⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Note: Missing finding numbers detected: F2
Findings and Recommendations 7 findings
F1
Animal Control acted within their statutory and discretionary authority. Response to Finding 1: The respondent agrees with the finding. The Grand Jury has contacted the current owners of the three horses and finds no evidence of impropriety in the transfer of ownership. Response to Finding 2: The respondent agrees with the finding.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
Develop a formal structured process for determining the reasonableness of returning (or not returning) animals to their owner. Comment: The Grand Jury cannot identify any reasons why these horses, upon payment of seizure and maintenance charges, should not have been returned to the owners. A return in an incident such as this could be made contingent on an agreement that Animal Control be permitted to make inspections. Such an arrangement would be consistent with stated goals of animal control, such as reuniting animals with their owners and the education of owners. This arrangement would of course not be appropriate if overt abuse was suspected, or the owner simply did not have the means to care for the animals. However, that does not appear to be the case in this incident. Response to Recommendation 1: The recommendation has not been implemented, but will be implemented in the future. The Chief Animal Control Officer adheres to CA Penal Code 597.1 when making a determination on whether to return or not return animals to their owners. The Chief Animal Control Officer consults with the attending veterinarian about the neglect and if the animal is physically fit. Then they review the case to see if the owner can and will provide the necessary care if the animal is returned to them. A policy and procedure will be developed which outlines the specific elements the Chief takes into consideration in making their decision. This will be completed by July 2005.
F3
There is no record of the discussions during the 597.1 hearing. Therefore, there is no indication that other options for handling this situation were considered. Response to Finding 3: The respondent agrees with the finding. 41
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
Prepare a formal record of 597.1 hearings. Comment: For all practical purposes, the decision of the hearing officer was a decision to permanently confiscate the property of the complainant. That level of government action requires documentation. Response to recommendation 3: The recommendation has been implemented. Every 597.1 hearing is tape-recorded and the Animal Control Division staff takes supplemental notes.
F4
The crime report prepared by Animal Control is extremely brief, making reference to loose horses and underweight horses. These two elements, standing alone, do not support a prosecution for cruelty to animals under any concept of fairness. Response to Finding 4: The respondent disagrees wholly with the finding. The crime report prepared by an Animal Control Officer references a nationally recognized Body Condition Scoring System for Horses which rated the horses in question extremely low in the scale of body condition, a statement by the Kennel Supervisor about the horses’ poor condition, and a statement by the attending veterinarian that the horses were underweight by approximately 20%. The Officer that prepared the report states that she was taught the Body Condition Scoring System while attending a Horse Abuse Investigation School and was trained and knowledgeable in the proper care of horses. The sum of these observations and assessments were deemed sufficient to present the case to the District Attorney. Based on the information contained in the crime report, the District Attorney’s office felt that there was probable cause to warrant a charge and prosecute the case. The prosecution was conducted referencing the following Penal Codes: PC 597 states “…every person who causes any animal…to be deprived of necessary sustenance… is, for every such offense, guilty of a crime punishable as a misdemeanor or a felony…”. And Penal Code 597.1 states “…Every owner…who permits the animal to be in any street… without proper care … is guilty of a misdemeanor”.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4
Provide additional training to Animal Control Officers relative to the preparation of crime reports and identification of the elements of the crimes they are likely to encounter. Response to recommendation 4: The recommendation has been implemented. All Animal Control Officers attend training pursuant to CA Penal Code 832 which is an introductory course prescribed by the Commission of Peace Officer Standards and Training. This course identifies the elements of a crime and details the powers of arrest. All Animal Control Officers also attend a two-week Animal Law Enforcement Academy that includes the preparation of crime reports and evidence collection as well as the elements of a crime. Additionally, officers attend the Advanced Animal Law Enforcement Academy or similar training presented by nationally recognized agencies that encompass all aspects of animal crimes. The Chief Animal Control Officer and Supervising Animal Control Officer review all crime reports prior to submittal to the District Attorney’s office. Both have extensive training and experience in writing crime reports.
F5
The Policy and Procedures Manual for Animal Control is out dated and disorganized. Response to Finding 5: The respondent agrees with the finding.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5
Update and organize the Animal Control Policies and Procedures manual Response to recommendation 5: The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future. The Animal Control Division and the Public Health Department are currently in the process of updating the Policies and Procedures manual and this project will be completed by July 2005.
