San Joaquin County Grand Jury

2002-2003

9 reports

Findings & Recommendations 4 findings
F1: The complainant did submit a letter to Captain Drummond detailing inappropriate comments by one of the correctional offices and an Internal Affairs investigation was ordered.
F2: The correctional officer involved was transferred from the Jail Core.
F3: The Internal Investigation was conducted, including interviews with the complaining inmate, subject officer, and witness inmates. Based on the transcripts of the interviews, Captain Drummond determined that the allegations were "unfounded", meaning no "Police Procedure, or Law" was violated.
F4: Captain Drummond indicated that the involved officer could have done things differently and that steps have been taken to improve his "inter-personal skills" when dealing with female inmates.
Findings & Recommendations 19 findings
F1: We found no goals in the MUD Business Plan regarding the reduction and upgrade of the fleet. Deputy Director Gittings was not aware of a plan to do this and after researching this further informed us that he talked to the managers of MUD and none had any recollection of a fleet upgrade program. He also spoke with the former Deputy Director of Wastewater, Robert Simmons, who stated that he was not aware of such a program and that no such plans were included in the Business Plan, which he was very involved in developing. We found that the Wastewater Division has 2 boom trucks, one 2�-ton utility truck, and 19 small to medium sized (� to �-ton) pickup trucks. The smaller trucks have utility beds for carrying tools, including equipment for repairing pumps and motors. One truck has been fitted with a hydraulic valve turner, which is used to open and close heavy valves. The present climate of impending privatization makes it unlikely that any major changes to the Wastewater Division's existing vehicle fleet will occur for now. Any such changes would need to be coordinated through the City Corporation Yard and would require approval of the Director of Stockton MUD. Regarding alleged failure to follow City Manager's directive for take-home vehicles: The complaint alleges blatant disregard of the City Manager's policy for take-home vehicles, allowing two vehicles to be taken home without the authorization of the City Manager.
F2: We found that the City has a detailed policy on take-home of City vehicles, set forth in City Manger Administrative Directive No. MAN-16 dated 03/01/2002, which was revised from a 12/22/1992 policy. This policy authorizes a total of 11 take-home vehicles for the entire Stockton Municipal Utilities Department, all for employees who are required to immediately respond to emergency situations on a 24-hour basis. Only 2 of these are authorized to the Wastewater Division: one for the Plant Maintenance Supervisor, one for the Senior Electrician. Directive MAN-16 requires that an annual take-home vehicle report be submitted by department heads in January for City Manager approval. We requested and reviewed such reports for 12 employees. This is one more than the 11 authorized by the policy, the extra being a take-home vehicle for a second Senior Collection System Operator in the Collection Systems Division, where the directive indicates one is authorized. In April of 2001, Mr. Gittings made written request of Stockton MUD Director, Mr. Morris Allen, for permission to assign one additional vehicle to two mechanics on a six-month rotation to ensure that at least one additional maintenance employee would have a vehicle at all times to respond to after-hours emergency situations. This request was made and approved under provisions of Directive MAN-16. We were unable to identify any Wastewater Division vehicles that are being taken home without the authorization of the City Manager. Regarding alleged non-licensed, non-certified employees performing high voltage electrical design, installation, and maintenance: The complaint alleges that the staff is not qualified to work on voltages above 480V, that is 60KVA, 12.5KVA, and 4160KVA. There is no certified safety equipment to perform work on voltages over 480V; however, the Deputy Director and Plant Maintenance Supervisor have allowed staff to work on the higher voltage system without proper training or safety equipment.
