MountainQ uarryB ridge GnaNDJ uny

Recommendations 6

• R1
  59 LIST OF RESPONDENTS RESPONDENT REPORT PAGE Board of the Ackerman Elementary School District Survey of Placer County Charter Schools 43 Board of the Auburn Union School District Survey of Placer County Charter Schools 43 Board of the Newcastle Elementary School District Survey of Placer County Charter Schools 43 Board of the Rocklin Unified School District Survey of Placer County Charter Schools 43 Community Development Resources Agency Findings from Investigation of the Building Department 17 Placer County Animal Control Department Turtlegate and Microchips 27 Placer County Board of Supervisors Tahoe Justice Center 39 Placer County Building Department Chief Findings from Investigation of the Building Department 17 Placer County Counsel Placer County Main Jail 9 Placer County Director of Adult System of Care Review of Placer County Adult Residential Facilities 33 Placer County Director of Health & Human Services Commendable Progress at Public Guardian’s Office 21 Turtlegate and Microchips 27 Review of Placer County Adult Residential Facilities 33 Placer County Director of Personnel Review of Placer County Adult Residential Facilities 33 Placer County Executive Officer Placer County Main Jail 9
• R2
  ADVANCE RELEASE OF GRAND JURY REPORT DISCLOSURE PROHIBITED PRIOR TO PUBLIC RELEASE Two working days prior to release of the Final Report, the Grand Jury will provide a copy of the portion of the report to all affected agencies or persons. No officer, agency, department, or governing body of a public agency shall disclose the contents of the report prior to its release. TIME TO RESPOND, WHERE AND TO WHOM TO RESPOND Section 933.(c), Penal Code, depending on the type of Respondent, provides for two different response times and to whom you must respond: 1. Public Agency: The governing body of any public agency must respond within ninety (90) days. The response must be addressed to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. 2. Elective Office or Agency Head: All elected officers or heads of agencies who are required to respond must do so within sixty (60) days, to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court, with an information copy provided to the Board of Supervisors. The Presiding Judge of the Placer County Superior Court system is: The Honorable Frances Kearney Presiding Judge of the Superior Court County of Placer 11546 B Avenue Auburn, CA 95603 Also, please send your responses in the form of an original hard copy as well as digital copy on compact disk to the Placer County Grand Jury, addressed as follows: C Avenue Auburn, CA 95603 CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE SECTION 933.05 a. For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each Grand Jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following:
• R3
  Placer County Executive Officer: Finding 2c; Recommendation 2. This page intentionally left blank. TURTLEGATE and MICROCHIPS PLACER COUNTY ANIMAL CONTROL DEPARTMENT SUMMARY: The Placer County Grand Jury investigated two complaints against the Placer County Animal Control Department (PCACD). The first complaint concerned the actions of an employee who failed to use good judgment in his duties as an officer of the PCACD. This case involved the capture, theft, and subsequent return of a one hundred pound pet turtle. The evidence revealed the employee failed to follow department policy and procedures and was involved in other unlawful acts. These ultimately resulted in his termination. In our report, we refer to this investigation as “Turtlegate”. The second investigation involved a disagreement concerning the use of donated funds. The funds had been donated for the specific purpose of providing microchip identification of animals, but the department was considering using the funds for other purposes. The department subsequently agreed to reverse its position, so the funds were used in the way the donors intended, for microchipping animals placed for adoption. In our report, we refer to this investigation as “Microchips”. The Grand Jury’s investigations have resulted in a specific set of recommendations to to the PCACD for improvements in its practices and policies concerning control of firearms, training for their use, and for the receipt and processing of donations. METHODOLOGY: These complaints were received by the Grand Jury, and we verified that the actions took place within the jurisdiction of the county. We conducted interviews and gathered all available information to establish a comprehensive understanding of the complaints. In our investigation of the lost and found turtle, the Grand Jury took the following actions: • Interviewed the interim manager of the Placer County Animal Control Department. • Interviewed the lawyer from the County Legal Department who was assigned to investigate the accusations listed in the complaint. • Received and reviewed the report issued by the county counsel. • Contacted the Placer County Sheriff’s office to discuss the charges made by the complainant with the investigating detective. • Requested and received a copy of the detective’s investigation and arrest reports. In our second investigation, dealing with the donated money not assigned to the intended microchipping, the Grand Jury took the following actions: • Interviewed the interim manager of the Animal Control