Grand Jury Report 2003-2004

Additional Recommendations 2

These recommendations are not explicitly linked to specific findings.

• R15-17
  41 4 19, 20 & >21 29 7 The departments with the delinquent evaluations are Assessor, Auditor, County Counsel, District Attorney, Mental Health, Probation, and Information Technologies. 8. HR tracks all employees to verify that each employee has received all raises he/she is entitled to and that the evaluation necessary to support the raise has been forwarded to HR. The evaluation is not official until it is on file in HR. 9. The HR computer system does not pick up due dates for evaluations. The HR Department does not have computer software to track personnel, therefore tracking must be performed manually. Recommendations: The Grand Jury recommends that: 1. The CAO and the BOS agree on a monthly schedule for conducting annual performance reviews of all department heads. This would average three evaluations every two months. At that review the department head would document the currency of the performance reviews of employees in their department. 2. The prior CAO, currently on retainer, could assist the present CAO in bringing performance evaluations up to date. 3. There have been various memos, letters of direction and procedures generated over the last four years that are not reflected in the "Personnel Rules." The "Personnel Rules" should be reviewed and updated annually. 4. The HR department should obtain software that will facilitate its operations. Plumas Unified School District Function Plumas Unified School District's (PUSD) mission is to provide a quality education for all students in a supportive environment. The interscholastic program is an extension and integral part of the total physical education program of the district. Background An important part of the PUSD program is the interschool athletics program. In a rural county like Plumas County the athletics program requires travel over long distances to competitive events, and the transportation of the student athletes has been a concern, both to the school and to the parents. The Grand Jury was informed that parents of Portola High School student athletes had chartered private buses for athletic events played in other venues. This resulted in a union grievance which the PUSD settled. A preliminary inquiry indicated sufficient substance to warrant further investigation. The Grand Jury interviewed the Superintendent of Schools of Plumas County; the Supervisor of Transportation; the Director of Personnel of Plumas County Schools; the Principal of Portola High School; and a basketball coach of Portola High School. Also interviewed was the parent who had arranged for the chartered buses. Findings 1. The PUSD notified each school administrator at the beginning of the school year that there would be a 75% cut in athletic funds. Portola High School elected to meet this requirement by eliminating funds for transportation to athletic events. 2. Parents of Portola basketball players, both boys and girls, were verbally informed that they would be responsible for transporting their student athletes to athletic events at other schools. 3. Student fundraisers and parent donations raised money for transportation to athletic events. 4. A coach deposited the funds in the Portola High Associated Student Body (ASB) account. 5. Once placed in an ASB account, the money was under the jurisdiction of the school district, not the parents. (Educational Code 48930 through 48936 governs the purposes and activities of the student body funds.) 6. On one occasion parents, following PUSD procedures, arranged to pay for a PUSD bus to transport the basketball team. However, at the last minute, parents were notified that no PUSD drivers were available. The parents transported the students in private vehicles. 7. The parents reasoned that chartered private buses would be more dependable. A parent paid for the charter buses with a personal credit card and was reimbursed from the ASB account. 8. The California State Employees Association Chapter 193 (CSEA) filed a grievance on behalf of the bus drivers, claiming that the trips should have been made in PUSD buses. Since they were not, the drivers did not receive overtime pay they would otherwise have earned. The CSEA 193 contract states that work traditionally performed by classified (uncredentialed) employees must continue to be performed by classified employees. 9. The PUSD settled the grievance and awarded the bus drivers a total of approximately $1,500. The bus drivers' grievance resolution was paid out of the Portola High School ASB account. The PUSD has since reimbursed the Portola High School ASB account and the amount of the grievance settlement- will be deducted July 1, 2004 from the 2004- 2005 Portola High School athletic budget. 10. The Director of Personnel Services on March 3, 2004 issued a memo that reads, in part, "...no PUSD students are to be transported on a chartered bus unless CSEA 193 has agreed in writing to the chartering of such a bus." This memo was sent to all high school principals and athletic directors. Recommendations: The Grand Jury Recommends: 1. The- school district and the individual school principals provide clear guidance to the parents and other community groups to help make their support for the school programs effective and rewarding for both students and community. 2. All instructions regarding transportation of students to athletic events be conveyed in writing to parents identifying what is expected of them in transporting students, chartering buses or using school buses. 3. Students who participate in the management of ASB funds should be provided written guidelines on their responsibilities. 4. Parents should be given written instructions of the limitation on the ASB fund. 5. Teachers and coaches should be advised that their presence on any school bus trip, chartered or not, makes that trip a school sponsored affair. 