F3: The 2002-2003 SJCCGJ recommends that the Stockton MUD Wastewater Department develop and implement procedures to maintain a Master Lockout/Tagout Log, where the lockout/tagout records of the various maintenance logs can be consolidated for more effective monitoring. RESPONSE REQUIRED: Pursuant to Section §933.05 of the Penal Code: The Wastewater Division of Stockton Municipal Utilities Department shall report to the Presiding Judge of the San Joaquin Superior Court, in writing and within 90 days of publication of this report, with a response as follows: As to each finding in the report a response indicating one of the following: a. The respondent agrees with the finding. b. The respondent disagrees with the finding, with an explanation of the reasons therefore. As to each recommendation, a response indicating one of the following: a. The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary of the action taken. b. The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be with a time frame for implementation. c. The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation of the scope of the analysis and a time frame not to exceed (6) six months. d. The recommendation will not be implemented, with an explanation therefore. EXHIBIT 1001 - A LIST OF MATERIALS REQUESTED AND RECEIVED FROM STOCKTON MUD WASTEWATER DIVISION
F3a: We reviewed the Departments' job descriptions and requirements and found no requirements for certification for maintenance crew electrical workers. There are statements to the effect that employee participation in the CWEA (California Water Environment Association) voluntary certification program is desirable, but not mandatory. There are requirements in the job descriptions for training and experience for these workers. We also reviewed the California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 8. Industrial Relations, including sections on general industry safety orders, high voltage electrical safety orders, and training standards and found no requirement for certification. There are standards for training set forth in these regulations. We requested and reviewed the Department's training records for employees who do the high voltage work for the Department. Two individuals were identified to us as those who do such work, and the recorded training courses were numerous. As an example, one individual has the following training record: Basic industrial electricity course (sixteen-hour course) PG&E electrical/gas line safety course Cogeneration facilities courses (9 courses) - high voltage training Electrical safety class (sixteen-hour course) We were informed by Mr. Gittings that safety equipment is provided to the electrical workers, including rubber mats and gloves and any safety equipment they may need. We were also informed that the Department's procedures for high voltage work requires that the system being worked on be taken down (deactivated and disconnected from electricity) prior to work commencing, and that lockout and tagout procedures are used to preclude accidental reactivation while work is in progress. We did not believe that further confirmation of these procedures through additional interviews was warranted for our investigation. The complaint also alleges that Wastewater Division staff is allowed to perform design work that the City of Stockton will not accept from others without a licensed Electrical Engineer stamp, creating the potential for overloading the electrical system, damage to equipment, and hazards to employee safety.
F3b: Ms. Nancy Eissler of the Enforcement Unit of the Professional Engineers Board, California Department of Consumer Affairs, was contacted by a member of the Grand Jury, and was asked to clarify how §6747 of the Professional Engineers Act, Business and Professions code applies to public utilities such as Stockton MUD. She indicated that all public utilities are exempted by this code section from the requirement that only licensed engineers perform electrical and mechanical design work related to the systems of such public utilities. The full text of this code section is shown below: §6747. Exemption for industries a. This chapter, except for those provisions that apply to civil engineers and civil engineering, shall not apply to the performance of engineering work by a manufacturing, mining, public utility, research and development, or other industrial corporation, or by employees of that corporation, provided that work is in connection with, or incidental to, the products, systems, or services of that corporation or its affiliates. b. For purposes of this section, "employees" also includes consultants, temporary employees, contract employees, and those persons hired pursuant to third-party contracts. Therefore we found that, for electrical and mechanical design work related to its own systems, Stockton MUD is not required to have the design work performed and stamped by a licensed Electrical Engineer. Regarding alleged non-certified welders performing welding on pressure pipe and structural steel that require certification: The complaint alleges that contrary to CAL OSHA requirements for certified welding, in house non-certified employees are allowed to perform structural welding on dissolved air flotation (DAF) tanks and pressure pipes, placing equipment and employees in harms way.
F4: We reviewed the Departments' job descriptions and requirements and found no requirements for certification for maintenance crew welding workers. There are requirements in the job descriptions for training and experience for these workers. We also reviewed the California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 8. Industrial Relations, and again found no requirement for certification. There are standards for training set forth in these regulations. We requested and reviewed the Department's training records for employees who do the welding work for the Department. Three individuals were identified to us as those who do such work, and each has one or two recorded training courses in welding. We were informed by Mr. Gittings that welding on pressure vessels does require specialized training, but that the Department does not permit its employees to do this kind of work. Instead, pressure vessel welding work is contracted out to a private company with personnel trained to do such work. Regarding alleged failure to monitor contractors to ensure work is being performed: The complaint alleges the failure to monitor landscaping contractors resulting in payment for services not rendered. An additional allegation is that a particular painting contractor received contracts for work without undergoing required bidding procedures.
