Riverside County Grand Jury
2013-2014
From the annual report
The consolidated year-end volume. The individual investigations it contains are listed separately below.
📑 Year-End Report
The full consolidated volume; individual reports are listed below.
Individual reports (10)
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
Sworn testimony from current and past CAP employees revealed that a conflict exists between some employees and CAP management, which creates a negative work environment and impairs productive work performance efforts. Employees were harassed over department policy issues that included: • Scheduled and unscheduled doctor appointments • Initial vacation requests and pre-approved vacation requests • A previously approved naming, of an internal countywide blood drive, was changed without coordination with affected staff • Adjusted work schedules to eliminate earned compensatory time Employees testified that these actions resulted in repeated management retaliation against some employees. Employees reported this caused unwarranted stress leading to headaches, stomach aches, insomnia, and other health related issues. The stress forced some employees to seek other opportunities within the County, retire early or suffer in a work environment that had become increasingly hostile, which prompted several employees to seek medical help. Most employees interviewed did not look forward to coming to work each day. Investigation found that this work environment prompted several employees to submit formal written complaints to Human Resources Employee Relations for help in resolving these conditions. Employee complaints to Riverside County Human Resources (Human Resources) referenced Riverside County Board of Supervisors’ Policy (Board Policy) C-25, Harassment Policy and Complaint Procedure, by management personnel. Investigations by Human Resources personnel did not support or substantiate employee complaints because these complaints did not fall within the definitions of Board Policy C-25. Board Policy C-25 states: Alleged illegal discrimination based on race, color, national origin, ancestry, religion, sex (including sexual orientation), age, physical disability (including HIV and AIDS), mental disability, medical condition, marital status or pregnancy, or denial of the provision of the federal Family & Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA) or the California Family Rights Act of 1991 (CRFA). Sworn testimony indicated that rarely are words of appreciation and encouragement given to employees to create a positive work environment. The Grand Jury concluded from testimony and evidence that management lacked appropriate training and adequate managerial skills to handle routine work issues in a manner that is educational instead of confrontational. The focus of the Disciplinary Process Manual, reference Chapter 4 Create a Good Working Environment, reflects correct guidelines for the supervision of employees, thus minimizing the need for future disciplinary actions. A sample of these guidelines includes: • Set a good example • Apply policies consistently • Deal objectively with each offense or situation • Be aware of representation rights of employees • Make your expectations clear • Clearly communicate work rules to employees Sworn testimony indicated that these guidelines were largely ignored by CAP executive management as follows: • Employees were treated in a condescending accusatory manner without being afforded proper respect • Employees were subjected to negative management criticism, finger pointing and eye rolling • Management used email to communicate minor infractions and/or issues rather than discussing issues directly with employees • Employees were threatened with job loss • Executive management suggested employees were intentionally making mistakes 3 Employee Evaluations
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
CAP executive management shall comply with the guidelines of the Disciplinary Process Manual. CAP executive management shall immediately implement the precepts of these processes, and treat employees with professionalism and respect. Employee Evaluations
F2:
CAP management failed to conduct annual written performance evaluations in accordance with Board Policy C-21 (2), which states: Agency/department managers shall prepare, or cause to be prepared, a written, confidential evaluation of the performance of each regular employee assigned to their management responsibility. Evaluations shall be in a form prescribed by the agency/department, as reviewed by Human Resources, but shall comply with the principles encompassed in this policy. Sworn testimony indicated that it has been three years since some employees had a performance evaluation. Board Policy C-21 (3, b) states: The frequency of evaluations prescribed by this Policy shall be as follows: (b) All…regular employees of Riverside County shall be evaluated on an annual basis, approximately on the anniversary of promotion or entry into their current job classification. Training
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
In accordance with Board Policy C-21 (3, b) (5, d), CAP management shall evaluate on an annual basis regular employees; i.e., any employee who has successfully completed their probation period. Anytime they give an employee an overall rating of “unacceptable” or “improvement needed,” they shall notify Human Resources and seek its review and support of the evaluation. Training
F3:
CAP management, in conjunction with Human Resources, failed to provide mandatory training for managers and supervisors. Board Policy C-23(1), Disciplinary Process Policy states: Agency/department heads, managers, and supervisors shall attend a disciplinary process training program administered by Human Resources prior to or within 90 days of appointment. Training records provided by CAP management demonstrated that Disciplinary Process Manual mandatory training for supervisors and managers was not performed. Sworn testimony from supervising personnel revealed that no “disciplinary process policy” training was provided. Staff Meetings
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
CAP executive directors, managers and supervisors shall receive mandatory training on the Disciplinary Process Manual by Human Resources within 90 days of appointment. Formal Disciplinary Process Manual training shall be done annually to ensure that a positive work environment is cultivated. Staff Meetings
F4:
Sworn testimony from current and past employees revealed that CAP management did not conduct regular staff meetings to provide staff with CAP updates and/or policy and procedure changes. Financial Reports
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
CAP management shall conduct regular monthly staff meetings. Attendance and topics discussed shall be documented. Records of agendas and sign-in sheets shall be retained for 5 years as stated in the Disciplinary Process Manual on of Chapter 4, under Staff Meeting. Financial Reports
F5:
Evidence obtained by the Grand Jury concluded that grant income and expenditures listed on financial reports did not include income and expenditures from the County of Riverside as a separate line item. County funds were accounted for by general categories. The Grand Jury was informed that the Riverside County Auditor-Controller had only minor involvement in CAP financial activities.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
County funds shall be separated from other sources of income on CAP financial statements and placed in a separate account. Report Issued: 05/13/2014 Report Public: 05/15/2014 Response Due: 07/14/2014 6
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
After a review of the current policies and procedures the Grand Jury finds that the Public Guardian does not have a policy regarding the maximum number of clients served per Public Guardian Deputy. Documentation provided by the Public Guardian department revealed that current caseloads varied from fifty-nine (59) to one hundred ninety six (196) per Public Guardian Deputy. Sworn testimony obtained from interviewees indicates that caseloads to be reduced so that each patients needs can be managed more efficiently. Public Guardian management needs to make this assessment.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Public Guardian management shall develop a policy that will incorporate an acceptable range of caseloads per Public Guardian Deputy that can be handled expeditiously and efficiently. Caseloads shall be monitored by program supervisors.
F2:
Upon reviewing the policies and procedures of the Public Guardian, the Grand Jury found that the policies and procedures manual have not been updated since 1988. The policy and procedure manual does not contain an index, which would facilitate locating policy topics. In accordance with Policy #407, a review is to be done annually. The Public Guardian does not follow their internal procedure. The laws and programs have changed, which include probate and penal codes.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Public Guardian Program Manager shall review and update their policy and procedure manual to reflect current practices and prepare an index.
F3:
Sworn testimony indicated that caseloads are unmanageable. It was revealed that there were tasks that additional clerical personnel could do that would free up the Public Guardian Deputies. Public Guardian Deputies stated that they must prioritize tasks, according to importance, and that consequently some tasks are left undone or delayed.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Public Guardian shall hire additional clerical staff to do tasks that would free up Public Guardian Deputy Caseworkers.
F4:
Testimony revealed that equipment such as ergonomic furniture, headphones, computers, software, and printers are outdated or inoperative for long periods of time.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The Public Guardian shall research software programs, used by like organizations that will help save time and facilitate efficiency of case management. Equipment such as scanners, printers, headphones, and ergonomic furniture shall be evaluated for effectiveness and efficiency, and upgraded as required.
F5:
According to Public Guardian management, the economic recession required a freeze on hiring but that has recently been suspended and additional staff are being hired to bring the Public Guardian staffing up to authorized levels. Sworn testimony from Public Guardian Deputies indicated that when caseloads exceed sixty (60) patients the quality of service is compromised. Additional testimony revealed that when Public Guardian Deputies complain about the loss of quality of services due to large caseloads, they are told, by supervisors to “do as much as you can.” 3
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The Public Guardian shall continue to pursue supplemental funding to hire and train additional Public Guardian Deputies in order to reduce caseloads and improve overall quality of services.
F6:
The Riverside County Public Guardian does not have a policy requiring staff meetings. At the time of this report sworn testimony indicated that there has not been a regular scheduled staff meeting with the Program Manager LPS/Probate staff since April 2013.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
The Public Guardian shall write a policy requiring monthly staff meetings to inform staff of the developments within the Public Guardian programs. The program manager shall resolve issues and concerns affecting personnel that are addressed in staff meetings. Report Issued: 12/18/2013 Report Public: 12/20/2013 Response Due: 03/18/2014 4
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
Sworn testimony revealed that a member of the Blythe City Council, in preparation for a Blythe Chamber of Commerce sponsored music festival, directed a foreman of the Public Works Department (PWD) and his crew to begin grading a city park on May 14, 2013, without first obtaining approval from the city manager. A week later, on May 21, 2013, this same city councilman directed the same PWD foreman to perform additional grading duties on County property adjacent to this city park. Further testimony revealed that the PWD foreman declined to do work on County land without direction from his PWD supervisor. The PWD supervisor advised the city councilman to obtain approval from the city manager. The city councilman subsequently contacted the city manager for approval. Testimony confirmed that the councilman was told by the city manager that since the secondary property he inquired about was on 1 County property, no work could be done by city employees without County approval. The councilman then contacted a Riverside County Board of Supervisor’s office and obtained approval to grade the property. The councilman informed the city manager that the County approved the city’s use of the land, but would not provide any resources to grade the property. The city manager then authorized the grading on the County property by PWD staff. The city manager operates under the budget approved by the City Council. Blythe Municipal Code (Ord. 356 §7(o), 1967) states as follows: 2.04.220 Powers and duties--Council-manager relations. The city council and its members shall deal with the administrative services of the city only through the city manager, except for the purpose of inquiry, and neither the city council nor any member thereof shall give orders to any subordinates of the city manager. The city manager shall take his orders and instructions from the city council only when sitting in a duly held meeting of the city council and no individual councilman shall give any orders or instructions to the city manager. Blythe Municipal Code (Ord. 356 §7(b), 1967) states: 2.04.090 Powers and duties—Authority over employees. It shall be the duty of the city manager, and he shall have the authority, control, order and give directions to all heads of departments and to subordinate officers and employees of the city under his jurisdiction through their department heads. Currently the League of California Cities provides annual training to local elected officials. The program provides the state mandated AB1234 Ethics course and is the first of three stages for leadership levels for these elected officials including a review of government codes. This training was made available to newly elected city council members. However, one council member chose not to attend the training. The City Attorney provided the mandated ethics training to this city councilman.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Blythe City Council shall ensure that each newly-elected city council member is provided formal training regarding policies and procedures on communication between council members and city employees. Emphasis should be made that use of city employees and city resources without approval from the city manager is prohibited. Additionally, the Blythe City Council shall annually provide a refresher course to all city council members on proper policies and procedures required to function as a city council member and dealing with other city government departments.
