Local Government – Closed Session Meetings

Recommendations 12

• R01-01

  Page 36
  The Administrative Manual should be updated to reflect the new language. RESPONSE: Glenn County Board of Supervisors Chapter 11.02.06 the Administrative Manual was originally updated and distributed on January 8, 2001, but due to the drop of a footnote while updating another portion of that title, the data was inadvertently deleted. This was discovered and the error was corrected. The procedure has been reviewed to improve the updating sequence. RESPONSE: Department of Finance The Administrative manual should be updated to reflect the new language. The Clerk of the Board transmitted the language referenced to all users of the manual in January 2001. The Department of Finance has followed the provisions of the amendment since the adoption of the resolution. 2001-02 Grand Jury Evaluation: This is an acceptable and completed response.
• R01-02

  Page 36
  Publish the narrative descriptions and other illustrative material, such as charts and graphs that describe the individual budget units in the Annual Proposed Budget for review by the Board of Supervisors and the public at annual budget hearings in June. The Final Budget, which would reflect any changes made by the Board to the Proposed Budget, could still be prepared and adopted separately in August as it is currently done, in accordance with the Budget Act. RESPONSE: Board of Supervisors Narratives on each budget unit as noted are already included in the Annual Proposed budget. Other budget data though would be difficult to capture, with the uncertainty of funding that has dictated the initial preparation of unit budgets these last few years. Budget presentations including graphs depend on which version or percentage reduction the Board is requesting at the time. Such presentations often do not reflect what is approved in the Final Budget and could be misleading to the public. RESPONSE: Department of Finance The narrative descriptions and other illustrative material were published in the “Tabulation of Department Budget Requests for fiscal year 2001-2002”, which was published and adopted before the Proposed Budget was adopted.
• R01-03

  Page 37
  The Board of Supervisors should take the necessary steps to recognize the Butte City Cemetery District as a legitimate Glenn County entity and arrange for the Cemetery’s restoration and regular maintenance. RESPONSE: Board of Supervisors This matter will be forwarded to the Glenn County Counsel for further research to recognize the Butte City Cemetery District as a legitimate Glenn county entity, for the Board to consider and take the appropriate action. The Agricultural Department has been spraying the weeds for the last two years. In addition, the Agricultural Department is in the process of trying to secure chain-link fencing from surplus to enclose the cemetery, with the help of the Valley View Conservation Camp. 2001-02 Grand Jury Evaluation: This is an acceptable response. Follow up is recommended for future Grand Juries to ensure this segment of Glenn County’s history is well cared for and preserved.
• R01-04

  Page 38
  The current requirement for employee liability insurance on their personal vehicles should be lowered to the State minimum requirement, which is $15,000 per person for bodily injury; $30,000 per incident for bodily injury and $10,000 for property damage. RESPONSE: Director of Finance I agree. I would be pleased to prepare the amendment to the County policy should the Board decide that was prudent. RESPONSE: Board of Supervisors The Board concurs with the attached response of Department of Finance dated August 27, 2001, and this matter will be placed on a future agenda for the Board’s consideration. RESPONSE: Golden State Risk Management Authority , item IV of the 2000-01 Grand Jury Report requires a response from the Golden State Risk Management Authority. The Grand Jury recommends that the County lower their current automobile liability requirements for employees that use their personal vehicles for County business. The Grand Jury cited that the higher liability limits are a financial hardship on lower income employees. It is the recommendation of the Golden State Risk Management Authority that the policy that is in place should not be amended to lower the limits. Lowering these limits increases the County’s exposure considerably. First, and most obvious, the County’s coverage would trigger as secondary coverage at a much lower level. The minimum limits required by the State do not limit the amount a party can be held liable for as a result of a loss. The Authority has claims history that supports this fact. Second, the argument that the cost of the higher limits can be prohibitive on lower income drivers is not sound. Insurance rates in California are weighted heavily on an operator’s driving record. The difference in rates for higher limits of liability are the most cost prohibitive for impaired risk drivers. The County would be exposing itself to the liability of higher risk drivers. Third, the practice of employees using their own vehicles in the course of employment should be minimized or eliminated. The County is taking on a significant additional liability. The most troublesome issue is determining at what point the County’s liability ends. When the limits of liability are unsatisfactory, claimants are looking for some “deeper pockets”. Who is to determine if the vehicle was being used in the course of employment or not? Once the employees’ vehicle is put into service on behalf of the County, what time of day or night is it “out of service”? For that matter, what day of the week was it, or was it not being used in the course of employment? In addition, the County has little control over the condition of the vehicle and its various safety devices. The Authority paid in excess of $227,000 on a 1994 loss that involved an employee operating their personal vehicle while allegedly on duty for the employer. In that action, the vehicle had minimum limits of liability and involved serious injury. The facts of this loss reinforce and support the Authority’s position on this matter.
• R02-23

  Page 24
  The Board of Supervisors needs to recognize that the Marvin Chapel Cemetery District is the legal owner of the Butte City Cemetery and provide sufficient funds to that District to repair and maintain it. Without sufficient funds, Marvin Chapel Cemetery District cannot provide the proper maintenance of the cemetery that our pioneer ancestors deserve. VI. RESPONSE REQUIRED: Board of Supervisors (02-23)
• R02-24

  Page 25
  The County needs to develop a consolidated countywide program for mosquito control to include the Mosquito and Vector Control District and the Rice Pest Abatement District. In the event they cannot provide a countywide district, there should be in place an emergency plan to respond to an influx of one or more of these mosquito borne viruses. VI. RESPONSE REQUIRED: Board of Supervisors (02-24)
• R02-25

  Page 26
  Request that the contracting veterinarian install above the concrete floor, a suitable platform which would not interfere with the cleaning process and would give the dogs a clean place on which to lie. Also obtain food and water dishes that could be clipped to the fencing. It may be necessary to include this as a requirement when the contract is renewed.
• R02-26

  Page 26
  The City of Orland should include cat control in their contract with Animal Control. VI. RESPONSE REQUIRED: Animal Control Officer (02-25) Orland City Council (02-26)
• R02-27

  Page 29
  Mental Health Division staff should keep abreast of changes in statues that relate to services they provide clients.
• R02-28

  Page 29
  The Mental Health Division should coordinate with existing social service agencies and programs designed and funded to handle this type of situation.
• R02-29

  Page 29
  The 2002/2003 Grand Jury should review Health Services Agency’s use of funds in this type of situation. VI. RESPONSE REQUIRED: Health Services Agency Director (02-27, 02-28)
• R02-30

  Page 31
  The Grand Jury feels that more time spent in open session would be beneficial to the governed. VI. RESPONSE REQUIRED: Orland City Council (02-30) Willows City Council (02-30) Board of Supervisors (02-30)