annual budget from about $15,000 to $43,000 in 2005, still with an expected loss. About 2000, the CSDHS imposed new requirements on the district which require significant investment and with the help of the PCCDC in 2004 the district obtained block grants for $326,000, which will be used to cover work to commence this summer. The work specified in the 23 grants does not include improvements to the system which is the subject of the complaints, but some funds may be redirected to such use. It appears that the population base in the FRCCSD is large enough to create a water demand that exceeds the capacity of some systems, but is not large enough to finance the upgrades necessary to increase capacity and meet the CSDHS requirements. This district appears to have been surviving only on the charity of the federal and state governments. COMPLAINT #05/06-11 Nature of Complaint Complainant reports that a Sheriff’s Deputy, while answering a burglary call at complainant’s business establishment dealt with complainant in a rude and unprofessional manner. Response This complaint will be referred to the 2006-2007 Grand Jury. COMPLAINT #05/06-12 Nature of Complaint Complainant reported concerns about the quality of classes being offered at Feather River College. Complainant felt that classes had been “watered down”. Priorities seem to be misplaced for educating the students. Response The Grand Jury, pursuant to California Penal Code 914, is charged with specific responsibility to investigate and report on all aspects of county government, including community colleges. Administration, operations, and practices can be discussed or investigated by the Grand Jury. Curriculum cannot be challenged. COMPLAINT #05/06-13 Nature of Complaint This complaint was carried over from the 04/05 Grand Jury. The complainant questioned the legitimacy of a card lock transaction. Response The Grand Jury found that it was common for County employees to use a County . credit card for gas when they use their cars for work related procedures Recommendation The Grand Jury recommends that the County Administrative Officer and the Board of Supervisors review county travel policy concerning such use of credit cards. COMPLAINT #05/06-14 Nature of Complaint Complaint involved accusation of a breach of confidentiality by Court employees. Response Complainant was advised by letter that Court employees are under the jurisdiction of the State of California, and not Plumas County. Consequently the Grand Jury may not review this complaint. Complainant was advised to consult with the department administration. COMPLAINT #05/06-15 Nature of Complaint Complainant reports incidents of retaliation, harassment and failure to follow written policies at Feather River College. Response The Grand Jury does not investigate personnel matters. Since complainant has retained legal counsel the complainant should follow the advice and counsel of the attorney as to rights and remedies in this matter. COMPLAINT #05/06-16 Nature of Complaint The complainants alleged improprieties with the lay-off procedure followed by the county and benefits due temporary employees. Response The Grand Jury declined to pursue this complaint. The complainants should contact the Human Resources Department or their union representative for resolution of their complaint. COMPLAINT #05/06-17 Nature of Complaint The complaint alleged numerous instances of policy violation and impropriety in the Animal Control Department. Response After reviewing the complaint and it's supporting documentation, it was determined that a review of the Department was warranted. The review of Animal Control is included in the body of this Final Report. COMPLAINT #05/06-18 Nature of Complaint Complainant accused a current County Supervisor of a “conflict of interest” by simultaneously holding two public offices. Response The Grand Jury sought County Counsel opinion on this matter. Subsequent to this opinion a letter was sent to the complainant indicating that no “conflict of interest” exists, as a co-op board of directors is not a public office. COMPLAINT #05/06-19 Nature of Complaint Complainant charges that “Temporary Occupancy Permits” were not properly issued prior to occupancy of the Animal Shelter and the Permit Center, and that such permits are not offered to private landowners on an equal basis. Response Following investigation of this complaint a letter was mailed the complainant advising of the following: As a result of numerous interviews regarding this matter, and the receipt of additional documentation, the Grand Jury has concluded the following:
• R5

  Page 24
  Temporary Occupancy Permits are issued to private landowners. The following recommendations will be forwarded to the Building and Planning Services administrator as well as to the Board of Supervisors:
• R96-97

  Page 32
  98-99 Fire X X X F/U Ag. Commissioner Engineering Environmental Health Housing and Community Development Local Agency Formation Commission Planning X X X Public Works 95-96, X F/U
• R97-98

  Page 32
  98-99 Plumas County Flood X X INC Control and Water Conservation District Airport Operations Facility Services 99-00 X X Recreation Districts 95-96 Nutrition Programs 95-96 Plumas Corporation X Hospital Districts X Plumas Unified School X X X District Feather River College INC Portola Cemetery District INC Key: F/U = Follow-up investigation INC = Incomplete investigation 31
• R98-99

  Page 31
  Auditor/Controller X X Board of Supervisors X X Clerk/Recorder X inc. Chamber of Commerce Information Technology 99-00 Fair X Farm Advisor Law Library 99-00 F/U Library 98-99 Literacy Program 98-99 Museum 98-99 Human Resources 99-00 X Treasurer/Tax Collector 98-99 Alcohol and Drug 95-96 X inc. Senior Services District Attorney –Family 97-98 Support Division Mental Health 95-96,
• R99-00

  Page 31
  Plumas County Public X Health Agency Public Administrator Public Guardian/Conservator 99-00 Sierra House 99-00 Social Services 95-96 Veteran’s Services 95-96 Animal Control 95-96 X X X F/U County Counsel District Attorney 98-99 Fish and Game Commission Jail 98-99 X X X X X Victim Witness Office of Emergency Services 30