F5: Date Completed We requested the Department's Lockout/Tagout Log and were provided with three different kinds of logs that contained entries that recorded lockout/tagout events interspersed among other maintenance events. No master lockout/tagout log was provided. We found that none of the logs included all of the information items required for the Lockout/Tagout Log by directive SAF-18. Missing in all of these logs was the Lock #, and in some instances the Time of the event was missing. Date of the event was included in all logs, but the Date Completed was not included in any, although some of the events were undoubtedly completed the same day.
F5a: We found that the Department has specific policies for monitoring contracts, which are set forth in the City of Stockton, Contract Procedure and Process manual (last revised August 2002). This same manual sets forth the contract threshold amount ($25, 757) below which competitive bidding procedures are not required. We found that the Department did have a contract for landscaping that was recently terminated because of unsatisfactory performance by the contractor. Since then another contractor has been given that work and that contractor's performance is being monitored. Therefore, we believe that procedures are in place to monitor contractor performance and those procedures are being followed.
F5b: We also reviewed information submitted to us by the complainant regarding five contracts given to a single painting contractor in amounts ranging from $5,450 to $14,000, totaling $57,750 during the time period from May 24, 2002 to October 17, 2002. All of these contracts involved separate painting tasks for tanks, pipe brackets and columns. Since each contract amount was below the $25, 757 limit for competitive bidding procedures, the solicitation of at least three bids was not required under the City's current contract policies. We also contacted Mr. Gittings for an explanation of these contracts and were told that earlier this year several areas at the Tertiary Plant needed painting, including the acid storage tanks, dissolved air pressurization tanks, and overhead fiberglass piping. Three painting contractors were called in to give bids on the three projects. Each of the three areas was bid separately as independent projects. One contractor looked at the three jobs but chose not to submit proposals. The three areas are different in configuration and the competitive bids for each project were requested. One contractor was the low bidder for all three projects, and was awarded all three projects under separate purchase orders. The same contractor was later issued a purchase order for $14,000 to paint the primary clarifiers at the Main Plant. Because they were still on site and there were concerns with the approaching rainy season, they were awarded this project without competitive bidding. Mr. Ed Wall, a Senior Buyer for the City, approved the requisition and purchase order since the contractor had consistently been the low bidder on the other three previous projects. Therefore, we found no improprieties with the awarding of the five separate painting contracts to a single contractor. Regarding alleged failure to report vehicle accidents: The complaint alleges that operations vehicles show signs of abuse and neglect, with damaged front fenders and rear bumpers. Any accident is to be reported to the Corp Yard and Safety committee, but this is not occurring.
F6: We found that the Department has procedures covering damages to City property (FIN-020), equipment accountability (FIN-003), equipment maintenance and repair (PW-008), and motor vehicle accidents (FIN-019). We requested and reviewed recent vehicle accident reports on file for Department vehicles. We also requested and reviewed MUD Safety Committee minutes, which document the review, discussion, and recommendations regarding a recent vehicle accident involving a Department utility truck (although no recommendations were contained in the particular minutes we reviewed). We requested and reviewed the inspection records for representative Department vehicles, including a maintenance crane (boom truck), which logs 22-point (including damage to structures) inspections on 12 days in a single month, and a tertiary site vehicle, which logs daily 7-point inspections for a nine-day period. We were informed by Mr. Gittings that some vehicles are driven by 10 to 20 different individuals in the Department at one time or another. Some of the vehicles are pretty old and not in the best of condition anyway. Although attempts are made to monitor the conditions of vehicles, it is sometimes difficult to get timely reporting of damage and therefore difficult to fix accurate responsibility. Therefore, we find that procedures are in place and being implemented to monitor and inspect vehicles for damage and to address reported accidents when they occur. Even so, some incidental, unreported damage to Department vehicles does occur. Regarding alleged failure to follow CAL OSHA requirements for Confined Space Entry, Hot Work permits, Lock and Tag permits: The complaint alleges that the Seniors and Supervisors are not fully complying with the requirements. When there is entry into Primary, Secondary, and DAF tanks a confined space permit is not filled out, posted or followed through on. The same thing occurs with Hot Work Permits and Lock and Tag permits. This puts the employees at risk and the City at risk for fines.
