Shasta Lake Fire Protection District Reason for Inquiry:

The Grand Jury toured one of the three fire stations in the Shasta Lake Fire Protection District in September of 2002. The fire station was neat, clean, and appeared to be well equipped. The personnel were professional in appearance.

The Insurance Service Office, which is a nationwide organization funded by property and casualty insurance companies, periodically evaluates all fire protection districts. Districts are rated on a scale of one to ten, with one being the best rating a district can receive. If a district receives a good rating, citizens within that district may pay a lower premium on their fire insurance. The Insurance Service Office rates most properties within SLFPD as Class Four, which is considered to be a good rating.

The volunteers and paid firefighters who were interviewed by the Grand Jury appeared to be dedicated individuals whose goal is to make SLFPD a better place to work and a more professional organization.

The Independent Auditor’s Report on the Financial Statements of SLFPD, dated June 30, 2002, showed an un-designated fund balance of $362,411, which represents approximately 30% of that year’s total budget. The budget for the following fiscal year, 2002-2003, was $1,106,721, which included $714,265 of total expenditures, a contingency reserve of $192,456, and designated, non-available cash flow of $200,000. California Health and Safety Code section 13902 allows a fire district board to establish a reserve for capital outlays if the purpose for which the reserve is to be used is declared. The Code section provides that if a district board finds that a previously established reserve for capital outlays is no longer required for the intended purpose, it may discontinue the reserve and transfer any balance to the district’s general fund. The Grand Jury was unable to determine a legally declared purpose for the SLFPD reserve. Based on consultation with experts, the Grand Jury determined that while maintaining a reserve is a normal practice, setting aside such a large portion of the total budget by a public taxing agency appears to be unreasonable and unwarranted.

The SLFPD By-Laws state that, “The purpose of the Board of Directors is to conduct, manage and control all affairs of the Fire Department.” However, the Board has not exercised sufficient supervisory functions in overseeing the job performance and conduct of the Fire Chief, as demonstrated by the following examples: a. There have been allegations of sexual harassment against the current Fire Chief which have been reported to the Grand Jury or are a matter of public record as follows: 1) In 1996, a 15-year-old female high school student working at the fire station under the Private Industry Council (PIC) program reported that the current Fire Chief, who was then a Battalion Chief, sexually harassed her by way of inappropriate touching. Some District employees reported to the Grand Jury that when the PIC program administrators investigated the allegations, the Battalion Chief intimidated the employees into signing a statement prepared by him declaring they had not witnessed the incident. Several of the employees reported to the Grand Jury that they felt threatened by possible repercussions if they refused to sign the statement. 2) On January 25, 2002, a lawsuit was filed in Shasta County Superior Court alleging that on February 24, 2001, a young woman who was receiving fire safety education and training at the fire department was sexually harassed and battered by the current Fire Chief (then a Battalion Chief acting as the Fire Chief). The lawsuit also listed SLFPD as a defendant. The lawsuit stated that SLFPD “knew or should have known” that this employee had the “propensity to commit sexual battery and harassment against female persons coming into close proximity with him on the premises.” SLFPD was accused of “negligently failing to properly and adequately train, supervise, monitor and/or control the activities” of this employee. In closed session at a special meeting on January 24, 2003, the Board voted to settle the pending litigation. Court documents show that the lawsuit was settled on March 17, 2003, resulting in payment to the Plaintiff of $50,000. Even though the Board knew of this alleged incident and the possibility of litigation, the District continued to employ this person, who was then a Battalion Chief applying for the position of Fire Chief. The March 1, 2001, minutes of a special meeting show that the Board voted to “table the Chief’s appointment until such time when the litigation problem was settled.” Thus, at least as early as March 1, 2001, the Board was aware of the allegations. During a special meeting on May 8, 2001, the Board considered whether this Battalion Chief should be disciplined for his actions, put on administrative leave until the charges were settled, or terminated. The Board voted to place a letter of reprimand in the Battalion Chief’s personnel file regarding these incidents. Nevertheless, at the regular meeting just a few days later, on May 14, 2001, the Board promoted the Battalion Chief to his current position of Fire Chief. 3) Other similar instances of alleged misconduct by the current Fire Chief were reported to the Grand Jury. Members of the Board knew or should have known of other alleged misconduct. b. Several employees stated in interviews with the Grand Jury that the current Fire Chief lacks management expertise and people skills, that morale at the work site is low, and that the Fire Chief often uses his position of power to intimidate employees and threatens repercussions when and if challenged. For example, it was reported that the Fire Chief sometimes denies favorable work assignments to certain employees based on factors other than merit. c. Numerous current and former employees reported witnessing paid staff, volunteers, and trainees being subjected to loud and out-of-control verbal abuse by the Fire Chief in front of their peers. One of the findings in the Shasta Lake Fire District Evaluation Review, prepared by an Ad Hoc Committee of the Board, stated that, “There is a real problem with their [the Chiefs’] communication skills, including a lot of in your face belittling and chewing employees out while others are around.” This finding was incorporated in the Shasta Lake Fire District Evaluation Committee

The Board advertised on January 9, 2001, to fill the existing vacancy for fire chief. One of the minimum qualifications stated on the application was an Associate of Arts Degree in Fire Science. The application stated that “Only applications meeting the …. minimum qualifications will be accepted.” The current Fire Chief, hired on May 14, 2001, does not have an Associate of Arts Degree in Fire Science, but does hold an AA Degree in General Education.

