📋
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.

El Dorado County Grand Jury • 2014-2015

Gj-14-05 Juvenile Facilities Inspections

Published: June 26, 2015 88 pages
View PDF View Full Original

Findings 16 findings

F1
Staff believe AB 109 inmates continue to negatively impact jail operations.
F2
Staff believe Inmates with mental health issues, as well as older and homeless inmates are an ongoing problem.
F3
Additional space is needed where inmates can meet with their attorneys.
F4
Vendors may not have always been paid in a timely manner.
F5
More security cameras and intercoms are needed. NO RECOMMENDATIONS El Dorado County Jails Inspections 3 RESPONSES Responses to both findings and recommendations in this Report are required by law in accordance with California Penal Code §933 and §933.05. Address responses to: The Honorable Suzanne N. Kingsbury Presiding Judge of the El Dorado County Superior Court 1354 Johnson Blvd. South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150 This Report has been provided to the El Dorado County Sheriff. The Presiding Judge of the El Dorado County Superior Court requests that responses be sent electronically as a Word or PDF file to facilitate economical and timely distribution. Please email responses to the El Dorado County Grand Jury at: [email protected] 4 El Dorado County Jails Inspections E D C G J 2014-2015 L ORADO OUNTY RAND URY EL DORADO HILLS CSD AND CC&R ENFORCEMENT Case GJ-14-03 The El Dorado Hills Community Services District (CSD) receives a $10 annual tax from each parcel in the district for Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&R) enforcement. However, many parcels in the district are organized into discrete Home Owner Associations (HOAs) that enforce their own CC&R without assistance from the CSD. Some of those HOA homeowners complained they do not receive any specific service in return for that tax.
F6
The Placerville south exercise area is in disrepair and no longer in use. Other outdoor areas provide sufficient exercise space.
F7
Staff provides a grievance form to address complaints.
F8
At the present time the existing room capacity is adequate due to the low population of wards.
F9
Employees fear that a complaint submitted to the HR Department will not be kept confidential and they may be subject to retaliation. The HR Director acknowledged that this a reasonable fear, based upon past behavior.
F10
Inexperience causes the HR department to willingly defer handling of HR issues to County Counsel. This results in HR issues being handled from a defense oriented posture rather than in a proactive solution-seeking management effort. The Grand Jury observed that complaints filed with HR were investigated solely from the point of view of whether unlawful discrimination occurred while ignoring poor management practices.
F11
Investigations of discrimination or harassment complaints frequently reveal poor management practices or other employee misbehavior, but investigative reports are not shared with department directors. Managers are not informed of these issues when they are brought to light in the course of an investigation and, therefore, are unable to take remedial action. 2 6 Board of Supervisors Neglects Human Resources
F12
Because County Counsel is acting as de facto HR Director, legal work that could be handled in house is contracted out. Complaints of discrimination or harassment are often submitted to private law firms for investigation at significant cost to the county. There is no policy setting forth criteria or procedures for when an investigation will be handled by county staff or contracted out. While it is reasonable that the investigation of certain sensitive complaints, such as those against the CAO or the HR Department itself, be contracted out, it is unreasonably expensive to contract out the investigation of most complaints. These should be handled by HR staff.
F13
The County spends significant sums of money on outside consultants and attorneys for HR related issues.
F14
The County has spent significant sums of money on private consultants identifying personnel issues but has taken only the initial steps towards resolving the issues identified.
F15
Human Resources and Risk Management were separated to allow the HR Director to develop her skills in human resources management. The two functions are closely integrated and their separation is inefficient.
F16
The County does not have an organization chart accurately reflecting County organization. CONCLUSIONS El Dorado County’s HR Department continues to suffer from rapid and excessive turnover of the Human Resources Director and fails to follow best practices for human resources management. This has made the county unable to recruit and retain the best qualified staff. The County is exposed to significant risk of liability for failure to comply with federal and state employment law requirements.

Recommendations 7