Department and the assistant director from the Department of Health who oversees the department. • Interviewed the complainant to better understand the background of the private animal protection group and their fund raising activities. • Interviewed an associate of the complainant who assisted in the writing of the complaint. • Thoroughly reviewed all attachments to the complaint. NARRATIVE/FACTS: Investigations into these two complaints revealed that personnel had failed to use good judgment in carrying out duties, and as a result, public trust was damaged. The PCACD is the responsible agency for the control, housing, health and adoption of stray animals within Placer County. Outside assistance from private groups such as the Placer Animal Coalition alliance and SPCA assist in various activities with these animals. In Placer County, the SPCA is very active in providing an animal shelter in the Roseville area. All cities within the county have a responsibility to provide for the management and control of domestic animals either through staff assigned to City Police Departments, by city law enforcement officers or by contract with the PCACD. Private groups are very supportive in the health and care of lost or abandoned domestic animals. There are a number of state laws and county/city ordinances that specify the handling, health care and general care of animals while in the control of the County and voluntary groups. Turtlegate The first complaint involved the loss of a one hundred pound pet turtle. The lost pet was found by a Placer County Animal control officer who took the pet to his home with the stated intent of adopting it as his own. This was done without supervisor approval or the completion of required documentation. The pet owner persisted in looking for the turtle, and this alerted the animal control officer. He contacted the legal pet owner and demanded money (five hundred and ninety nine dollars) for return of the pet. Following the filing of the complaint and subsequent investigation by the Placer County Sheriff Department and the PCACD, the employee was relieved of duty and subsequently terminated. During this investigation a potentially serious matter was reported by the complainant. The Animal Control Officer had placed his sidearm on a table and this caused the complainant to be concerned and intimidated. The Grand Jury reviewed this with other agencies involved in animal control to assess the wisdom of allowing sidearms to be carried by animal control officers. The agencies’ responses indicated that the preferred policy is to keep firearms in the animal control vehicles. This was discussed with the new interim manager. We are pleased to report that the new interim manager had already started action to remove sidearms and place long guns in a locked compartment within the animal control vehicles. One additional issue was found in the interviews involving the firearms training of animal control staff. The California Penal Code requires that field staff that handle fire arms be trained in accordance with Penal Code Section 832. Our 28 investigation revealed that this had not occurred with the Placer County Animal Control field staff. Thus, in the Grand Jury’s Turtlegate investigation, the facts are as follows: • There was sufficient evidence uncovered by the Placer County Animal Control Manager and the Placer Sheriffs Department to justify the termination of the employee for cause. • The pet turtle was returned to the rightful owner and all monies taken under fraudulent pretenses were returned to the complainant. Requiring that firearms be secured in the vehicles is a step in the right direction. Training of field staff to include Penal Code Section 832 Qualification has not occurred. Microchips The Microchips complaint arose when a nonprofit alliance group raised and donated funds for the explicit use of microchipping of animals prior to adoption. Microchipping of pets at the time of adoption is a permanent method of identification and has been used by a number of agencies for the last three to four years. Microchips have proven to be a successful means of increasing the return rate of lost pets. Historically dogs and cats that are adopted from shelters are disoriented in their new surroundings. Consequently, a large majority of recently adopted animals become lost in the first days or weeks following their adoption. As a result, animals with no information on them fail to get back to their owners. A new temporary manager in PCACD made the decision not to honor the special conditions placed on the donated funds. This was based on his opinion that there was no written agreement with the county, and, as a result, the donated funds were being redirected to other than the purpose intended by the donor. In investigating this complaint, we contacted both County Counsel (for its opinion regarding written versus verbal agreements) and the County Health Department, which is the controlling agency overseeing the PCACD. Our investigation revealed that: • There was a representative from Animal Control present at a fund raising activity. This, together with copies of e-mails from the alliance to animal control clearly indicated they had donated the funds for the sole propose of microchipping of adopted animals. • The response from the County Counsel was inconclusive. However, counsel believes that as a good faith gesture the verbal agreement should be honored. 29