F7: Employee training policies and training program description
F7a: We requested and reviewed the Department's Confined Space Pre-entry Checklist. A confined space is entered through an opening other than a door or requires the use of a ladder or rungs to reach the working level. Each checklist has nine Yes/No questions that must be answered in the affirmative before entry, a requirement that "Your supervisor MUST be notified of your intent to enter the confined space", the job location, the worker's signature, and the date. We also requested and reviewed the Department's Confined Space Permit forms. We reviewed filled-out confined space entry checklists and permits with recent dates. Therefore we find that confined space entry procedures are in place and being implemented.
F7b: We requested and reviewed the Department's Hot Work Permit forms. Hot work includes welding, cutting, brazing, or similar flame or spark-producing operations. Mr. Gittings informed us that hot work permits are only required for work conducted in the field and are attached to work orders. We reviewed filled-out hot work permits with recent dates. Therefore we find that hot work procedures are in place and being implemented.
F7c: We found that the Department has extensive policies for Lockout/Tagout procedures that are set forth in directive No. SAF-18, dated 6-6-2001. This program is established in accordance with California Code of Regulations, Title 8, CCR §3314, "Cleaning, Repairing, Servicing, and Adjusting Prime Movers, Machinery and Equipment" and Code of Federal Regulations, CFR §1910.147, "Control of Hazardous Energy (Lockout-Tagout)". The purpose of the program is to protect maintenance personnel when they are working on equipment or systems that could be activated by other personnel during the maintenance procedures. The program uses a system of tags and physical locks to provide warnings and to physically isolate the machinery or systems from sources of energy. The program requires that a Lockout/Tagout Log be kept that records the following five information items for each lockout/tagout operation performed: 1. Date/Time/Initials 2. Lock # 3. Tagged Out - Yes/No 4. Location/Reason 5. Date Completed We requested the Department's Lockout/Tagout Log and were provided with three different kinds of logs that contained entries that recorded lockout/tagout events interspersed among other maintenance events. No master lockout/tagout log was provided. We found that none of the logs included all of the information items required for the Lockout/Tagout Log by directive SAF-18. Missing in all of these logs was the Lock #, and in some instances the Time of the event was missing. Date of the event was included in all logs, but the Date Completed was not included in any, although some of the events were undoubtedly completed the same day.
F8: Employee certification policies and certification program description
F9: Contract management/administration guidelines/manual
F10: Procedures for awarding contracts and purchasing equipment and services under bid
F12: Personnel promotion policies
F13: Any complaints received regarding failures to comply with CAL OSHA workplace safety requirements - nature of complaints, steps taken to address the complaints, and status of the complaints.

Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.

Findings & Recommendations 3 findings
F1: Environmental Health Department require dairies to submit a Vector Control Plan for review and acceptance. The Vector Control Plan and contracted service invoices should be made available upon request to Environmental Health Inspectors.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: Environmental Health Department require dairies to submit a Vector Control Plan for review and acceptance. The Vector Control Plan and contracted service invoices should be made available upon request to Environmental Health Inspectors.
F2: Environmental Health amend the Complaint Abatement Policy to reflect that multiple complaints be reported to the Supervisor and Director of Environmental Health, when received, for their review and investigation.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: Environmental Health amend the Complaint Abatement Policy to reflect that multiple complaints be reported to the Supervisor and Director of Environmental Health, when received, for their review and investigation.