F6
Animal Control has an adequate process for handling animal adoptions. Response to Finding 6: The respondent agrees with the finding.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6
Animal Control needs to reconcile the Court judgment against the complainant for $1,915.36 and the $2,873.05 collection referral form they initiated. Response to recommendation 6: The recommendation has been implemented. At the time of the court’s adjudication of the case the judge ruled that the cost of the seizure and care should only be attributed to two of the three horses seized. The $2,873.05 was the amount for the three horses and the $1,915.36 was the amount for the two horses. The County Revenue Recovery Division (County Collections at the time) was informed in writing (after the court’s judgment) that the amount of $1,915.36 was the amount owed to the County. JAIL INSPECTIONS Per Penal Code 919(b) select members of the 2004/2005 Grand Jury visited the following Jails & Department of Correction facilities:
F7
Grand Jury’s contacts with Animal Control personnel indicate they are a conscientious and committed group of employees working in a difficult environment. Response to Finding 7: The respondent agrees with the finding.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7
The CAO will keep a file of all department head responses so the Grand Jury or Board of Supervisors may review.
F8
There has been no reconciliation between the $1,915.36 court judgment for the county and the $2,873.05 collection referral form initiated by Animal Control Response to Finding 8: The respondent disagrees wholly with the finding. At the time of the court’s adjudication of the case, the judge ruled that the cost of the seizure and care should only be attributed to two of the three horses seized. The $2,873.05 was the amount identified by Animal Control as owed for three horses ($957.69 per horse). The $2,873.05 was reduced by $957.69, to $1,915.36, to reflect the charge for two horses. The County Revenue Recovery Division (County Collections at the time) was informed in writing (after the court’s judgment) that the amount of $1,915.36 was the amount owed to the County. 42
Related Recommendations (1)
R8
Elected department heads must, in addition to the above, provide a written response to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court
Additional Recommendations 16
These recommendations are not explicitly linked to specific findings.
-
R2Use non-county employees as Hearing Officers in 597.1 hearings. Comment: While the statute allows the use of employees to perform the duties of hearing Officer, this clearly does not have the appearance of fairness. Response to Recommendation 2: The recommendation has been implemented. The Animal Control Division has contracted for a non-county employee to be the hearing officer for the 597.1 hearings. This person is a local attorney.
-
R9The CAO will review all department head responses, for which the Board is required to respond, for accuracy, appropriateness, investigating and reconciling discrepancies among responses, etc.
-
R10The CAO shall compile an Initial Draft Response for Board review. a. All Responses will be organized in a manner similar to the Grand Jury’s Final Report. 49.4 COUNTY OF EL DORADO, CALIFORNIA BOARD OF SUPERVISORS POLICY Subject: Policy Number Page Number: A-11 5 of 7 RESPONDING TO GRAND JURY REPORTS Date Adopted: Revised Date: 11/5/1991 4/26/2005 Corrected: 6/10/1994 b. The Initial Draft Response shall be submitted for a Public Hearing review set for a time certain. This public hearing will be not less than 21 days prior to the 90-day legal response time to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. c. The CAO will inform the issuing and/or current Grand Jury Foreman as to the Board Hearing date and time, transmit a copy of the Initial Draft response to them at the same time as the Draft goes to the Board Clerk. The CAO will include a statement in the cover letter to the Board, accompanying the initial draft, that a copy of the report has been transmitted to the issuing and/or current Grand Jury Foreman along with information regarding the date and time of the Hearing. d. At the Initial Draft Response public hearing the Board may direct staff to make changes, establish workshops to explain the issues, schedule additional hearings, create Board subcommittees, etc. Final Draft Response:
-
R11Have you been discharged as a grand juror in any court of this state within one year of this date? Yes ____ No ____
-
R12Have you ever been convicted with any of the following? Malfeasance in Office: Yes ____ No ____ Felony: Yes ____ No ____ Misdemeanor: Yes ____ No ____ If you answered Yes to any of the above, please give details below: City/State of Offense: ______________________________________________ Date of Offense: __________________ Penalty: ______________________________ A misdemeanor conviction is not an automatic bar to acceptance of application. Each case is considered individually and confidentially.