F2:
The Blythe City Council, at its February 26, 2013, meeting, voted to approve a donation of $6,350 of the city’s promotional budget to be given to the Blythe Chamber of Commerce (Chamber). This money was to be used to pay for the bands that would perform for the second annual Blythe “Blues Fest” at Quechan Marina and Park (Park). The expenses for this event included $4,700 for the bands. The City’s donation was also used 2 to cover the bands’ other expenses for staging, generators and payments to vendors. Evidence provided indicated that the over $21,000 generated total income included the City’s donation. In addition to the City’s contribution, the Chamber sold sponsorships, refreshments and souvenirs. The total expenses incurred by the Chamber for this event was $17,560. At the conclusion of the event, the Chamber netted $4,032 and subsequently presented the City with a donation of $2,275 to be used for the Blythe Recreation Center. Evidence obtained by the Grand Jury indicated that the PWD began work on the Park on May 14, 2013, and finished May 24, 2013. Sworn testimony indicated that the city manager first became aware of work on the park May 21, 2013. On May 21, 2013, the city manager estimated the total cost of the work to be $4,000, and approved the completion of the job. However, the City incurred approximately $16,500 in expenses to prepare the Park for the event, instead of $4,000 originally estimated by the city manager during the preparation of the Park for the event. The City was not compensated by the Chamber for the $16,500 to prepare the park for the event. The City Council did not approve additional promotional funds for the Chamber’s allocated event.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The city manager shall ensure that all City employees receive appropriate training on the policies and procedures for approval and implementation of work assignments. This training shall include a review of City ordinances and the chain of command approval process. The City Council shall be responsible for the spending of City funds on promotional events. If other costs for promotional events are generated, then additional authorization needs to be obtained to avoid unauthorized spending.
F3:
The City acquired Quechan Marina and Park (Park) from the County on November 27, 2012. This Park covers 27.4 acres and is situated on the Colorado River in the eastern part of Riverside County. Originally, the County owned the Park, and leased it to the City with the City operating the Park. Pursuant to the County’s “Master Plan” for this Park, the list of phases of development included turning over the property to the City for ownership. According to sworn testimony, the City has not developed specific operating guidelines to run this Park since the City acquired the Park from the County. The Park is for day use only for recreation and to launch boats. The City assigned a volunteer to be a “Park Host”. This volunteer’s main job was to provide a presence, “encourage compliance with park rules and regulations” and essentially be the “eyes and ears” of the City. Under the volunteer’s “Agreement for Camp Host Volunteer Services” with the City, the volunteer duties included verifying payment for Park services by visitors, performing light housekeeping and janitorial duties and handling litter removal. These volunteer duties were done in exchange for a free place to park a motorhome/trailer with free sewer and water hook-up. In the Agreement, the volunteer agreed to pay for the electricity. However, sworn testimony revealed the volunteer was never billed for several months of electricity usage, and thus did not pay for any electricity as outlined in the Agreement. There was no initial reading of the electric 3 meter when the volunteer moved in to provide a baseline measurement before an electric bill could be produced.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Blythe City Council shall prepare and implement an operations manual for Quechan Marina and Park including duties of a Park Host. The manual shall require the Park Host’s electric meter be read before any electricity is used by the Park Host.
F4:
Sworn testimony and council minutes stated that a newly elected councilman, at his first council meeting on December 13, 2011, called for the dismissal of the city’s chief of police and made allegations against the chief without providing any proof or documentation. The City Council later voted in a closed session on January 24, 2012, to have this councilman meet with the chief, the mayor and the city manager. The city attorney was present at this closed session meeting. Additional testimony corroborated that the reason for this gathering was to “repair the bad feelings” between the councilman and the chief. The involved parties gathered at a city hall meeting room on January 31,
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The City Council shall ensure that when scheduled informal gatherings by elected officials occur and the purpose of the gathering changes to include personnel matters, the informal discussions shall cease immediately and be rescheduled to a formal meeting of the elected officials and include posting of an agenda and be attended by the city attorney. Report Issued: 03/25/2014 Report Public: 03/27/2014 Response Due: 06/23/2014 6
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
Sworn testimony revealed that a member of the Blythe City Council, in preparation for a Blythe Chamber of Commerce sponsored music festival, directed a foreman of the Public Works Department (PWD) and his crew to begin grading a city park on May 14, 2013, without first obtaining approval from the city manager. A week later, on May 21, 2013, this same city councilman directed the same PWD foreman to perform additional grading duties on County property adjacent to this city park. Further testimony revealed that the PWD foreman declined to do work on County land without direction from his PWD supervisor. The PWD supervisor advised the city councilman to obtain approval from the city manager. The city councilman subsequently contacted the city manager for approval. Testimony confirmed that the councilman was told by the city manager that since the secondary property he inquired about was on 1 County property, no work could be done by city employees without County approval. The councilman then contacted a Riverside County Board of Supervisor’s office and obtained approval to grade the property. The councilman informed the city manager that the County approved the city’s use of the land, but would not provide any resources to grade the property. The city manager then authorized the grading on the County property by PWD staff. The city manager operates under the budget approved by the City Council. Blythe Municipal Code (Ord. 356 §7(o), 1967) states as follows: 2.04.220 Powers and duties--Council-manager relations. The city council and its members shall deal with the administrative services of the city only through the city manager, except for the purpose of inquiry, and neither the city council nor any member thereof shall give orders to any subordinates of the city manager. The city manager shall take his orders and instructions from the city council only when sitting in a duly held meeting of the city council and no individual councilman shall give any orders or instructions to the city manager. Blythe Municipal Code (Ord. 356 §7(b), 1967) states: 2.04.090 Powers and duties—Authority over employees. It shall be the duty of the city manager, and he shall have the authority, control, order and give directions to all heads of departments and to subordinate officers and employees of the city under his jurisdiction through their department heads. Currently the League of California Cities provides annual training to local elected officials. The program provides the state mandated AB1234 Ethics course and is the first of three stages for leadership levels for these elected officials including a review of government codes. This training was made available to newly elected city council members. However, one council member chose not to attend the training. The City Attorney provided the mandated ethics training to this city councilman.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Blythe City Council shall ensure that each newly-elected city council member is provided formal training regarding policies and procedures on communication between council members and city employees. Emphasis should be made that use of city employees and city resources without approval from the city manager is prohibited. Additionally, the Blythe City Council shall annually provide a refresher course to all city council members on proper policies and procedures required to function as a city council member and dealing with other city government departments.
F2:
The Blythe City Council, at its February 26, 2013, meeting, voted to approve a donation of $6,350 of the city’s promotional budget to be given to the Blythe Chamber of Commerce (Chamber). This money was to be used to pay for the bands that would perform for the second annual Blythe “Blues Fest” at Quechan Marina and Park (Park). The expenses for this event included $4,700 for the bands. The City’s donation was also used 2 to cover the bands’ other expenses for staging, generators and payments to vendors. Evidence provided indicated that the over $21,000 generated total income included the City’s donation. In addition to the City’s contribution, the Chamber sold sponsorships, refreshments and souvenirs. The total expenses incurred by the Chamber for this event was $17,560. At the conclusion of the event, the Chamber netted $4,032 and subsequently presented the City with a donation of $2,275 to be used for the Blythe Recreation Center. Evidence obtained by the Grand Jury indicated that the PWD began work on the Park on May 14, 2013, and finished May 24, 2013. Sworn testimony indicated that the city manager first became aware of work on the park May 21, 2013. On May 21, 2013, the city manager estimated the total cost of the work to be $4,000, and approved the completion of the job. However, the City incurred approximately $16,500 in expenses to prepare the Park for the event, instead of $4,000 originally estimated by the city manager during the preparation of the Park for the event. The City was not compensated by the Chamber for the $16,500 to prepare the park for the event. The City Council did not approve additional promotional funds for the Chamber’s allocated event.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The city manager shall ensure that all City employees receive appropriate training on the policies and procedures for approval and implementation of work assignments. This training shall include a review of City ordinances and the chain of command approval process. The City Council shall be responsible for the spending of City funds on promotional events. If other costs for promotional events are generated, then additional authorization needs to be obtained to avoid unauthorized spending.