F3: Environmental Health require dairies to submit a written five year solid waste plan for review and acceptance. RESPONSE REQUIRED: Pursuant to Section §933.05 of the Penal Code: The San Joaquin County Environmental Health Department shall report to the Presiding Judge of the San Joaquin Superior Court, in writing and within 90 days of publication of this report, with a response as follows: As to each finding in the report a response indicating one of the following: a. The respondent agrees with the finding. b. The respondent disagrees with the finding, with an explanation of the reasons therefore. As to each recommendation, a response indicating one of the following: a. The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary of the action taken. b. The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be with a time frame for implementation. c. The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation of the scope of the analysis and a time frame not to exceed (6) six months. d. The recommendation will not be implemented, with an explanation therefore.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3: Environmental Health require dairies to submit a written five year solid waste plan for review and acceptance. RESPONSE REQUIRED: Pursuant to Section §933.05 of the Penal Code: The San Joaquin County Environmental Health Department shall report to the Presiding Judge of the San Joaquin Superior Court, in writing and within 90 days of publication of this report, with a response as follows: As to each finding in the report a response indicating one of the following: a. The respondent agrees with the finding. b. The respondent disagrees with the finding, with an explanation of the reasons therefore. As to each recommendation, a response indicating one of the following: a. The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary of the action taken. b. The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be with a time frame for implementation. c. The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation of the scope of the analysis and a time frame not to exceed (6) six months. d. The recommendation will not be implemented, with an explanation therefore.
Findings & Recommendations 7 findings
F1: The District=s board is indeed elected by acreage and not by value or by one-man- one-vote, and this is not inappropriate because it is in accordance with the legal framework under which the District is established and regulated. 1. As a result of the elections process there is a concern that the assessment process is unfair. Apparently, assessments have gone up over 100% for commercial and residential property, but not for agricultural property. Background: Prior to the passage of Proposition 218 (November 5, 1996), now articles XIII C and XIII D of the California Constitution, every acre of property within a reclamation district was assessed the same amount regardless of the land use and improvements on the property. The District could not take into consideration the value of improvements on parcels when determining the total assessment valuations of each parcel. With the passage of Proposition 218, the rules changed. For any assessment not "grandfathered" under Proposition 218, assessments must consider improvements to properties, and assessments must be supported by a detailed engineer's report prepared by a registered professional engineer certified by the State of California. (Cal. Const., art. XIII D, ' 4(b))
F2: The method proscribed by the California Constitution for determining reclamation district assessments requires the inclusion of improvements to properties in the assessments. Since the values of improvements on residential and commercial properties are typically significant, it is not surprising that the post Prop 218 assessments on these properties would be higher than the assessment prior to Prop 218. Also, since agricultural properties typically have few, if any, improvements, it is not surprising that assessments on these properties have not increased as much as the non-agricultural properties in the District. 1. The individuals believe that the district expenses are significantly less that the amount of money collected. Moreover, it is their understanding that there is about $1,000,000 in the bank. Background: The expenses of all reclamation districts are matters of public record. Please note the attached financial report for Reclamation District No. 348. District 348 is responsible for maintaining 17.4 miles of levee protecting approximately 9,300 acres. The District operates 4 pumping stations to remove irrigation return flow and rainfall which is collected in approximately 22.8 miles of District maintained drainage canals. As the result of the levee break and flood of 1986, the District struggled for many years with a huge debt it incurred in repairing the levee and draining the lands that were flooded. This experience demonstrates the prudence of maintaining a reserve of funds with which to face the potential costs of flood fighting and levee repairs. The annual expenditures of the District have fluctuated over the years due to major levee rehabilitation projects and high water episodes involving sandbagging and flood fighting efforts such as in the winter of 1997. Unexpected levee repairs during heavy rain years have historically cost approximately $180 to $200 per lineal foot of levee or about $1 million per mile. In consultation with Mr. Gary F. Giannini of Schwartz, Giannini, Lantsberger & Adamson, the District=s auditor, the Trustees have decided to maintain a reserve of about $1 million. Mr. Giannini has told the Trustees that he believes a $2 million reserve could be justified, and that the District=s current one million dollar reserve should be considered, at best, a minimum reserve against any unexpected or sudden catastrophe.