-
R13Have you ever been suspended, disqualified or disbarred from any public office, profession, or professional organization? Yes ____ No ____
-
R14If selected as a grand juror, you will be required to swear or affirm the following. Have you any objections to taking such an oath or affirmation? Yes ____ No ____ “ I do solemnly sear (affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the State of California, and all laws made pursuant to and in conformity therewith, will diligently inquire into, and true presentment make, of all public offenses against the people of this state, committed or triable within this county, of which the Grand Jury shall have or can obtain legal evidence. Further, I will not disclose any evidence brought before the Grand Jury, nor anything which I or any other grand Juror may say, nor the manner in which I or any other grand juror may have voted on any matter before the Grand Jury. I will keep the charge that will be given to me by the court.” Grand Jury Application 12-17-04
-
R15Are you a citizen of the United States? Yes ____ No ____
-
R17Do you read and understand English? Yes ____ No ____
-
R18Will you have been a resident of the Count of El Dorado for one year prior to May 1, 2005? Yes ____ No ____
-
R19Are you aware that the Grand Jury is required to publish a final report of issues they have investigated? Yes ____ No ____
-
R20Are you willing to investigate and report on the operations, accounts, and records of the officers, departments or functions of the county or any incorporated city or joint powers agency located in the county? Yes ____ No ____
-
R21Will your employer release you to serve in the capacity as a fulltime grand juror for the entire period that the jury shall be in session? Yes ___ No ___ Not Applicable __
-
R22Why do you want to serve on the Grand Jury and what contributions would you hope to make as a member? _______________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________
-
R23Please outline your knowledge and understanding of the role and function of the Civil Grand Jury and the role and function of county government. ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________
-
R24Would you be interested in the position of Grand Jury Foreperson? Yes ____ No ____ If yes, why? ________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Grand Jury Application 12-17-04 I am in possession of all my natural faculties, of ordinary intelligence, of sound judgment and fair character. I declare under penalty of perjury that the above statements are true and correct. Executed on _________________ in _____________________________, California. Date City ________________________________________________ Signature Grand Jury Application 12-17-04 2004-2005 Grand Jury Final report End of Report 2004-2005 Grand Jury Lake Tahoe, El Dorado County
Commendations 1
-
CM1Under the current budgetary restraints that all school districts are facing we believe that the staff and teachers in the schools inspected are being remarkably resourceful in meeting their stated goals. The California School Recognition Program honored 192 public schools out of nearly 2,300 applicants from middle and high schools. Four (4) El Dorado County schools received the California Distinguished School Award. These four (4) county schools are: Golden Sierra High School, Sierra Ridge Middle School, Rolling Hills Middle School and Mountain Creek School. This highly coveted award is based in part on each school’s Academic Performance Index, its average yearly progress and on community involvement. It is an honor for these schools to receive this award and reflects highly on the entire El Dorado county educational community. 35 ADDENDUM Corral in Meadow 2004-2005 Grand Jury Final Report LETTER OF COMMENDATION As Foreman of the 2004-2005 El Dorado Civil Grand Jury it is my distinct honor to recognize individuals and organizations that are providing exceptional service to our community. This is by no means a complete list of those providing outstanding assistance to the community, but ones that came to our attention due to our mission as a grand jury. This list is not in any particular order. To the General Counsel of the El Dorado Irrigation District, Tom Cumpston, for providing exceptional and thorough documentation and analysis. He was always responsive to our needs. To Sheriff Jeff Neves and his staff, especially to Correctional Lieutenant Pam Lane and Lieutenant Randy Peshon for assisting the grand jury with the requirements of touring the correctional facilities in the county. They were gracious hosts who took the time to ensure all questions were answered. To CommanderKen Caslerand Chief Kelly Keenan, their respective staff and the inmates of Growlersberg Conservation Camp who provide fire prevention and fire suppression service throughout El Dorado and surrounding counties. These services save El Dorado County alone over $200,000 annually. To the employees of the county’s Information Technologies Department who gave their service and assistance to the grand jury in an immediate manner. To Auditor-Controller Joe Harn for availing his services and especially to Analyst Hillary Coyne for her service to the grand jury. She always worked to resolve our issues correctly, reimbursed the members of the panel for expenses incurred and expedited our requests. To Sharon Burch Colombini, Coordinator of Mental Health Day Treatment Center, creates a welcoming atmosphere for visitors and patrons of the facility. Both Sharon and her staff demonstrate a desire to do their best assisting those who seek help. We applaud their efforts and encourage them to continue their good work. To County Counsel Lou Green and his chief assistant, Ed Knapp, who always responded promptly to our inquiries. Upon each visit to their offices they spoke to us in a professional yet personable manner. Their guidance and reassurance made our responsibility that much easier to complete. To District Attorney Gary Lacy and his chief assistant, Sean O’Brien, for their assistance and representation on issues raised during several investigations. Their guidance and support proved invaluable. To Chief Administrative Officer Laura Gill who gave continuing support and prompt service to the grand jury. She made herself available each time we asked. 37 2004-2005 Grand Jury Final Report 38 2004-2005 Grand Jury Final Report Animal Control Division Reason for the Report The 2004/2005 Grand Jury received a complaint from a citizen regarding her belief that she was treated unfairly by the Animal Control Division. Scope of the Investigation People interviewed Director, Public Health Department Chief Animal Control Officer Complainant Citizens that adopted complainant’s horses Documents reviewed Animal control Policies and Procedures Manual Crime report for the incident Veterinary report Declaration of (previous Chief Animal Control Officer) in Superior Court Case P02CRM0653 Copy of P.C. 597.1 (post seizure hearing) forms served on the complainant Copy of letter to complainant regarding Hearing Officer’s decision (also established an initial billing of $2,873.05, payable within 15 days, in order for the complainant to retain ownership of the horses). Copies of advertisements in the Mountain Democrat soliciting bids for horses Copies of bid forms for the horses Copies of animal adoption receipts (contracts) Copies of Superior Court minute order (jury decision in complainant’s criminal case) Copies of the Motion for Return (of complainants’ horses) and the Courts Ruling