In January 2001, the Board gave a confidential survey to the employees of the Shasta Lake Fire Department. Attached to the survey was a letter from the Board asking that the survey be completed and returned to the Board. The letter asked for employee’s assistance in formulating policy for the District and for written suggestions and criticisms. The letter stated that only the Board would see the results of the survey. After the new Fire Chief was hired in May of 2001, he was shown the confidential surveys by a member of the Board. The Fire Chief, who was a Battalion Chief at the time of the survey, was the subject of some of the criticism. Some employees reported that the Board’s disclosure of this confidential information created strained working relationships.

The Shasta County Fire Marshall recommends that buildings occupied or visited by the public be periodically inspected by local fire departments. The Grand Jury found that SLFPD has not routinely performed building safety inspections within the District as recommended. The inspection records of one retail business, which employs approximately 50 people, show that it had not been inspected since 1991. The District’s Fire Marshall, who is also a Battalion Chief, is the only one who currently performs building safety inspections for SLFPD. Several employees expressed concerns over their inability to have prior knowledge (or “pre-plans”) of potentially dangerous situations because they do not have the opportunity to perform building inspections.

It was reported to the Grand Jury that an accident took place in 2002 during a SLFPD training session involving one of the District fire trucks and a commercial semi-trailer dolly parked on a street near Shasta Lake Industrial Park. Both the fire truck and the semi-trailer dolly incurred damage. The semi-trailer dolly was repaired on scene by SLFPD personnel and the fire truck was returned to the fire station, where all repairs were made by the fire department. The Grand Jury interviewed the company that owned the semi-trailer dolly and found that no accident had been reported to them by the SLFPD. The Grand Jury contacted the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) and ascertained that no accident was ever reported. At the time of the accident, California law required traffic accidents on a California street/highway or private property to be reported to the DMV within ten days if there was property damage to anyone’s property in excess of $500.00. The actual amount of damage could not be ascertained because no estimate was ever obtained, but it was reported to the Grand Jury that the damage was well in excess of $500.

It was reported to the Grand Jury that the training program for paid and volunteer firefighters is insufficient, although employees indicated that the program has improved greatly since the current Training Officer, who is also a Battalion Chief, took over the training program in 2001. The Training Officer is not provided with sufficient resources to fulfill his responsibilities. For example, equipment is sometimes not made available for training purposes and most training is done during off-duty time for both paid staff and volunteers. Furthermore, the Department does not have a basic training manual for new recruits and it was reported that the Fire Chief seldom approves expenditures of District funds to pay for fire fighting classes for employees or volunteers.

The District received a $24,723 federal grant in November of 2002 to purchase training materials for the Department. The grant application required a 10% cost share from the District equaling $2,472, and specified that the funds would be used for training purposes. The money from the grant was deposited in the Shasta Lake Fire Protection District Volunteer Association checking account rather than into the District’s general funds, which are administered by the Shasta County Auditor- Controller’s office. It was reported to the Grand Jury that the volunteers’ checking account is not routinely audited, as is the District’s general fund account. A routine audit of District funds would include a test for compliance with certain provisions of a federal grant. After the funds were deposited, a desktop computer, a laptop computer, a power point projector, and training software were purchased and paid for through the volunteer account. The new computers are reportedly being used by the Fire Chief, Battalion Chiefs, and the District employees in the course of their regular work and are not dedicated to training.

The Shasta Lake Fire Protection District does not currently have a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) manual. Policy changes and directives are given verbally rather than in writing and passed on from shift to shift, which leads to confusion. At the January 13, 2003, Board meeting, the District’s paid employees requested an opportunity to address the Board to request that the Department develop an SOP manual. The employees were not granted an opportunity to speak on the subject.

In 2003, the District was audited by the DMV on its DL 170 program. This program is an employer testing program under which certain employees are certified to give driving tests only to other District employees for their Class B firefighters’ licenses. The auditor found that testing had been improperly provided to employees of other outside agencies. It was reported to the Grand Jury that such infractions could result in loss of the DL 170 program.

In 2003, SLFPD lost its authorization from the American Heart Association to conduct CPR training due to non-compliance with their policies. As a result, SLFPD was unable to conduct CPR training classes for a short period of time. SLFPD is now authorized to conduct the CPR classes through the National Safety Council.