F3:
The City acquired Quechan Marina and Park (Park) from the County on November 27, 2012. This Park covers 27.4 acres and is situated on the Colorado River in the eastern part of Riverside County. Originally, the County owned the Park, and leased it to the City with the City operating the Park. Pursuant to the County’s “Master Plan” for this Park, the list of phases of development included turning over the property to the City for ownership. According to sworn testimony, the City has not developed specific operating guidelines to run this Park since the City acquired the Park from the County. The Park is for day use only for recreation and to launch boats. The City assigned a volunteer to be a “Park Host”. This volunteer’s main job was to provide a presence, “encourage compliance with park rules and regulations” and essentially be the “eyes and ears” of the City. Under the volunteer’s “Agreement for Camp Host Volunteer Services” with the City, the volunteer duties included verifying payment for Park services by visitors, performing light housekeeping and janitorial duties and handling litter removal. These volunteer duties were done in exchange for a free place to park a motorhome/trailer with free sewer and water hook-up. In the Agreement, the volunteer agreed to pay for the electricity. However, sworn testimony revealed the volunteer was never billed for several months of electricity usage, and thus did not pay for any electricity as outlined in the Agreement. There was no initial reading of the electric 3 meter when the volunteer moved in to provide a baseline measurement before an electric bill could be produced.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Blythe City Council shall prepare and implement an operations manual for Quechan Marina and Park including duties of a Park Host. The manual shall require the Park Host’s electric meter be read before any electricity is used by the Park Host.
F4:
Sworn testimony and council minutes stated that a newly elected councilman, at his first council meeting on December 13, 2011, called for the dismissal of the city’s chief of police and made allegations against the chief without providing any proof or documentation. The City Council later voted in a closed session on January 24, 2012, to have this councilman meet with the chief, the mayor and the city manager. The city attorney was present at this closed session meeting. Additional testimony corroborated that the reason for this gathering was to “repair the bad feelings” between the councilman and the chief. The involved parties gathered at a city hall meeting room on January 31,
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The City Council shall ensure that when scheduled informal gatherings by elected officials occur and the purpose of the gathering changes to include personnel matters, the informal discussions shall cease immediately and be rescheduled to a formal meeting of the elected officials and include posting of an agenda and be attended by the city attorney. Report Issued: 03/25/2014 Report Public: 03/27/2014 Response Due: 06/23/2014 6
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
Incidents of accusations: • According to a paramedic reserve (PR), he was doing paperwork in the IFPD break room when the Administrative Captain (ADCAP) told the PR to pose in a sleeping position on a recliner, so he could take his picture as if sleeping on the job. He led the PR to believe the picture was all a “joke.” The ADCAP then sent the picture to the PR’s full-time employer, Pechanga Fire Department (PFD). However, on a conference call with the ADCAP, the PR and the Chief at PFD, the ADCAP denied the “joke” and stated, “The PR begged me to lie to the Chief, so he would not get into trouble at the PFD.” The PR was then placed on disciplinary watch by the Chief at PFD as a result of the statements made by the IFPD ADCAP. • According to sworn testimony, the ADCAP has spread slanderous comments against a reserve firefighter (RF). The ADCAP accused this RF, of unethical behavior and posting pictures on Facebook wearing IFPD property while off duty. Sworn testimony from several firefighters stated these accusations are completely false. On the ADCAP‘s regular day off he contacted several firefighters and asked them to write statements indicating he had never spoken negatively about the RF. • While enroute to a call on October 8, 2012, an accident occurred between IFPD Truck 625 and IFPD ambulance 621. The driver of Truck 625 backed up hitting ambulance 621. There was no ground guide (safety procedure for backing up a vehicle) for Truck 625. The passenger in Truck 625 was the ADCAP when Truck 625 hit ambulance 621. The two ambulance personnel, an RF and a PR, had exited the vehicle and were at the back of the ambulance 621 with the swing doors open when they felt the impact on ambulance
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
IFPD shall follow the Firefighter’s Code of Ethics, which states in pertinent parts… Avoid situations that would adversely affect the credibility or public perception of the fire service profession. Never harass, intimidate or threaten fellow members of the service or the public and stop or report the actions of other firefighters who engage in such behaviors. A code of ethics training program shall also be a part of the overall training. IFPD Board shall conduct an independent investigation into the ADCAP’s behavior and consider terminating him for violating the Firefighters Code of Ethics and placing IFPD in a potentially liable position. Nonfeasance / Fire Chief
F2:
Nonfeasance is a failure to act under an obligation to do so; a refusal (without sufficient excuse) to do that which it is your legal duty to do. The findings are as follows: • The Fire Chief signed an Idyllwild Fire Protection Employment Contract on July 18, 2012, with the Board. According to sworn testimony the Fire Chief was required to obtain his California Paramedic Certification within the first six months of employment. As of the dates of the Grand Jury investigations, the California Paramedic Certification had not been obtained. • The Grand Jury interviewed past and present firefighters with many of the same testimonies regarding the Fire Chief: “Lack of leadership” “Communication does not filter down” “Morale always a problem” “Weak Chief” “The Administrative Captain needs to be doing a lot less and the Chief needs to be doing a lot more” “Supervision is non-existent” • As previously reported in the Grand Jury 2013-2014 report titled “Idyllwild Fire Protection District,” the Administrative Captain has too many job responsibilities. Violation of the Ralph M. Brown Act
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
• The Fire Chief shall obtain his Paramedic Certification and show proof that he is in compliance with his employment contract. • The Board shall ensure the Fire Chief assumes full management responsibility of fire department services and activities (i.e. fire prevention, suppression, investigation, emergency medical services on public education). • The Board shall thoroughly evaluate the Fire Chief’s duties, responsibilities and performance, conduct an independent investigation and consider termination. Violation of the Ralph M. Brown Act
F3:
On March 18, 2014, three Board members and three members of the IFPD Finance Committee took a trip to Cal-Fire / Riverside County Command Center located in Perris. The Board and Finance Committee members met at the Perris Command Center to discuss the dispatch agreement IFPD has with Riverside County. The trip/meeting of the Board and Finance Committee constituted a quorum. The meeting was neither publically noticed nor open to the public, as required by the Ralph M. Brown Act. According to sworn testimony the Board and Finance Committee members were in violation of the following section of the Ralph M. Brown Act: 54956, which states in part… Twenty-four hour notice must be provided to members of legislative body and media outlets including brief general description of matters to be considered or discussed. Past Riverside County Grand Jury reports have found violations of the Ralph M. Brown Act by the Board.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Board and Finance Committees shall comply with the provisions of the Ralph M. Brown Act at all times to ensure compliance at all future meetings. Report Issued: 06/17/2014 Report Public: 06/19/2014 Response Due: 09/15/2014 7
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
Investigation revealed the PACT units have allowed Probation more time and resources to focus on case management and compliance checks on individuals on probation and parole. According to several chiefs of police, the PACT units shared information, served warrants, apprehended PRCS violators and reduced the number of PRCS offenders who abscond. Further investigation revealed that the PACT units have been highly visible and hold individuals that break the law accountable, regardless of the level of offense. The participating police departments have worked to build infrastructures that support this type of critical enforcement. The police departments stated they have a responsibility to prevent the non- compliant PRCS individuals from re-offending and victimizing the communities. Initially, when the PACT program began, only cities with their own municipal police departments could participate in PACT activities. With the additional funding from BSCC for the PACT program, the participation of cities who contract for their police services became eligible to participate in the PACT program. Two cities in PACT that contract for police services with the Sheriff's Department are Palm Desert and Moreno Valley. Current participating cities in PACT are shown on Chart B. In order to be reimbursed for PACT funding and state funding, each of the participating agencies must have committed a full-time sworn officer for whom they are requesting reimbursement for the officer's salary, benefits and vehicle costs. The officer must serve the PACT unit for the entire period in which the agencies are seeking reimbursement. The city must provide the vehicle. The cars that were purchased for PACT activities by several municipal police departments cost $50,000-$60,000 when fully loaded with computers, radios, and other law enforcement equipment. Verification of expenditure(s) is required prior to reimbursement from the fiscal agent. In fiscal years (FY) 2012-13 and 2013-14 the allocated amount was $200,000 for each officer/vehicle per fiscal year for PACT expenses. See Chart C for FY 2012-13 summary of actual reimbursed expenses that were requested by each city. Several cities provide more than one officer and a car, but do not request reimbursement from the Chart C reflects the first full year CCPEC expenses were fiscal agents. reimbursed. The FY for BSCC funding is still in progress. Probation provides PRCS and Parole non-compliance information to the PACT units. These PACT units are involved in non-compliance sweeps and provided support in conjunction with other PACT units, other task force teams, and also operate in the county's unincorporated areas. PACT member cities also support cities that do not have a PACT member on the PACT. (See Chart E) Investigation revealed non-reimbursable costs were incurred by the cities to provide an officer to PACT activities (e.g. financial operational support, workers compensation costs and claims processing of PACT officers as well as personnel to process requests for reimbursement funds for the The cities provided these auxiliary services without any officers). compensation due to the specific guidelines between the PACT cities and - 5 Probation. Some cities provided a sergeant with a higher salary rather than a lower ranked officer with a lesser salary. Charts A and D show the percentage of population of a city to the county's total population versus the percentage of the total supervised individuals of a city to the total supervised population in the county. The following cities that have a significantly higher percentage of supervised individuals versus percentage of population are: Riverside, Indio, Hemet, Lake Elsinore, Perris, Palm Springs and Desert Hot Springs. All of these cities provide one or more PACT officers except the City of Perris and Lake Elsinore. Data Sharing and Supervised Offender Tracking
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
should invite the City of Perris and Lake Elsinore to join the Post-Release Accountability and Compliance Team (PACT) program.