F3a: Since its revenue and expenses are matters of public record and are reported regularly in financial reports, the SJCCGJ finds that the relationship between the District=s assessment collections and its expenses is not a matter requiring further investigation.
F3b: Given the District=s need to be able to respond to routine and unusual maintenance and repair contingencies, it does not seem inappropriate that the District would maintain an operating balance in the range of $1 million. 1. There is a concern that the assessments are improperly levied. There is concern that even though the County General plan shows property zoned as agriculture the Board is arbitrarily assigning a commercial or residential designation and then charging a higher fee. Background: In keeping with the provisions of Proposition 218, the District considers not only the general plan land use designation but also the improvements to properties. Since various uses are allowed by agricultural zoning with a use permit, it is possible to have improvements of substantial value on agriculturally designated and zoned lands. Under Proposition 218, the special benefit conferred upon assessed parcels is determined by considering the improvements to property as well as the general plan designation and zoning. If a property owner does not agree with the determination of the District's trustees regarding a property's assessment, an appeal can be filed with the District.
F4: The District=s current assessment procedures appear to comply with the requirements of Proposition 218. Furthermore, an appeal procedure exists by which property owners may seek clarification and/or correction of inaccurate assessments. 1. The board is violating recent law in regard to higher taxes and Proposition 218. Background: In 2001 the District had a landowner voter election that changed the way the District assessed its property to make its assessment procedures comply with the requirements of Proposition 218. After the passage of Proposition 218 (November 5, 1996), no new assessment can be levied by a local special district without voter approval and compliance with the provisions of Proposition 218. Under Proposition 218, the assessment must be based on the special benefit conferred upon the assessed parcel. The proportionate special benefit for each identified parcel shall be determined in relationship to the entirety of the capital cost of a public improvement, the maintenance and operation expenses of a public improvement, or the cost of the property related service being provided. No assessment may be imposed on any parcel that exceeds the proportional special benefit conferred on that parcel. (Cal. Const. art. XIId & 4(a))
F5: The District=s current assessment procedures appear to comply with the requirements of Proposition 218. 1. Finally, there is a concern that the board has a conflict of interest with regard to the expenditure of dollars. Specifically, with respect to board members vending to the district and reimbursements to board members for expenses incurred by them on behalf of the district. Background: Regardless of District policies or applicable regulations, such conflicts of interests are governed by the common law, various statutes in the Government Code, e.g., Government Code section 1690 et seq., the Political Reform Act of 1974 and the District's Conflict of Interest Code (Gov. Code, '81000 et seq.), and the Water Code, e.g., Water Code section 50605 et seq. Apparently, such matters are not covered specifically by the District's policies. The Water Code contemplates that the trustees of a reclamation district will perform services and incur expenses on behalf of the District. Water Code section 50605 states: "Each member of the board shall receive such compensation for services actually and necessarily performed as the board determines to be just and reasonable, and shall be reimbursed for expenses necessarily incurred in the performance of his duties as trustee." Water Code section 50606 states: "All claims by or in behalf of the a trustee for services rendered or expenses incurred shall be presented to the board and, if allowed, shall be paid in the same manner as other indebtedness of the district.@ APayment of proper claims may be made to a trustee, in the absence of fraud, in the same manner as other indebtedness.@ As is often the case, the trustee who is reimbursed is not a vendor to the District, but merely a facilitator between the vendor of the product or services and the District. Since small reclamation districts do not have the staff of their larger public agency counterparts, vendors are often reluctant to deal with the personnel who may be doing the levee maintenance and pump repair work for the District and insist upon dealing with someone with ostensible authority. This often means one of the trustees. The trustee may have to sign for the product to be delivered or the service to be performed in order for the necessary maintenance work to be accomplished in a timely manner. When the trustee presents the statement or invoice from the vendor, it is simply a pass through of the costs the trustee incurred by signing for the product or services for the District.
