📋
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.

Plumas County Grand Jury • 2015-2016

The State of Plumas

View PDF View Full Original

Findings 17 findings

F1 Page 37
The Plumas County Organizational Chart is outdated, demonstrating a lack of organizational clarity and direction by the Board of Supervisors.
F2 Page 37
The job description for CAO was written in 1999. A current CAO job description has not been developed that reflects the needs of the County and the Board.
F3 Page 37
By not hiring a CAO the Board of Supervisors has assumed some of the CAO responsibilities and shifted some to Elected Officials and Department Heads, leaving unclear areas of responsibility.
F4 Page 37
CAO responsibilities have not been reassigned with updated Department Head/Elected Official job descriptions.
F5 Page 37
The Plumas County Code of Ordinances establishes the position of CAO; the position and responsibilities are an integral part of all written County policies. No attempt has been made to fill the position or correct the Ordinance.
F6 Page 37
Several Board members reported the Board had difficulty managing the CAO; no clear policy with regard to Board oversight and management of a CAO exists.
F7 Page 37
The Board has stated the rationale for not hiring a CAO has been a lack of budget funds. Alternate sources of funding have not been addressed.
F8 Page 37
Two of the past four Grand Juries recommended that the Board of Supervisors fill the CAO position. Most of the Supervisors and the majority of department heads interviewed said that the County would operate better with a CAO.
F9 Page 37
Current, accurate job descriptions for all County positions are a necessary management tool for evaluating the performance of employees, but are not consistently in place.
F10 Page 37
The Board of Supervisors has not followed their written policies requiring annual performance reviews for Department Heads (first adopted in 2000 and re-adopted in 2015).
F11 Page 37
The Board of Supervisors did not have a backup plan for replacing the jail when they failed in their attempt to qualify for State Grant funds in 2015. The Grand Jury could find no evidence of a current financial plan in place to replace the jail.
F12 Page 37
The County is losing revenue based on: A. Loss of TOT tax revenue B. Lack of opportunities to be informed of possible revenue through non- participation in the CAOAC C. Loss of County and State sales tax revenue due to the County’s purchasing outside the County and State 2015-2016 Plumas County Grand Jury Report: The State of Plumas
F12A Page 40
Recommendation 12A Invited Responses The Sheriff is invited to respond to:
F13 Page 38
The Board of Supervisors has no formal method of passing institutional knowledge to newly elected Board Members.
F14 Page 38
There is no formal procedure for handing off information from an incumbent Chairperson or Supervisor to his/her successor.
F15 Page 38
One Supervisor actively pursues knowledge of other supervisorial districts by visiting the districts.
F16 Page 38
County residents often have difficulty attending regular Supervisorial meetings, due to travel and work schedules. Additionally, the format of the meetings makes it difficult to ask questions or contribute input to local government.

Recommendations 17