F2:
In February, 2012, the ARCCOPS requested that Probation regularly share PRCS offender data with the county's 11 municipal police departments and with the Sheriff who oversees 17 contract cities and unincorporated areas of the County. This information is released minimally on a monthly basis. The list includes the offender's name, address, city, most recent offense and probation officer contact The implementation of AB 109 prompted local law information. enforcement agencies to recognize that they have an important collaborative role to play in support of Probation's efforts to ensure the successful reintegration of this population back into local communities. Currently, Probation provides all local law enforcement agencies a weekly PRCS "Warrant List" for non-compliant probationers as well as monthly reports on all active PRCS and MS individuals. Probation communicates daily with the PACT members as there is a full-time probation officer assigned to each of the three teams. (See Chart B) California Penal Code §13300 (a) (b) states that the chiefs of police, as well as local law enforcement agencies, have a "need to know" for criminal history information to ensure the safety and security of their duly respective communities. In March 2013, Probation advised the Riverside County Board of Supervisors via an Update of the local Community Corrections Partnership Public Safety Realignment and Post-release Community Supervision Implementation Plan Update of AB 109 Criminal Justice Alignment, that the Sheriff and Probation developed a joint database system that reduced labor and information technology costs. Investigation revealed as of the date of this report, there was no county- wide updated and centralized data base for tracking PRCS, MS, and re- arrested probationers. Some police departments have developed their own stand-alone system for their city to internally track repeat offenders as well as non-compliant PRCS and MS individuals. Testimony indicated released offenders frequently travel from city to city and from county to county once they are released from jail. Further testimony indicated that "data sharing is inadequate between Probation and the municipal police departments as well as between contiguous counties." Inconsistent data sharing prevents cities and other entities impacted by AB 109 to ascertain what programs and processes are successful and which ones are not successful. When state prisoners are paroled, a parole officer confirms the parolees' residential address before prisoners are paroled. When the state prisoners are released from a state correction facility, all law enforcement agencies are notified statewide. If a state prisoner is released from a state facility to PRCS or MS under county probation, the county supervising agency oversees any special conditions for the prisoner's release and notifies all law enforcement agencies. However, when a prisoner is released from a county jail on PRCS or MS, no immediate notification is made to local law enforcement agencies. Testimony confirmed that currently, when local law enforcement detains a PRCS or MS re-offender, the arresting officer attempts to verify criminal history with the department's "dispatch officer." If the offender is on supervised release and a warrant has been issued for their arrest for non- compliance, they are immediately arrested and the probation officer At the time of this report the police departments did not contacted. immediately receive a formal notification from Probation or Sheriff on offenders who were just released into their cities. This release information is given to the municipal police agencies in the weekly update. Investigation revealed one of the biggest problems the cities and the County faced when AB 109 was enacted, was that there "wasn't any preparation for a uniform or standardized statistical tracking system." Additional testimony revealed that data sharing is not consistent between Probation and the police departments as well as between counties because the PRCS and MS people moved around and no agency had a centralized database to keep track of these later arrests. The California Department of Justice has developed a new program that is designed to enable public safety officers to collaborate and share information between all counties and state agencies in tracking individuals on supervised release. Probation is aware of the new program; however, it has not yet met the final data requirements, but is "actively developing measures to become ready." Probation Officers at Jails
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Both the Sheriff's Department and the Probation Department shall communicate information on released prisoners placed on Post-Release Community Supervision (PRCS) or Mandatory Supervision (MS) from county jails to all law enforcement agencies at the time of the prisoners' release including local police agencies and adjoining counties. An updated summary of prisoner release information shall continue to be communicated to law enforcement agencies weekly and monthly. Probation shall finalize its interface system with the state-wide program for tracking released prisoners on PRCS and MS.
F3:
Due to overcrowding in the county jails, prisoners are released from the jails at varying times of the day. The deputy sheriffs at the jails are responsible for reviewing the terms and conditions of release which were laid down at the time of a prisoner's sentencing. This meeting to review the terms of release with the prisoner is done at the jail. No discussion of a "case plan" while on probation is made at this time. A case plan may include follow-up meetings, evaluations needed for re-integration, residency reports and other requirements dictated by the Probation officer. The prisoner is released based on the last known address in the prisoner's file. The information for prisoners released on PRCS is communicated to Probation after the prisoner is released. This information includes the prisoner's residence and contact information at the time of sentencing. There is a disconnect between the time the prisoner is released from jail and when the prisoner makes contact with Probation, sometimes more than two days. Investigation revealed that many times the prisoner's residence and contact information changed after time was served in jail. Once Probation has the released prisoner's (now probationer's) information, it is up to the probationer to contact Probation. If the probationer has not reported into Probation, then a warrant is issued for the probationer for non-compliance of his probation for failing to report in. The warrants for non-compliant probationers are sent from Probation to the respective PACT units for follow-up, adding workload to the team. Public Safety Enterprise Communication (PSEC)
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
An officer of the Probation Department shall meet with prisoners prior to release and confirm the case plan, residential address and review terms of release at the time of sentencing, and confirm first appointment with Probation officers.
F4:
According to Grand Jury investigation the County's public safety radio network is obsolete and does not reach newer neighborhoods. Today, County law enforcement and other safety officers use the radio more frequently to talk and send data. The Public Safety Enterprise Communication (PSEC) system, recently launched by the Sheriff, has expanded prior coverage and built radio links to other agencies that support the public and safety agencies. This system is not used in all cities in Riverside County. The new communication system is more comprehensive than the existing When AB 109 was enacted, the public safety agencies systems. throughout the County began seeing an increase in law enforcement activities. Many cities reported a sharp increase in property crimes and a decrease in violent crimes. Criminals and re-offenders crossed city boundaries and often County boundaries. In some areas, the improved communication system of PSEC enabled faster apprehension and arrests of these offenders. Many of the local law enforcement agencies within the County are still using radios with different frequencies and different bands than their neighboring communities. The resultant lack of contact with neighboring law enforcement agencies and counties has resulted in numerous unsuccessful operations. Communication among some County agencies is often lost due to patchwork coverage. Grand Jury investigation revealed that the PACT was active in the recent pursuit of accused officer Christopher Dorner. WEST-PACT provided communication equipment for many Riverside personnel involved in the investigation and pursuit. This additional equipment allowed Riverside County personnel to communicate with San Bernardino agencies. During the pursuit, many agencies who followed this suspect only had cell phones to call in their location and/or status to local police agencies. All PACT officers have the PSEC system. However, at the time of this report, non-PACT officers in Palm Springs, Desert Hot Springs, Cathedral City and Murrieta did not have PSEC accessibility. This digital network, which handles voice and data transmissions, has roughly tripled the number of radio towers of the prior analog system and provides coverage to 95 percent of the County, compared to 60 percent under the old network. Investigation showed that portions of Riverside County currently operate on an 800 MHz radio system that is lacking in full coverage and functionality. Population growth within the County has necessitated the expansion of the coverage footprint. Several smaller cities often have no wide-area coverage. Sometimes different departments in the same city are out of contact. The Riverside County Information Technology Department oversaw the PSEC rollout, which took seven years to achieve. Many cities that contract with the Sheriff for police services have PSEC, although non- contract cities have limited accessibility to PSEC in event of emergencies. Transitional Housing
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Municipal police agencies in Riverside County without direct Public Safety Enterprise Communication (PSEC) capability shall develop and implement a consistent communication system to ensure reliable and seamless coverage between the cities, the Sheriff's Department, and the safety agencies of other counties.
F5:
In the past two years, approximately 4,500 prisoners have been released from the County jails on some type of supervised release. Investigation revealed that when an inmate had problems with housing, physical or mental issues, it resulted in difficulty in re-entering a community. There is a lack of transitional housing and services for assisting these types of released prisoners who are in need of daily assistance transitioning back into the community... The California Department of Parole has a system of half-way houses for released paroled offenders who had nowhere to go or needed time to adjust to being in a community after release. The County has nothing comparable, especially for the MS probationers. As of December 31, 2013, there were 682 supervised PRCS and MS probationers who were homeless. Temporary emergency housing is provided at five different locations in the City of Riverside and Southwest Riverside County. No emergency housing is available in the desert communities. Emergency housing is available for up to 30 days, but due to a lack of long term transitional housing, the emergency stays have been extended multiple times for several offenders. As of the date of this report, Probation had 15 supervised individuals in emergency housing. The Riverside County Board of Supervisors voted in June 2013, to enact an ordinance, establishing a regulatory framework for half-way houses, or places renting to two or more unrelated parolees and probationers. Under the ordinance, the homes would only be allowed by permit in certain commercial and industrial zones. These homes cannot be near where children gather.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The Probation Department shall oversee the development of half-way houses to provide services to the released supervised inmates to assist them with re-entry into the communities. Report Issued: 06/17/2014 Report Public: 06/19/2014 Response Due: 09/15/2014 CHART A Percentage City Population to total County Population vs Percentage Supervised Individuals in cities to Total Supervised in County (Cities ranked highest to lowest by population) 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% ™%рор ☐% Spvd 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% The Andread History of the Canada California The set ball Schick the strong of this or the Calinasa Nalis India Porte Porte Cattle Pain Desert Barning Junga Valley Menitee Temecula Riverside Morero Valley Coronantieta CHART B Riverside County Post-Release Accountability and Compliance Team (PACT) 2013-2014 Allocation to Municipal Members CA Corrections Partnership (CCP) CA grant funding (BSCC) Funding Source Probation Department Fiscal Agent City of Beaumont Member Allocation Regional Team Member Allocation Regional Team Riverside $200,000 West Riverside $200,000 West Corona $200,000 West Corona $200,000 West Beaumont $200,000 Central Moreno Valley $200,000 Central Hemet $200,000 Central Murrieta $200,000 Central Cathedral City $200,000 East Beaumont $200,000 Central Desert Hot Springs $200,000 East Indio $200,000 East Palm Springs $200,000 $200,000 East Palm Desert East Current PACT Organization* EAST-PACT CENTRAL-PACT WEST-PACT Team Riverside Sergeant Cathedral City Sergeant Hemet Sergeant (#1) Riverside (#2) Beaumont (#1) Desert Hot Springs Indio Beaumont (#2) Corona (#1) Palm Desert Station (#2) Murrieta Corona Moreno Valley Station Palm Springs Areas of Responsibility Areas of Responsibility Areas of Responsibility Riverside, Corona, Moreno Valley. Also Palm Spgs, Desert Hot Springs, Cathe- Hemet, Beaumont, Murrieta, Banning, Temecula, Wildomar. Jurupa Valley, Mira Loma, Norco, dral City, Palm Desert & Indio. Also Rubidoux, Eastvale, Home Gardens, Also, Cherry Valley, Cabazon, Thousand Palms, Rancho Mirage, La Woodcrest, & Highgrove Quinta, Bermuda Dunes, Coachella, San Jacinto, Perris, Calimesa, White water, & Morongo Valley Thermal, & Mecca *Additional Team Members funded by other sources: Probation, District Attorney, A.T.F., Sheriff, Border Patrol CHART C PACT FY 2012 - 2013