6. The PUSD clarify the memo of March 3, 2004, regarding the authority for chartering buses. Commendations: The Grand Jury commends the Portola High School parents for making their decisions with good intentions. They were not aware of the technicalities of the ASB account or the provisions of the contract with CSEA Chapter 193. The Grand Jury commends the PUSD Superintendent, Mr. Chelloti, for his tenacity in finding funding solutions in a difficult financial environment with deteriorating budget revenues. The Grand Jury also commends the Principal of Portola High School, Mr. Lake, for his leadership and guidance through a difficult situation. Plumas County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (PCFC) Function Provide for control and disposition of storm, flood and other waters of the district; make water available for any present or future beneficial use or uses of lands or inhabitants within the district, including acquisition, storage and distribution for irrigation, domestic, fire protection, municipal, commercial, industrial, recreational and all other beneficial uses; develop and sell at wholesale hydroelectric energy to aid in financing water projects. Background Plumas County is recognized by the state of California as a County of Origin and therefore has water rights to specified amounts of water flowing from the county. That right would have been lost via an agreement (The Monterey Agreement (MA)) that was about to be finalized between State Water Project (SWP) contractors and the Department of Water Resources (DWR) approximately eight years ago. The PCFC (along with the other agencies) sued DWR and SWP. As a result of the litigation a resolution was reached, the Settlement Agreement (SA), whereby the DWR is required to make annual payments of $1 million to PCFC for four years. An additional $1 million dollars of payments for four additional years are authorized pending completion of a new Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and a successful defense of any legal challenge trying to invalidate the SA. The SA directs that: "3. Use of Funds. a. Funding of Watershed Programs. Plumas shall apply a majority of all funds received each year pursuant to Section IV(A) to Watershed Programs. b. Balance of Funds to General Purposes. Plumas may apply the balance of funds received each year to other district-related purposes, as determined by Plumas with due consideration for the needs of the Watershed Forum." In the SA, "Plumas" is defined as PCFC. The Watershed Forum (WF) is comprised of PCFC, DWR, and the SWP. The SA states, for the WF: 2. Purpose and Goals a. Generally. The Watershed Forum's purpose is to implement watershed management and restoration activities for the mutual benefit of Plumas and the SWP. Forum activities include design of, participation in, implementation of, and review of studies and demonstration projects related to watershed restoration. b. Specific Goals. The specific focus of the Watershed Forum's activities is to implement programs designed to achieve the following benefits: (1) Improved retention (storage) of water for augmented baseflow in streams; (2) Improved water quality (specifically, reduced sedimentation), and stream bank protection; (3) Improved upland vegetative management; and (4) Improved groundwater retention/storage in major aquifers." The Grand Jury noted the contentiousness of the July 28, 2003 meeting of the Plumas Watershed Forum. There was disagreement over how the funds should be spent. The Grand Jury therefore decided to investigate how the funds of the SA were going to be dispersed and what direction was provided by the settlement. The Grand Jury interviewed the members of the Board of Supervisors (BOS), past members of the BOS, Director of Public Works, Director of Planning/Building Services, the former County Counsel, County Auditor, Plumas County's litigation counsel, members of the WF Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), and personnel previously employed by Plumas Corporation. Findings 1. Some approved expenditures of the initial installment have not been consistent with stated goals of the SA. Projects not aligned with the goals of the SA have included $10,000 for increasing the capacity of a well owned by the Grizzly Lake Resort Improvement District, $115,000 to the PCFC for the 2003-2004 budget expenditures, $452,000 to repay the general fund for loans to the PCFC for expenditures that had accumulated for several years (These expenditures are being reviewed by DWR). 2. Plumas County has a building permit moratorium in the Sierra Valley. This moratorium can be lifted only after the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) determines that an adequate Sierra Valley flood plain map has been developed. 3. The PCFC has recommended approximately $500,000 be allocated to a Sierra Valley flood plain study to develop a flood plain map of the county's portion of the valley. 4. Some approved expenditures are consistent with the goals of the SA. They include $75,000 for a vegetative management project contracted through Plumas Corporation and approximately $28,000 to develop a strategy document (Feather River Watershed Management Strategy) for using the SA funds. Recommendations The Grand Jury recommends: 1. The BOS/PCFC avoid the temptation to use the SA funds for projects or activities that offer short fixes but are not consistent with the stated goals. The BOS/PCFC has a unique opportunity to show it can be a responsible steward of these watershed improvement funds. To the extent funds are expended for watershed restoration the more likely business and citizens of Plumas County will receive an environmental and economic benefit. 2. The Sierra Valley flood plain study should not be funded with SA money because it is not in compliance with the goals of that agreement. 3. The BOS/PCFC should utilize the Feather River Watershed Management Strategy as a guide to prioritize and fund projects. 4. The BOS/PCFC seek opportunities to leverage these funds through partnerships with public agencies and private landowners, thereby increasing the benefit to Plumas County. 5. Appropriate use of the SA funds can demonstrate to the SWP that it is economically sound policy to fund additional programs beyond those authorized by the WF. PLUMAS COUNTY JAIL Function To confine Plumas County prisoners who are awaiting arraignment, trial or serving sentences.
• R98-99
  Fire X X Ag. Commissioner Engineering Environmental Health Housing and Community Development Local Agency Formation Commission Planning X Public Works 95-96, 97-98, X