F6: The legal framework under which the District is established and regulated appears to anticipate that trustees will from time to time perform services and incur expenses on behalf of the District and will subsequently receive reimbursement for expenses necessarily incurred in the performance of their duties. Furthermore, a trustee who is reimbursed for such expenses is not a vendor to the District, but merely a facilitator between the vendor of the product or services and the District. Therefore, it does not appear to be inappropriate that reimbursements would be made to board members for expenses incurred by them on behalf of the District, and this in and of itself is not evidence of conflict of interest.
Findings & Recommendations 3 findings
F1: After a thorough review of the case records, no evidence of a criminal act was discovered. Given the extended period of time that this investigation has spanned, it is difficult, if not impossible, to completely substantiate or refute the allegations.
F2: Subsequent to the prior SJCCGJ investigation, the Office of Education has adopted an Employee Handbook as of July 1, 2002.
F3: We reviewed a detailed copy of the office's property inventory practices manual. According to the manual the only items inventoried are those valued at $300.00 or greater, but it was reported by the head of Business Services that this threshold has been increased to $500.00.
Findings & Recommendations 5 findings
F1: San Joaquin County needs to conduct cost-effective analysis on all property rental. The economic viability of construction versus continued rental should be evaluated on each location currently occupied by county staff.
F2: Permanent construction by County staff does not appear to be a viable option. The existing remodel of the vacant space initiated in 1994 is still not complete in 2003. All future construction should be put out to bid to the construction industry.
F3: The partially constructed partitions within existing space in the District Attorney=s office should be immediately completed. Partitions in those areas that will be occupied by attorneys or investigators should reach all the way from the floor to the ceiling to insure privacy.
F4: The County Administrator should immediately request bids on the completion of the existing remodel of the vacant floor of the Courthouse. Subsequent construction on additional floor space in the Courthouse should be bid when that project is completed.
F5: A five-year capital improvement plan must be maintained and progress toward its implementation should be evaluated on an annual basis. RESPONSE REQUIRED: Pursuant to §933.05 of the Penal Code: The San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors and County Administrator shall comment in writing, to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court - within (90) days of the publication of this report. As to each finding in the report, a response indicating one of the following: a. The respondent agrees with the finding. b. The respondent disagrees with the finding with an explanation of the reasons therefore. As to the recommendation, a response indicating one of the following: a. The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary of the action taken. b. The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be with a time frame for implementation. c. The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation of the scope of the analysis and a time frame not to exceed 6 months. d. The recommendation will not be implemented, with an explanation therefor.
Findings & Recommendations 3 findings
F1: With regard to the allegation that monies are disappearing from accounts, we found no evidence to support the allegation; however, the procedures for handling cash at the school are minimal, at best.
F2: With regard to the allegation that monies are being used for other than their intended use, information available did not substantiate this allegation and the audit did not identify problems in this regard.
F3: With regard to the allegation that thirty-four thousand dollars have been misplaced, there was no indication that a discrepancy of $34,000.00 could have existed.
Findings & Recommendations 6 findings
F1: The San Joaquin County Civil Grand Jury (SJCCGJ) found that the "dead animal drop" (a fifty-five-gallon drum, which occasionally overflows) is located in the front area of the shelter, is not enclosed and is visible from the street.
F2: On both visits, we found that cleaning was in progress and it appeared that the cleaning policy was being followed. The general appearance of the facility was clean and the animals had fresh food and water in their cages.
F3: The fee charged to rescue groups to take animals from the shelter is consistent with policy and is imposed to recover a small portion of the cost of sheltering the animal. These fees are set by the City Council, in conjunction with the Board of Supervisors.
F4: The public is not denied access to adoptable animals. By policy, quarantined, sick or injured animals are housed separately and are not available to the general public. Stray animals are kept separate for four days to allow time for owners to claim them and if they are not claimed, they are made available for adoption, if they pass a temperament test.
F5: The new building was scheduled to open June 19, 2002. However, due to safety concerns and lack of staffing, this did not happen. The floors were not finished properly and were too smooth when wet, which made them very slippery and hazardous. Four new positions were authorized to be filled for Animal Control Assistants. However,
F6: qualified persons could not be found for these positions until October 2002. These employees are currently receiving on-the-job basic training and are required to pas certification requirements.

* 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.