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
Investigation revealed the PACT units have allowed Probation more time and resources to focus on case management and compliance checks on individuals on probation and parole. According to several chiefs of police, the PACT units shared information, served warrants, apprehended PRCS violators and reduced the number of PRCS offenders who abscond. Further investigation revealed that the PACT units have been highly visible and hold individuals that break the law accountable, regardless of the level of offense. The participating police departments have worked to build infrastructures that support this type of critical enforcement. The police departments stated they have a responsibility to prevent the non- compliant PRCS individuals from re-offending and victimizing the communities. Initially, when the PACT program began, only cities with their own municipal police departments could participate in PACT activities. With the additional funding from BSCC for the PACT program, the participation of cities who contract for their police services became eligible to participate in the PACT program. Two cities in PACT that contract for police services with the Sheriff's Department are Palm Desert and Moreno Valley. Current participating cities in PACT are shown on Chart B. In order to be reimbursed for PACT funding and state funding, each of the participating agencies must have committed a full-time sworn officer for whom they are requesting reimbursement for the officer's salary, benefits and vehicle costs. The officer must serve the PACT unit for the entire period in which the agencies are seeking reimbursement. The city must provide the vehicle. The cars that were purchased for PACT activities by several municipal police departments cost $50,000-$60,000 when fully loaded with computers, radios, and other law enforcement equipment. Verification of expenditure(s) is required prior to reimbursement from the fiscal agent. In fiscal years (FY) 2012-13 and 2013-14 the allocated amount was $200,000 for each officer/vehicle per fiscal year for PACT expenses. See Chart C for FY 2012-13 summary of actual reimbursed expenses that were requested by each city. Several cities provide more than one officer and a car, but do not request reimbursement from the Chart C reflects the first full year CCPEC expenses were fiscal agents. reimbursed. The FY for BSCC funding is still in progress. Probation provides PRCS and Parole non-compliance information to the PACT units. These PACT units are involved in non-compliance sweeps and provided support in conjunction with other PACT units, other task force teams, and also operate in the county's unincorporated areas. PACT member cities also support cities that do not have a PACT member on the PACT. (See Chart E) Investigation revealed non-reimbursable costs were incurred by the cities to provide an officer to PACT activities (e.g. financial operational support, workers compensation costs and claims processing of PACT officers as well as personnel to process requests for reimbursement funds for the The cities provided these auxiliary services without any officers). compensation due to the specific guidelines between the PACT cities and - 5 Probation. Some cities provided a sergeant with a higher salary rather than a lower ranked officer with a lesser salary. Charts A and D show the percentage of population of a city to the county's total population versus the percentage of the total supervised individuals of a city to the total supervised population in the county. The following cities that have a significantly higher percentage of supervised individuals versus percentage of population are: Riverside, Indio, Hemet, Lake Elsinore, Perris, Palm Springs and Desert Hot Springs. All of these cities provide one or more PACT officers except the City of Perris and Lake Elsinore. Data Sharing and Supervised Offender Tracking
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
should invite the City of Perris and Lake Elsinore to join the Post-Release Accountability and Compliance Team (PACT) program.
F2:
In February, 2012, the ARCCOPS requested that Probation regularly share PRCS offender data with the county's 11 municipal police departments and with the Sheriff who oversees 17 contract cities and unincorporated areas of the County. This information is released minimally on a monthly basis. The list includes the offender's name, address, city, most recent offense and probation officer contact The implementation of AB 109 prompted local law information. enforcement agencies to recognize that they have an important collaborative role to play in support of Probation's efforts to ensure the successful reintegration of this population back into local communities. Currently, Probation provides all local law enforcement agencies a weekly PRCS "Warrant List" for non-compliant probationers as well as monthly reports on all active PRCS and MS individuals. Probation communicates daily with the PACT members as there is a full-time probation officer assigned to each of the three teams. (See Chart B) California Penal Code §13300 (a) (b) states that the chiefs of police, as well as local law enforcement agencies, have a "need to know" for criminal history information to ensure the safety and security of their duly respective communities. In March 2013, Probation advised the Riverside County Board of Supervisors via an Update of the local Community Corrections Partnership Public Safety Realignment and Post-release Community Supervision Implementation Plan Update of AB 109 Criminal Justice Alignment, that the Sheriff and Probation developed a joint database system that reduced labor and information technology costs. Investigation revealed as of the date of this report, there was no county- wide updated and centralized data base for tracking PRCS, MS, and re- arrested probationers. Some police departments have developed their own stand-alone system for their city to internally track repeat offenders as well as non-compliant PRCS and MS individuals. Testimony indicated released offenders frequently travel from city to city and from county to county once they are released from jail. Further testimony indicated that "data sharing is inadequate between Probation and the municipal police departments as well as between contiguous counties." Inconsistent data sharing prevents cities and other entities impacted by AB 109 to ascertain what programs and processes are successful and which ones are not successful. When state prisoners are paroled, a parole officer confirms the parolees' residential address before prisoners are paroled. When the state prisoners are released from a state correction facility, all law enforcement agencies are notified statewide. If a state prisoner is released from a state facility to PRCS or MS under county probation, the county supervising agency oversees any special conditions for the prisoner's release and notifies all law enforcement agencies. However, when a prisoner is released from a county jail on PRCS or MS, no immediate notification is made to local law enforcement agencies. Testimony confirmed that currently, when local law enforcement detains a PRCS or MS re-offender, the arresting officer attempts to verify criminal history with the department's "dispatch officer." If the offender is on supervised release and a warrant has been issued for their arrest for non- compliance, they are immediately arrested and the probation officer At the time of this report the police departments did not contacted. immediately receive a formal notification from Probation or Sheriff on offenders who were just released into their cities. This release information is given to the municipal police agencies in the weekly update. Investigation revealed one of the biggest problems the cities and the County faced when AB 109 was enacted, was that there "wasn't any preparation for a uniform or standardized statistical tracking system." Additional testimony revealed that data sharing is not consistent between Probation and the police departments as well as between counties because the PRCS and MS people moved around and no agency had a centralized database to keep track of these later arrests. The California Department of Justice has developed a new program that is designed to enable public safety officers to collaborate and share information between all counties and state agencies in tracking individuals on supervised release. Probation is aware of the new program; however, it has not yet met the final data requirements, but is "actively developing measures to become ready." Probation Officers at Jails
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Both the Sheriff's Department and the Probation Department shall communicate information on released prisoners placed on Post-Release Community Supervision (PRCS) or Mandatory Supervision (MS) from county jails to all law enforcement agencies at the time of the prisoners' release including local police agencies and adjoining counties. An updated summary of prisoner release information shall continue to be communicated to law enforcement agencies weekly and monthly. Probation shall finalize its interface system with the state-wide program for tracking released prisoners on PRCS and MS.
F3:
Due to overcrowding in the county jails, prisoners are released from the jails at varying times of the day. The deputy sheriffs at the jails are responsible for reviewing the terms and conditions of release which were laid down at the time of a prisoner's sentencing. This meeting to review the terms of release with the prisoner is done at the jail. No discussion of a "case plan" while on probation is made at this time. A case plan may include follow-up meetings, evaluations needed for re-integration, residency reports and other requirements dictated by the Probation officer. The prisoner is released based on the last known address in the prisoner's file. The information for prisoners released on PRCS is communicated to Probation after the prisoner is released. This information includes the prisoner's residence and contact information at the time of sentencing. There is a disconnect between the time the prisoner is released from jail and when the prisoner makes contact with Probation, sometimes more than two days. Investigation revealed that many times the prisoner's residence and contact information changed after time was served in jail. Once Probation has the released prisoner's (now probationer's) information, it is up to the probationer to contact Probation. If the probationer has not reported into Probation, then a warrant is issued for the probationer for non-compliance of his probation for failing to report in. The warrants for non-compliant probationers are sent from Probation to the respective PACT units for follow-up, adding workload to the team. Public Safety Enterprise Communication (PSEC)
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
An officer of the Probation Department shall meet with prisoners prior to release and confirm the case plan, residential address and review terms of release at the time of sentencing, and confirm first appointment with Probation officers.