In January 2003, the U.S. Labor Department began an investigation of SLFPD regarding failure to pay overtime as required by law. The Labor Department’s ruling could require the District to remit back pay, plus penalties and interest. The Fire Chief became aware of this investigation in early 2003, yet he did not inform the Board of it at that time.

In accordance with the Brown Act, agendas for Board meetings are to be posted 72 hours prior to a regular meeting and 24 hours prior to a special meeting in a location freely accessible to the public 24 hours a day. Prior to three different board meetings, members of the Grand Jury attempted to find an agenda in a public place but could not locate one, except on the inside bulletin board at the fire hall, which is not accessible to the public 24 hours a day. Several members of the public have also reported not being able to locate posted agendas. On October 14, 2002, the Board of Directors violated the Brown Act when they invited two members of the Grand Jury to attend a closed session regarding a personnel issue to which the Grand Jury was not a critical party. On February 10, 2003, Grand Jury members were again invited to a closed session, but declined. Closed sessions cannot be open to some members of the public and not others. Another violation of the Brown Act observed on the District agendas at least twelve times by the Grand Jury was the improper description of closed session agenda items. California Government Code section 54954.5 contains recommended language to describe closed session agenda items. The descriptions on the Boards’ agendas did not follow the recommended language. For example, the agenda for October 14, 2002, reads “Closed Session” with no further description; the agenda for June 10, 2002, reads “Closed Session to discuss personal [personnel] actions;” and the agenda for January 14, 2002, reads “Closed Session for discussion on letter from District Attorney.” Only matters properly disclosed on the agenda may be considered during a closed session.

The Grand Jury was unable to confirm whether any of the current members of the SLFPD Board of Directors have attended any type of workshop or training session pertaining to the operation of a fire district or the Brown Act. Such training sessions are available through the California Fire Department Association and other agencies. Only one of the current Directors interviewed acknowledged having ever read the California Fire District Administration Handbook, which serves as a guide to special district board members and fire chiefs.

The Grand Jury reviewed minutes of each regularly scheduled and special meeting of the Board from January 2001 through April 2003. Most of the minutes taken during that time were recorded by the Fire Chief, who is also responsible for reporting on District business during the meeting. The Board voted at the February 10, 2003, meeting to direct the Fire Chief to hire a secretary to take minutes in the future. As of the May 12, 2003, Board meeting, the secretary position remained unfilled.

The By-Laws and Rules and Regulations for SLFPD currently being used are dated April 13, 1998, and do not contain a revision to Article IV, Procedures for Disciplinary Actions, that was approved at the April 9, 2001, Board meeting. During that meeting it was also recommended by legal counsel that the Board adopt Article IX, Policy Against Discrimination and Harassment. It was noted in the minutes that this would be considered “at a future date.” On March 10, 2003, the Board adopted the Fire Agencies Insurance Risk Authority’s (FAIRA) Risk Management Manual and Board members indicated that they will be working with that agency to revise the By-Laws and Rules and Regulations for the District.

In June 2002, the District agreed to lease a water tender for a term of one year for $1.00 per year. However, on February 10, 2003, prior to expiration of the lease and at the recommendation of the Fire Chief and at the request of the lessor, the Board voted to purchase the water tender for $25,000. A member of the SLFPD Board of Directors is an owner and the CEO of the company that owned the water tender. This board member abstained from voting on the lease or the purchase. Nevertheless, California Government Code section 1090 prohibits a public official from having a financial interest in any contract entered into by the body or board of which he/she is a member, even if the official does not vote on the contract. Moreover, several employees reported that, in their opinion, the water tender was not useable due to mechanical defects resulting in safety issues and that the purchase was not a prudent use of District funds.

The SLFPD By-Laws state there shall be five members of the Board of Directors and that members are elected by the public for terms of four years each. The By-Laws further state that if a vacancy occurs during the term of office of a Board member, the Board shall post the vacancy to allow members of the public to apply for the position. The Board then appoints a person to serve until the next election. All of the current Board members were appointed to fill incomplete terms and none have ever run for election. There has not been a Board election since sometime prior to 1987 due to a lack of candidates. As of March 2003, there was one vacancy on the Board and three of the other four members’ terms expire at the end of 2003. California Government Code section 1780 states that a vacancy in an unexpired term of an elective office on the governing board of a special district shall be filled by appointment or by calling for an election within a period of 60 days. If the position is not filled as specified, the county board of supervisors may fill the vacancy within 90 days of the vacancy or order the district to call an election.

At a special meeting of the SLFPD Board of Directors on March 27, 2003, the Board voted to hire legal counsel to represent and advise them on District matters.

The Grand Jury believes that it is essential to provide those persons and bodies who are subject to a civil investigation a full opportunity to provide any and all relevant information to the Grand Jury. After compiling the results of this investigation into the above findings and conclusions, the Grand Jury requested a final interview with the members of the SLFPD Board of Directors and with the Fire Chief in order to obtain their input on the findings and conclusions. On May 23, 2003, the Board members and the Fire Chief declined a Grand Jury invitation to participate in a final interview.