• R4
  AUBURI{ AREA RECREATIOND ISTRICT IMMEDIATE /,S,SUE,S IT{TERIM REPORT PLACERC OUI{TY GRAND JURY 2005-2006 January 5o2 006 PL,A,.CE R C OUNTY GRAh{D JI.IRY (530) 889-7469 FAX (530)8 89-7447 MailingA ddress: 11 490C AvenueA, uburnC, A 95603 Januar5y, 2006 The 2005-2006P lacer County Grand Jury is issuing an Interim Reportr elatedt o the culrent situationa t the Auburn RecreationD istrict. This Interim Report is part of an ongoingi nvestigationo f Auburn RecreationD istrict by the Grand Jury. It is being issuedb ecauset he Grand Jury believess pecifica ctionss houldb e takeni mmediately. Sincerely, tu@ PaulR idgewayF, oreman 2005-2006P lacerC ountyG randJ ury Placer County Grand Jury IMMEDIATE ISSUES INTERIM REPORT Auburn Recreation District (ARD) SUMMARY: The District Administrator of the Auburn Recreation District (ARD) has presented the Board with a draft of a new employment contract. This contract was discussed by the Board at its closed session meetings in November and December without resolution. Earlier, in 2004, the District Administrator had filed claims against the Board alleging violations of his rights as an employee, and the status of those claims is a matter of debate. Some Board members believe that offering to abandon the prior claims is being used as leverage by the District Administrator to gain a new contract. All of this has received substantial publicity in the Auburn community including several articles in local newspapers. The Placer County Grand Jury, having monitored ARD for the past three years, has chosen to investigate this matter and to publish a formal Interim Report. Based on our investigation, we find that a new contract should not be considered at this time, and we recommend that the Board cease considering it. Further, we recommend that the Board and the District Administrator make every attempt to put their differences behind them in order to provide cohesive and effective leadership for the District. The Board should clearly state its rejection of prior claims by the District Administrator. We also recommend that all involved in closed session meetings adhere to their legal responsibilities under the Brown act. BACKGROUND: The Placer County Grand Jury has maintained cognizance of ARD for the past several years. Each year’s final report has included findings and recommendations regarding ARD. Although ARD has been generally responsive to Grand Jury recommendations, some problems persist as evidenced by the on-going negative attention given to ARD in the community and in local newspapers. The ARD Board and the District Administrator have continued to have difficulty conducting themselves as an effective team. Their divisiveness is apparent to anyone who attends an ARD monthly public meeting. By state law, the Grand Jury makes the results of its investigations known by the means of a Final Report published in June of each year and where circumstances demand, Interim Reports published at any time. All reports are structured in the form of facts derived from investigation, findings based on those facts and related experience, and recommendations made to appropriate public officials. Each report identifies respondents who, by law, must respond in writing indicating agreement, disagreement, and resulting actions. This is an Interim Report whose necessity is dictated by the unresolved discussion by the ARD Board of a proposed new contract for its District Administrator. This item has been under discussion at ARD Board closed session meetings for the past three months. It has Placer County Grand Jury become an increasingly contentious matter among Board members and has led to strong negative comments concerning ARD in the local press. The matter is clearly detrimental to the effective functioning of the ARD. Thus, the Grand Jury has chosen to prepare an Interim Report. Our facts, findings, and recommendations are reported below. METHODOLOGY: The 2005-2006 Grand Jury is continuing to monitor ARD and anticipates that a new set of overall findings and recommendations will be made in this year’s final report. Toward that end, members of the Grand Jury attend every public Board meeting. Each meeting agenda and report is read and discussed. The Grand Jury has conducted interviews with the Board and others using carefully prepared sets of questions. NARRATIVE/FACTS: The facts related to the consideration of a new contract for the ARD District Administrator are presented in three sections: A: Facts Preceding the Presentation of the Proposed Contract to the ARD Board; B; Facts Regarding the Content of the Proposed Contract; and C: Facts Following the Presentation of the Proposed Contract to the ARD Board. A. FACTS PRECEDING THE PRESENTATION OF THE PROPOSED CONTRACT TO THE ARD BOARD Following are facts that occurred before the presentation of the proposed contract to the ARD Board. The source of these facts are previous Grand Jury Reports concerning ARD, observations of Grand Jury members from attending ARD public board meetings, and Grand Jury interviews of ARD board members and the district administrator. 1. The District Administrator currently serves under a contract, which expires in 2008. 2. He filed two complaints against the ARD board in 2004. These complaints alleged violations of his rights as an employee. They named both the board as a whole and Directors Holbrook and Kirby as individuals. 