F4:
According to Grand Jury investigation the County's public safety radio network is obsolete and does not reach newer neighborhoods. Today, County law enforcement and other safety officers use the radio more frequently to talk and send data. The Public Safety Enterprise Communication (PSEC) system, recently launched by the Sheriff, has expanded prior coverage and built radio links to other agencies that support the public and safety agencies. This system is not used in all cities in Riverside County. The new communication system is more comprehensive than the existing When AB 109 was enacted, the public safety agencies systems. throughout the County began seeing an increase in law enforcement activities. Many cities reported a sharp increase in property crimes and a decrease in violent crimes. Criminals and re-offenders crossed city boundaries and often County boundaries. In some areas, the improved communication system of PSEC enabled faster apprehension and arrests of these offenders. Many of the local law enforcement agencies within the County are still using radios with different frequencies and different bands than their neighboring communities. The resultant lack of contact with neighboring law enforcement agencies and counties has resulted in numerous unsuccessful operations. Communication among some County agencies is often lost due to patchwork coverage. Grand Jury investigation revealed that the PACT was active in the recent pursuit of accused officer Christopher Dorner. WEST-PACT provided communication equipment for many Riverside personnel involved in the investigation and pursuit. This additional equipment allowed Riverside County personnel to communicate with San Bernardino agencies. During the pursuit, many agencies who followed this suspect only had cell phones to call in their location and/or status to local police agencies. All PACT officers have the PSEC system. However, at the time of this report, non-PACT officers in Palm Springs, Desert Hot Springs, Cathedral City and Murrieta did not have PSEC accessibility. This digital network, which handles voice and data transmissions, has roughly tripled the number of radio towers of the prior analog system and provides coverage to 95 percent of the County, compared to 60 percent under the old network. Investigation showed that portions of Riverside County currently operate on an 800 MHz radio system that is lacking in full coverage and functionality. Population growth within the County has necessitated the expansion of the coverage footprint. Several smaller cities often have no wide-area coverage. Sometimes different departments in the same city are out of contact. The Riverside County Information Technology Department oversaw the PSEC rollout, which took seven years to achieve. Many cities that contract with the Sheriff for police services have PSEC, although non- contract cities have limited accessibility to PSEC in event of emergencies. Transitional Housing
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Municipal police agencies in Riverside County without direct Public Safety Enterprise Communication (PSEC) capability shall develop and implement a consistent communication system to ensure reliable and seamless coverage between the cities, the Sheriff's Department, and the safety agencies of other counties.
F5:
In the past two years, approximately 4,500 prisoners have been released from the County jails on some type of supervised release. Investigation revealed that when an inmate had problems with housing, physical or mental issues, it resulted in difficulty in re-entering a community. There is a lack of transitional housing and services for assisting these types of released prisoners who are in need of daily assistance transitioning back into the community... The California Department of Parole has a system of half-way houses for released paroled offenders who had nowhere to go or needed time to adjust to being in a community after release. The County has nothing comparable, especially for the MS probationers. As of December 31, 2013, there were 682 supervised PRCS and MS probationers who were homeless. Temporary emergency housing is provided at five different locations in the City of Riverside and Southwest Riverside County. No emergency housing is available in the desert communities. Emergency housing is available for up to 30 days, but due to a lack of long term transitional housing, the emergency stays have been extended multiple times for several offenders. As of the date of this report, Probation had 15 supervised individuals in emergency housing. The Riverside County Board of Supervisors voted in June 2013, to enact an ordinance, establishing a regulatory framework for half-way houses, or places renting to two or more unrelated parolees and probationers. Under the ordinance, the homes would only be allowed by permit in certain commercial and industrial zones. These homes cannot be near where children gather.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The Probation Department shall oversee the development of half-way houses to provide services to the released supervised inmates to assist them with re-entry into the communities. Report Issued: 06/17/2014 Report Public: 06/19/2014 Response Due: 09/15/2014 CHART A Percentage City Population to total County Population vs Percentage Supervised Individuals in cities to Total Supervised in County (Cities ranked highest to lowest by population) 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% ™%рор ☐% Spvd 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% The Andread History of the Canada California The set ball Schick the strong of this or the Calinasa Nalis India Porte Porte Cattle Pain Desert Barning Junga Valley Menitee Temecula Riverside Morero Valley Coronantieta CHART B Riverside County Post-Release Accountability and Compliance Team (PACT) 2013-2014 Allocation to Municipal Members CA Corrections Partnership (CCP) CA grant funding (BSCC) Funding Source Probation Department Fiscal Agent City of Beaumont Member Allocation Regional Team Member Allocation Regional Team Riverside $200,000 West Riverside $200,000 West Corona $200,000 West Corona $200,000 West Beaumont $200,000 Central Moreno Valley $200,000 Central Hemet $200,000 Central Murrieta $200,000 Central Cathedral City $200,000 East Beaumont $200,000 Central Desert Hot Springs $200,000 East Indio $200,000 East Palm Springs $200,000 $200,000 East Palm Desert East Current PACT Organization* EAST-PACT CENTRAL-PACT WEST-PACT Team Riverside Sergeant Cathedral City Sergeant Hemet Sergeant (#1) Riverside (#2) Beaumont (#1) Desert Hot Springs Indio Beaumont (#2) Corona (#1) Palm Desert Station (#2) Murrieta Corona Moreno Valley Station Palm Springs Areas of Responsibility Areas of Responsibility Areas of Responsibility Riverside, Corona, Moreno Valley. Also Palm Spgs, Desert Hot Springs, Cathe- Hemet, Beaumont, Murrieta, Banning, Temecula, Wildomar. Jurupa Valley, Mira Loma, Norco, dral City, Palm Desert & Indio. Also Rubidoux, Eastvale, Home Gardens, Also, Cherry Valley, Cabazon, Thousand Palms, Rancho Mirage, La Woodcrest, & Highgrove Quinta, Bermuda Dunes, Coachella, San Jacinto, Perris, Calimesa, White water, & Morongo Valley Thermal, & Mecca *Additional Team Members funded by other sources: Probation, District Attorney, A.T.F., Sheriff, Border Patrol CHART C PACT FY 2012 - 2013
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
The Grand Jury conducted a random review of the CRT logs for the years 2012, 2013, and 2014. All five (5) jails do not follow the training set forth in the CRT Quarterly Manual as mandated in Sections 8.1 and 8.1.1 of Corrections Division Policy Manual 503.06. This policy states in part… POLICY: The Riverside County Sheriff’s Department shall meet or exceed the minimum training standards for corrections personnel defined in Title 15 of the California Administrative Code. 8.1 Each correctional facility shall conduct daily briefing training as scheduled in the CRT manuals. CRT manuals are published quarterly and are designed to review specific corrections related topics. 8.1.1 Each facility shall establish a procedure to track roll- call training. The information needed for tracking includes; who attended the training, who gave the training, the date, and the topic. These records shall be maintained for the current year, plus three years. The Grand Jury investigation found: • Training topics differed on the CRT logs from the CRT Quarterly Manual for that specific date. • CRT logs were initialed/signed by someone other than the person listed and some were initialed by the same person for the whole shift. Nothing in the policy states that CRT logs get signed. • In many instances, the CRT manual subject matter, which articulately describes the training with a full page scenario format, was abandoned in favor of another topic only documented by a single word on the CRT record. No other documentation to demonstrate the substance of what was discussed was ever documented to show why that subject was chosen. During our interviews with correctional jail personnel, the reason given was the sergeant giving the daily CRT had a “better topic” to discuss than the one assigned or the topic had already been addressed. 3 • Interviews conducted under sworn and unsworn testimony revealed that there is no follow-up to ensure the personnel who were absent ever received the required training. • CRT logs for April and May 2013 for an entire team are missing and cannot be found. • CRT logs are incomplete with no training topic listed and no sergeant listed as the trainer. • Testimony from various staff revealed that some employees are identifying CRT logs as “Shift Training Logs.” Corrections Division Policy Manual 500.01, Section 8.1, addresses the Shift Training Log. 8.1 Supervisors Responsibilities / Training Each Supervisor shall be responsible to provide training of the revision(s) to all personnel as part of roll-call training. To track employee notification, supervisors shall ensure all employees complete the Shift Training Log (503.06 Attachment #2). Each employee signing the Shift Training Log will be accepting responsibility for reading their e-mail and making themselves aware of the changes made. If an employee on any shift or specialty assignment is in training, on vacation, on sick leave, or for any other reason does not complete the Shift Training Log, it is the responsibility of the employee’s supervisor to ensure the employee is aware of the policy and procedure changes within 15 days. The supervisor will have the employee sign a copy of the synopsis memorandum and forward the signed copy to the Facility Appointed Committee Chair. The committee member shall maintain the memorandum for current year plus two. • During interviews and visits to the jails, no one knew what a “synopsis memorandum” was. • At one (1) jail, each team is given an article from the County Safety Newsletter once a month to be used as a training topic. The sign-in sheet serves as documentation that training was conducted. 4 • A correctional deputy stated they have periodic roll-call training on safety issues. Headcount 504.07
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Grand Jury has the following recommendations regarding Personnel Training: • Training topics as scheduled in the CRT Quarterly Manual shall be held on the scheduled date. • The Shift Training Log shall only be used for Corrections Division Policy Manual 500.01, section 8.1 and not CRT training. • All jails have adopted a procedure of having each staff sign/initial the CRT logs. No one other than the person who received the training shall sign/initial the CRT logs. (There is not a policy for the staff to sign/initial the CRT.) • Supervisors shall be trained on what a synopsis memorandum is (Corrections Division Manual Policy 500.01, section 8.1). • Jail supervisors shall ensure that when an employee is absent for any reason, he/she receives notice of the roll-call training that was held from the CRT Quarterly Manual for those days. 12 • The sergeant or correctional sergeant giving the daily briefing shall be knowledgeable in the policy and procedures. Headcount 504.07
F2:
Sworn testimony and documents reviewed revealed that headcount reconciliation was not in compliance with Corrections Division Policy Manual 504.07. When the Grand Jury began their investigation, Policy 504.07 was dated 4-4-08. As of 1-15-14, it had been revised; therefore, both revisions are shown. Revision 4-4-08 POLICY: Each Facility commander must establish and maintain a system to accurately account for all inmates under his/her jurisdiction at all times. A stat card to inmate count must be taken at least once during each twenty- four (24) hour period. GUIDELINES: 1.0 Physical count of inmates may be random or routine based on the facility needs and the security classification of those confined. 1.1 A physical count of the inmates shall be conducted at the beginning of each shift. 1.2 The count will be conducted to verify the amount of inmates in each housing unit. The number of inmates will be matched to the number of stat cards located in the housing unit or to the number of inmates assigned to the housing unit in JIMS (JIMS - Jail Information Management System). 1.3 The physical headcount will be used to order meals and to track the inmates assigned to the housing unit but signed out to court, appointments, programs, etc. 1.4 This count will not be a substitute for the stat card to inmate headcount report. 2.0 Stat card to inmate Headcount Report 5 2.1 A stat card to inmate count will be conducted at least once within every 24 hour period. 2.1.1 Staff members are required to compare the individual inmate with the information on the inmate’s stat card and wristband. 2.1.2 Each inmate will be called by his/her last name. The inmate shall respond by giving his/her first name. 2.1.3 No inmate will be allowed to sleep or avoid taking part in the headcount. 2.1.4 The staff member will make notation of any irregularity in the headcount and resolve any problem with the headcount, ensuring that an accurate count is obtained. 2.2 A designated staff member will be responsible for compiling the headcount information from all housing units and holding areas into a single headcount report for the facility. 2.2.1 The final report will be reviewed and approved by the on duty sergeant. Revision 1-15-14 (2) POLICY: Each Facility commander must establish and maintain a system to accurately account for all inmates under his/her jurisdiction at all times. A stat card to inmate count must be taken at least once during each twenty- four (24) hour period. GUIDELINES: 1.0 Physical count of inmates may be random or routine based on the facility needs and the security classification of those confined. 1.1 A physical count of the inmates shall be conducted at the beginning and end of each shift. 1.1.1 The count at the beginning of the shift will ensure the count matches what is documented in JIMS and the amount of stat cards located in each housing unit. 6 1.1.2 The count at the end of shift will ensure all inmate movements, releases, and courts have been accounted for and the physical counts match what is in JIMS and the amount of stat cards in each housing unit. 1.2 The physical headcount will be used to order meals and to track the inmates assigned to the housing unit but signed out to court, appointments, programs, etc. 1.3 This count will not be a substitute for the stat card to inmate headcount report. 2.0 Stat card to inmate Headcount Report 2.1 A stat card to inmate count will be conducted at least once within every 24 hour period. 2.1.1 Staff members are required to compare the individual inmate with the information on the inmate’s stat card and wristband. 2.1.2 Each inmate will be called by his/her last name. The inmate shall respond by giving his/her first name. 2.1.3 No inmate will be allowed to sleep to avoid taking part in the headcount. 2.1.4 The staff member will make notation of any irregularity in the headcount and resolve any problem with the headcount, ensuring that an accurate count is obtained. A sergeant shall be notified immediately when discrepancies exist. 2.2 A designated staff member will be responsible for compiling the headcount information from all housing units and holding areas into a single headcount report for the facility. 2.2.1 The final report will be reviewed and approved by the on duty sergeant. The Grand Jury found through documentation and sworn testimony that physical headcounts were not being done at the beginning of the shift. • Some correctional deputies stated they were not trained to do a physical headcount at the beginning of each shift. 7 • A Correctional Training Officer (CTO) stated it was not mandatory but “a good idea” to conduct a physical headcount, or that it was required by policy and procedure. • A CTO considered “Headcount” a Security Check, which it is not. • A senior correctional deputy falsely reported headcount as completed when it had not been done. • Inmates were left out in two (2) day rooms prior to headcount and not secured. • A CTO never observed his trainee conducting a headcount. The trainee stated “he was not familiar with policy and procedure and was left with a deputy in charge who also stated he didn’t know it was required under policy.” This deputy stated, “he never supervised a trainee, was unsure of his responsibilities and not familiar with current policies and procedures.” • Individual inmates are not compared to their wristband or stat cards. • A correctional deputy stated “as long as they don’t leave the unit, they don’t have to check wristbands.” • Inmates were allowed to sleep during headcount. Testimony revealed that some correctional deputies stated, “it was okay as long as the inmate was breathing.” • Day room time for inmates was given priority over headcount completion. • Sworn testimony revealed that after the January 15, 2014, revision (2), headcount is still not in compliance. Security Logs / Checks 502.10
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Grand Jury has the following recommendations regarding headcount: • Physical headcount shall be done at the beginning and end of the shift. • Headcount shall take priority over day room time for inmates to ensure that all inmates are accounted for. • All staff shall be retrained on the policy for 504.07 so that all jails are in compliance. • Supervisors and chain of command shall review computer reports or paper logs to ensure that headcount is no longer falsely reported. • Staff members shall compare the individual inmate with the information on the inmate’s stat card and wristband. • Additional specialized training shall be provided to all CTOs ensuring they are in compliance with Corrections Division Policy Manual 504.07 and Title 15, section 1027 prior to supervising a trainee. Policy interpretation should be clarified and resolved. Security Logs / Checks 502.10
F3:
The Grand Jury randomly selected and interviewed correctional deputies, senior correctional deputies, sergeants, lieutenants, and captains from five (5) jails. When the Grand Jury began this investigation, the Corrections Division Policy Manual 502.10 was dated 8-3-11 (7). It has since been revised as of 1-15-14 (8); therefore, both revisions are shown in part… Revision 8-3-11 (7) POLICY: Regular security checks shall be done to assure that there is intermittent, direct visual supervision of all inmates and to ensure implementation and operation of the programs and activities recommended by Title 15 guidelines. REFERENCE: California Code of Regulations: Title 15; Sec. 1027, 1055, 1056, 1058; P.C. 6030, 6030.1, 6031. P.C. 4021 1.1 It is the responsibility of assigned personnel to conduct a physical security check in accordance with the following Title 15 guidelines: 1.1.1 The entire jail shall be checked at least once every sixty minutes. NOTE: If a security check exceeds the sixty- minute time limit, the reason for the delay will be annotated in the comments area of the Security Check Log and a supervisor shall be notified. 1.1.2 Staff members conducting security checks are to physically observe every inmate. 1.1.6 Facilities may use a computer generated Security Check Log (Attachment 1), or the paper log version, to document security checks. 9 2.1 Security checks of inmates will be documented on the Security Check Log. The Security Check Log will contain the date, time, employee’s initial, shift assigned, and supervisor’s review and approval of documented information. 2.2 If a paper log is used (Attachment 1), the Security Check Logs will be kept at the deputy’s assigned workstation and changed at 0001 hours daily. Revision 1-15-14 (8) POLICY: Security checks shall be completed to ensure there is direct visual supervision of all inmates housed within a jail facility in accordance with Title 15 guidelines. Security checks are a fundamental duty of Corrections staff and a high priority shall be placed on their completion by each facility within the Corrections Division. REFERENCE: California Code of Regulations: Title 15; Sec. 1027, 1055, 1056, 1058; P.C. 6030, 6030.1, 6031. P.C. 4021, PREA § 115.15. 1.1 It is the responsibility of assigned personnel to conduct a physical security check in accordance with the following Title 15 guidelines: 1.1.1 Per Title 15, Section 1027, the entire jail shall be checked at least once every sixty minutes. 1.1.2 Employees assigned to complete security checks will ensure direct visual supervision occurs on all inmates at the jail except those who are absent due to court or other official business. The whereabouts of all inmates not present such as those who have court or other custody commitments, shall be accounted for. 1.1.6 Facilities may use a computer generated Security Check Log (Attachment 1), or the paper log version, to document security checks. 10 1.1.7 In the event an employee believes a security check will be late or cannot be accomplished, a sergeant will be notified immediately. Sergeants shall ensure adequate staff is present to complete the required security check. During the course of this investigation, it was discovered that hourly security checks were not being done as mandated by Title 15, section 1027 of the California Code of Regulations and Division Policy. Title 15 requires documented direct visual supervision of all inmates at least hourly; more specifically, staff must be able to see each inmate without the aid of audio visual equipment to assure the inmate is alive and not experiencing any distress. The Grand Jury found: • Out of thirteen (13) security checks documented on the Security Check Log, only two (2) were actually performed in one (1) jail. • A deputy made ten (10) separate false entries into the jail Security Check Log. • A deputy failed to call other personnel to assist him resulting in security checks not being completed when he was alone. • An entry was not made in the Security Check Log notating a battery. • A correctional deputy stated security checks were entered prior to staff entering the day room to check on each inmate stating “this is routine here.” • Emphasis was placed on making a timely entry rather than an actual security check. Personnel stated, “this is common practice.” • Staff did not enter day rooms in some instances, therefore, did not confirm the welfare of each inmate. • Staff left housing to complete reports because the computers did not provide adequate access to programs, which results in staff being left alone. • Some staff placed clothing exchange as a priority instead of completing security checks. 11 • A deputy did not know there were two (2) inmates in a cell. • Supervisors are not identifying training needs, which resulted in a problematic pattern of “this is the way we do it here,” foregoing the division policy and the procedures for their jail. • The lack of knowledge of the policies and procedures by some senior correctional deputies, correctional deputies, deputies and CTOs is resulting in unsafe habits, which is passed on to their trainees, adversely affecting their performance and the overall safety of the inmates and staff. • All correctional deputies that were interviewed stated that additional personnel are needed.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Grand Jury has the following recommendations regarding Security Logs / Checks: • The Corrections Division shall adhere to Division Policy 502.10 and California Code of Regulations Title 15, section 1027. • Security checks shall be performed prior to being entered into the computer or on a paper log. • Staff shall document the activity that took place at the time of the security check. • Staff should not be alone when security checks are required to be done. 13 • Plan for how security checks are going to be completed when clothing exchange is conducted. • Re-train staff on Security Logs / Checks Policy 502.10 and Title 15, section 1027. • Supervisors and chain of command shall review computer reports or paper logs to ensure that Security Logs / Checks are no longer falsely reported. • Additional specialized training shall be provided to all CTOs ensuring they are in compliance with Corrections Division Policy and Title 15, section 1027 prior to supervising a trainee. Policy interpretation should be clarified and resolved. • Priority should be placed on the recruitment of new personnel. • Staff shall be aware of how many inmates are in a cell. Report Issued: 06/17/2014 Report Public: 06/19/2014 Response Due: 09/15/2014 14
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
The Administrative Captain is the highest paid firefighter based on salary and overtime. This position was created to ensure smooth operations of the IFPD, due to frequent turnovers of Fire Chiefs. According to sworn testimony, “The Administrative Captain has too many responsibilities.” The 2012 Compensation Report recorded a total overtime calculation of $142,047.48. The Administrative Captain received $56,757.91, 48 percent of the total overtime budget. Sworn testimony states, “The Administrative Captain prepares the payroll, and assists in preparing the budget.” The Administrative Captain’s responsibilities, as stated in the job description include: • Serves as adjutant to the Fire Chief in the areas of operations, communications, personnel and support services. • Assists in coordination and processing of new hires. • At the direction of the Fire Chief, performs research, develops and recommends policies and procedures for existing and new programs, reviews existing policies and procedures, makes necessary
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Both the Board and Fire Chief shall reassign some Administrative Captain duties to other paid staff. This would reduce excessive use of overtime for the Administrative Captain.
F2:
Sworn testimony revealed IFPD Firefighters have attended political forums while in uniform. In 2011 uniformed IFPD Firefighters attended a political event at the Nature Center. In August 2013 uniformed IFPD Firefighters attended a political candidate’s forum. California Government Code §3206 (2011) states: No officer or employee of a local agency shall participate in political activities of any kind while in uniform. Overtime
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The IFPD shall conform to California Government Code §3206 by not participating in political activities of any kind while in uniform.
F3:
The 2013-2014 Riverside County Grand Jury learned through sworn testimony that the two main reasons for overtime are vacation relief and fire assignments, such as campaign fires. A campaign fire is when Career Firefighters respond to large fires outside the District. IFPD Career Firefighters are assigned to fill in during vacations and campaign fires, creating overtime for the IFPD Career Firefighters. On the 2012 Compensation Report, vacation time is not a separate line item. See Attachment “A”.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The IFPD Board shall look into hiring Career Firefighters outside the District who would be paid straight time wages, during campaign fires and for vacation relief. This would save the IFPD overtime expenses. The IFPD Board shall put vacation time as a separate line item on the IFPD Compensation Report. Idyllwild Fire Protection District 2012 Compensation Report Classification REGULAR OVERTIME OTHER CAFETERIA 2012 Earnings Fire Chief $7,700.00 $0.00 $7,005.13 $750.00 $15,455.13 Interim Fire Chief $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $62,355.00 Fire Chief $28,644.00 $0.00 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $31,644.00 Captain $69,495.00 $17,820.94 $11,720.46 $9,000.00 $108,036.40 Captain $69,495.00 $2,673.34 $14,518.56 $9,000.00 $95,686.90 Captain $69,495.00 $24,828.73 $14,848.75 $9,000.00 $118,172.48 Admin. Captain $61,878.80 $56,757.91 $15,504.70 $9,000.00 $143,141.41 Engineer $61,878.80 $10,220.74 $9,893.96 $9,000.00 $90,993.50 Engineer $61,878.80 $4,218.81 $12,346.60 $9,000.00 $87,444.21 Firefighter $37,855.00 $9,861.21 $3,804.36 $5,400.00 $56,920.57 Firefighter $39,776.00 $2,702.14 $4,529.38 $5,400.00 $52,407.52 Firefighter $37,855.00 $12,409.03 $3,804.56 $5,400.00 $59,468.39 Mechanic $10,985.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $10,985.00 Admin. Assistant $22,533.50 $554.63 $0.00 $4,200.00 $27,696.13 Chaplain $58.75 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $58.75 Reserve/Paramedic $262.50 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $262.50 Reserve/Paramedic $2,287.50 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $2,287.50 Reserve/Paramedic $2,764.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $2,764.00 Reserve/Paramedic $1,581.47 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,581.47 Reserve $768.78 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $768.78 Reserve $8,108.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $8,108.00 Reserve $767.16 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $767.16 Reserve $6,576.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $6,576.00 Reserve $8,027.80 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $8,027.80 Reserve $3,171.68 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $3,171.68 Reserve $2,070.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $2,070.00 Reserve $1,987.45 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,987.45 Reserve $4,138.75 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $4,138.75 Reserve $7,671.07 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $7,671.07 Reserve $1,428.42 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,428.42 Reserve $434.47 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $434.47 Reserve $450.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $450.00 Reserve $75.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $75.00 Paid Call $704.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $704.00 Paid Call $1,363.50 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,363.50 Paid Call $1,143.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,143.00 Paid Call $200.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $200.00 Ambulance $1,072.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,072.00 Ambulance $2,345.63 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $2,345.63 Board Commissioner $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Board Commissioner $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Board Commissioner $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Board Commissioner $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Board Commissioner $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Attachment “A” Report Issued: 12/18/2013 Report Public: 12/20/2013 Response Due: 03/18/2014 5
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
The 2013/2014 Riverside County Grand Jury (Grand Jury) investigation revealed minimal security at the Airport. According to testimony, the Airport has never had an electronic security gate at the entrance of the Fixed Base Operator (FBO) office building, which makes it accessible 24/7 to any unauthorized users. Improper fencing at the entrance of the FBO office building results in lax security, as it allows pedestrian access to the premises without proper verification. Asphalt/Concrete
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
DAS shall seek assistance and work with EDA to obtain state and federal grants to install an electronic security gate next to the FBO office building to deter and prevent the unauthorized access onto sensitive areas of the Airport. DAS shall seek assistance and work with EDA to obtain state and federal grants to replace the fencing across the front of the Airport. Asphalt/Concrete
F2:
The Grand Jury’s investigation noted the extremely poor condition of asphalt on the Airport grounds. In addition, the concrete seam sealant is in disrepair. A substantial amount of the sealant has become brittle, loose and has the potential to damage aircraft and could cause bodily injury from debris when the aircraft engines are started. (See Attachment “A”) Long Term Living Quarters
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
DAS shall seek assistance and work with EDA to obtain state and federal grants to replace asphalt and reseal concrete seams for safety and liability concerns. DAS shall be responsible for the maintenance. Long Term Living Quarters
F3:
Upon inspecting the Airport hangar, the Grand Jury observed a recreational vehicle (RV) parked in the hangar. The Airport manager stated he resides in the RV. According to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Airport Compliance Manual Order 5190.6B, Chapter 20.5 (b, c), and states in part: Under Grant Assurance 19, Operation and Maintenance, airport sponsors will not cause or permit any activity or action that would interfere with intended use of the airport for airport purposes. Permanent living facilities should not be permitted at public airports because the needs of airport operations may be incompatible with residential occupancy from a safety stand point. However, other than the performance of official duties in running an airport, or FBO, the FAA does not consider permanent or long-term living quarters to be an acceptable use of airport property at federally obligated airports. This includes developments known as air parks or fly-in communities, and any other full-time, part-time, or secondary residences on airport property even when co-located with an aviation hangar or aeronautical facility. While flight crew or caretaker quarters may include some amenities, such as beds, showers, televisions, and refrigerators, these facilities are designed to be used for overnights and resting periods, not as permanent or even temporary residences for flight crews, aircraft owners or operators, guests, customers, or the families or relatives of same. Metered Fuel Tanks
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
DAS shall follow the rules and regulations as stated in the FAA Airport Compliance Manual. Therefore, the RV shall be removed from the Airport property. Metered Fuel Tanks
F4:
Upon examination of the two above ground stationary fuel tanks at the Airport, it was observed there is a need for painting these two fuel tanks. According to the Air Quality Management District (AQMD) DAS was informed of this finding on April 23, 2013. The two stationary fuel tanks are owned by the County, but DAS is responsible for all maintenance as stated in the lease agreement. Riverside County Weights and Measures (Weights and Measures) last certified the accuracy of the fuel meters in 2006 and placed a certified seal on them. The Grand Jury inspected the expired (2006) Weights and Measures certified tamper-proof seals on the three fuel meters (two stationary fuel tanks and one fuel truck). There was no visible seal on the portable trailer tank. According to testimony and County Ordinance No. 599 (as amended through 599.8), Weights and Measures is required to inspect County airport fuel meters annually. (See Attachment “B”) Airport Hangar
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
DAS shall seek assistance and work with EDA to obtain state and federal grants to paint the two above ground stationary fuel tanks to comply with AQMD requirements in accordance with the State of California Air Resources Board, Executive order VR-301-A, Exhibit 1, and Equipment List. Weights and Measures shall inspect all County airport fuel meters within the County, annually. Airport Hanger
F5:
During the two visits to the Airport, the Grand Jury observed the poor condition of the hangar that was built in 1942. The hangar is in desperate need of renovation on the exterior. (See Attachment “C”) The Grand Jury observed a “Wolfe Aviation” sign mounted on the hangar from the previous FBO. County EDA Aviation Website
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
DAS shall: • Paint exterior of the hangar • Replace broken windows in the hangar • Replace “Wolfe Aviation” sign, mounted on the front of the hangar, with current signage County EDA Aviation Website
F6:
Upon review of the County EDA Aviation website it was noted that Blythe Airport information was “coming soon.” County EDA Aviation/DAS Lease
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
County EDA Aviation Division shall update its website for the Airport. County EDA Aviation/DAS Lease
F7:
In 2010 the lease between the County EDA Aviation and DAS was signed with reservation by DAS. DAS took over the Wolfe Aviation lease completing the remaining terms of the lease with the City of Blythe. In 2011 DAS was told they had no recourse other than to sign the lease. According to sworn testimony, many issues were discussed in this meeting with County EDA Aviation and DAS, with no resolution. 4
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
Before entering into a new lease with County EDA Aviation, DAS shall have a productive meeting with County EDA Aviation to negotiate the many issues discussed in the 2011 meeting that had no resolution. The current lease expires May 31, 2015. Report Issued: 04/22/2014 Report Public: 04/24/2014 Response Due: 07/21/2014 6 7 8 9
* This report's PDF did not contain easily extractable text and required Optical Character Recognition (OCR) for analysis. There may be minor errors in the extracted findings and recommendations due to OCR limitations with scanned documents.