📋
Extraído del Informe Consolidado
Esta investigación fue publicada originalmente como parte de un informe consolidado más amplio que contiene múltiples investigaciones. Consulte el PDF consolidado para ver el documento completo.
Shasta County Grand Jury
• 2005-2006
Burney Fire Protection District More smoke Burney Fire Protection District
⚠️ Aviso de traducción: Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings 6 findings
F1
Page 25
On June 6, 2005, a petition in support of the Referendum Against An Ordinance passed by the Burney Fire Board, containing 271 signatures (123 required) was submitted to the BFPD board. The petition asked the Board to repeal its ordinance to increase fees for BFPD services. California Elections Code sections 9145 and 9350 require the governing boards of districts to either repeal the ordinance against which a petition was filed, or submit it to the voters. Rather than do either, the BFPD Board forwarded the petition to an attorney recommended by the District’s Chief. The attorney declared the petition to be “fatally flawed,” and on the attorney’s advice, the Board did not submit the petition to the Registrar of Voters for inclusion on the ballot. This appears to be a violation of California Elections Code section 9145.
F2
Page 25
An alleyway separates the BFPD Fire Department building from a commercial building and a house behind it. BFPD has its own parking lot; however, when responding to emergency calls for service, firefighters often park their cars in the alleyway, blocking it. Additionally, a padlocked vehicle belonging to the district obstructed the rear portion of the alleyway, thus denying the neighbor access to his building. According to one of the complainants, the Fire Chief told the adjacent building owner that BFPD held title to the alleyway. The Grand Jury learned that the alleyway is actually an easement for the California Department of 9 25 Transportation. The Shasta County Sheriff’s Office branch in Burney ordered the Fire Department to remove the padlocked vehicle.
F3
Page 26
Several complainants notified the Grand Jury that the District Board may have violated the Brown Act (government codes sections 54950-54962), which governs meetings conducted by local legislative bodies, on two occasions. First, upon the recommendation of the Fire Chief, the BFPD Board hired an outside attorney to evaluate the referendum petition. Neither the BFPD meeting agendas nor its minutes speak to the hiring, cost, or outcome of the attorney’s legal analysis, or whether the Board took formal action to accept or reject the petition. In spite of two requests, the district did not supply the Grand Jury with documentation of their relationship with the outside attorney. Second, the BFPD Board amended the Fire Chief’s contract in closed session. The Brown Act requires that action taken in a closed session to appoint or employ an individual must be reported in the next open session immediately following the closed session. Any amendment to the Chief’s contract should have been presented during an open session of a District’s Board. However, the Grand Jury did find documentation of the Fire Chief’s contract changes in the minutes of the meeting of June 28, 2005. The report of the closed session stated that any amendment or termination of the Fire Chief’s contract require a 4/5 (80%) vote, instead of a simple majority. This recommendation was approved by the Board. Therefore, the Grand Jury determines that there was not violation of the Brown Act in connection with the changes made to the Chief’s contract..
F4
Page 26
Grand Jury interviews with City of Redding firefighters (many with CDF experience) consistently demonstrate a negative regard for the BFPD Fire Chief’s fire management decision-making, management style, and personality. Citizen complaints to the Grand Jury 10 26 during the past two years also criticize the Chief, describing him as “abrasive,” “controlling” and “bullying.” However, two BFPD Board members stated that despite some written negative comments received during the Chief’s application, they have been satisfied with his leadership of the Fire Department. They acknowledge his abrasive management style, but claim that style was “just what the department was lacking in the past.”
F5
Page 46
A review of the District’s credit card usage revealed: • Not all vehicle fuel purchases are thoroughly documented on receipts. • Not all expenditures are thoroughly documented on receipts. 46
F6
Page 47
CCSD has adopted a Code of Safe Practices and an Injury/Illness Prevention Program and appears to adhere to all of its requirements.
Recommendations 6
-
R1Page 26The total FY 2005/2006 budget for the Crystal Creek Regional Boy’s Camp is $1.7 million of which $1.2 million is allocated to salaries and benefits
-
R2Page 26The average cost per cadet at the camp is $2,280 per month compared to foster home care cost of $4,800 to $6,300 per month.
-
R3Page 23All miscellaneous expenditures should be documented, noting the purpose of each expenditure. Copies of receipts should be included with the claim. RESPONSES REQUIRED: The CCSD Board of Directors must respond to Findings 1 through 6 and Recommendations 1 through 3 COMMENDATIONS: The Grand Jury commends the General Manager and members of the Board of Directors of CCSD for doing an exceptional job of managing the operation of the District. They provide and maintain outstanding water delivery service to their customers. The Grand Jury was impressed with the cooperation between the CCSD staff, the Board of Directors, and the District’s consumers. 47 48 49 50 51 Crystal Creek Regional Boy’s Camp Doing it Right Crystal Creek Regional Boys’ Camp P.O. Box 578 Shasta, Ca 96087 (530) 245.6685 REASON FOR INQUIRY: Section 919 of the California Penal Code requires the Grand Jury to inquire annually into the condition and management of all public prisons located within the County.
-
R4Page 26In 2005, the cadets performed 10,116 hours of community service work for public agencies throughout Shasta County.
-
R5Page 26The Grand Jury observed that the kitchen/dining hall, barracks, workshops and campgrounds were clean, and well maintained and organized. During a classroom tour, several cadets demonstrated their computer skills and briefed the Grand Jury about their classroom activities. The cadets have the opportunity of 54 obtaining their General Education Diploma. During the Grand Jury visit, the cadets were polite, courteous and considerate at all times.
-
R6Page 26It appears that the Camp Director and staff are committed, dedicated and loyal to the cadets and to the camp program. RECOMMENDATIONS: None RESPONSES REQUIRED: None 55