3. Under normal legal process, the Board had a specified period of time to respond to these complaints. If rejected, then the District Administrator had a specified period of time to press his claims through the courts. If suit was not filed before the end of that period of time, then under law his right to sue expires. 4. The ARD Board’s response to the claims was not precise. That has created a situation in which both the board and the District Administrator are uncertain of his right to sue. He maintains that his right remains open. Some board members hold that the claims were all rejected and his right to sue has expired. Others are uncertain. 5. Some present and past board members have admittedly favored termination of the District Administrator. This has created a situation Placer County Grand Jury of tension between the District Administrator and the Board that has been evident at every recent board session and by the testimony of all concerned to the Grand Jury. 6. The District Administrator has sought to resolve his situation by proposing and drafting a new contract. 7. The draft of a proposed new contract was distributed at the closed session of the November 2005 Board meeting. B. FACTS REGARDING THE CONTENT OF THE PROPOSED CONTRACT Following are facts concerning the content of the proposed contract. The source is a copy of the draft. a. The period of the contract is July 1, 2005 to October 31, 2013, a period of 8 years, 4 months. b. The initial salary is $89,758 with an annual cost of living increase of 2% (or by the amount of the percentage increase in the consumer price index for urban areas), plus a 5% - 10% annual merit increase. c. There is no provision for a cost of living decrease nor for an annual merit review of less than 5%. d. Thus, for example, if the annual cost of living were 2% and an annual merit increase of 7.5% were granted, the annual salary by year would be: July 1, 2005 - $89,758; July 1, 2006 - $98,285; July 1, 2007 - $107,622; July 1, 2008 - $117,846; July 1, 2009 - $129,041; July 1, 2010 - $141,299; July 1, 2011 - $154,723; July 1, 2012 - $169,422; July 1 thru -October 31, 2013 - $46,379. This amounts to an aggregate basic salary of $1,054,375 not including any fringe benefit costs. e. The proposed effective contract date would include retroactive compensation from the date of contract signing to July 1, 2005 – a period of at least seven months with a cash value of more than $50,000. f. The contract requires that ARD pay for medical, dental, vision, and short and long term disability for the District Administrator and his dependents, or at his option he could elect to be paid in cash for the annual costs of these benefits. In addition, $50,000 in life insurance benefit is specified. The grand jury has not attempted to estimate the annual and aggregate costs of these benefits, but they would be substantial. g. ARD is required to annually reimburse him for his employee contribution to PERS and in addition to match his contribution by a like amount into a tax deferred account. The grand jury has not attempted to estimate the annual and aggregate costs of these benefits, but they would be substantial. h. ARD is required to provide a district vehicle for his unlimited use within a 100-mile radius of the district and beyond 100 miles with notification to the Board. There is no provision for the board to limit use beyond 100 miles even when notified. i. ARD is required to reimburse him for all costs and expenses for him to attend any accredited college or university up to and including a master’s degree in a related field. Placer County Grand Jury j. There are additional provisions for reimbursement of expenses at professional meetings at local, state, or national levels and for membership expenses in service organizations. k. The initial paid vacation allowance is 18 days per year increasing to 25 days per year on February 1, 2008. An additional 12 days of paid discretionary leave days is granted. An additional 12 days of sick leave time is granted. In sum, these vacation, discretionary, and sick leave days total 49, or 9.8 workweeks after February 1, 2008. He may elect at any time to take cash in lieu of unused vacation or discretionary time. l. In the event of termination for by the Board or upon his 60 day written notice, the contract provides that “during the remaining time of this contract plus two years, the District Administrator will be paid at the same rate and benefits as provided by this contract. In other words, it is within the scope of the contract as written that he could give 60 days notice the day after the contract was signed and ARD would still be financially obligated to him until October 31, 2015 In summary, the contract specifies an ARD obligation to the District Administrator that would exceed $1.5 Million over a period of 10 years, 4 months. C. FACTS FOLLOWING THE PRESENTATION OF THE PROPOSED CONTRACT TO THE ARD BOARD Facts following in time from the presentation of the proposed contract to the board are listed below. The sources are interviews with all board members and the District Administrator, citizen complaints filed with the grand jury, and observations by grand jury members attending ARD board meetings. 1. The proposed contract has been an agenda item for the closed session of the monthly ARD meeting in both November and December. 2. No resolution of the matter has been made. 3. Board members are uncertain as to the positions on the new contract of other board members. 4. Some board members believe that the District Administrator is attempting to use the possibility of pursuing his claims in court and the naming of individual board members as plaintiffs as leverage to gain approval of a new contract. 5. The tension surrounding this matter has materially affected the Board’s ability to function as a cohesive group. 6. Details of the proposed contract have appeared in the local press suggesting the possibility that one or more closed session attendees have violated the Brown Act provisions regarding public disclosure of closed session content. 7. Two board members took the extraordinary step of addressing the board as members of the public during the public comments agenda item of the December Board meeting. Some board members have filed complaints with the Grand Jury concerning issues involving the proposed contract. Placer County Grand Jury FINDINGS: Based on the facts presented above, the 2005-2006 Placer County Grand Jury makes the following findings with respect to the matter of a proposed new contract for the District Administrator and the ensuing public discussion. 1. This year’s Grand Jury believes that there is no circumstance in which it is advisable to allow an employee to draft his or her own employment contract and under no circumstances should such a draft be considered as a basis for contract discussion or negotiation. 2. We find that there is no logic which would permit an employee’s legal complaints to be any basis whatsoever for considering a new contract. The two matters must be maintained as separate and distinct. 3. The proposed contract extends far beyond the term of any current board member. It would be poor practice to award a new contract that obligates future boards when it is impossible to understand if that action will cause great harm to the budget process of those future boards. The uncertainty of future income and the uncertainty as to the need in the future for ARD to have an executive director are unknown at this time. 4. Considering that the District Administrator is currently under a contract not expiring until 2008, there is no apparent need to consider an extension or modification at this time, especially considering the tenuous relationship between the District Administrator and the Board. 5. The draft contract presented by the District Administrator requests compensation far beyond the value of the position. 6. The termination provisions are almost certainly illegal under state law in exceeding the maximum allowable 18-month severance compensation. 7. Continuing consideration of this matter in ARD Board closed session meetings has been divisive and an impediment to the Board’s effective direction of ARD. 8. There is a likelihood that the content of closed session meetings of the ARD Board regarding the proposed contract has been disclosed to local newspapers either by one or more meeting attendees or through intermediaries. Such disclosures, if they in fact occurred, are a violation of the Brown Act, Section 54963, and are subject to legal remedies. Placer County Grand Jury RECOMMENDATIONS: As noted previously, the Grand Jury anticipates that it will continue to investigate ARD and to report its overall findings and recommendations. This report addresses only the immediate questions of considering a new contract for the District Administrator and the public disclosure of the proposed terms. Thus, the Grand Jury makes the following recommendations at this time 1. All discussion and consideration of a new contract for the District Administrator should cease. 2. The Board should document and state clearly in writing to the District Administrator that it has rejected all of his claims. If he then chooses to resign or to pursue the matter by other legal means, that is his decision. 3. The Grand Jury urges all board members and the District Administrator to put personal agendas and differences behind them and to make a conscientious and sincere attempt to begin to work together as an effective team. Anyone who cannot with clear conscience adhere to this recommendation and act accordingly should resign in the best overall interest of ARD. The Grand Jury reminds all participants in closed session meetings of the ARD Board that the proper avenues under the law for strong disagreement with meeting content are the Grand Jury and the District Attorney. We offer no sympathy to anyone who has chosen, out of disagreement with other members of the board or the District Administrator, to violate the law governing the conduct of elected boards. Such actions run the risk of further diminishing ARD’s reputation and of subjecting ARD and individual members to liability.
• R5
  The then acting PCACD manager failed to use good judgment in dealing with the funds donated by the voluntary animal alliance group.
• R7
  This has been resolved and the donated funds are now identified for the sole purpose of animal identification using microchips. The 2005-2006 Grand Jury believes that special recognition should be given to private nonprofit organizations that do an outstanding job in animal protection and adoption within Placer County. RECOMMENDATIONS: The Grand Jury recommends that the following actions be taken by the Placer Animal Control Department: