San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
2010-2011
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 (14)
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
Morro Bay has not revised its water rate schedule since 1994.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Morro Bay should review its water rate schedule.
F2:
Paso Robles, Avila Beach CSD, and San Simeon CSD have uniform water rates that do not increase unit cost as consumption increases.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Paso Robles, Avila Beach CSD, and San Simeon CSD should consider adopting tiered water rates that target high volume users.
F3:
Only Atascadero MWC bills show rate tiers, tier consumption and tier charges.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Arroyo Grande, Grover Beach, Morro Bay, Pismo Beach, San Luis Obispo, Cambria CSD, Heritage Ranch CSD, Los Osos CSD, Nipomo CSD, Oceano CSD, San Miguel CSD, and Templeton CSD should consider revising water bills to show rate tiers, water usage for each tier and the charges for each tier.
F4:
Water meters are not used for all urban development outside of cities served by a water company.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The County should consider adopting an ordinance for urban development outside of cities served by a water company, which would require that new development be metered and that existing developments be metered upon ownership transfer.
F5:
Apartment buildings in the seven cities and urban areas outside of the cities typically do not have water meters that register indoor water use for individual units.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The cities and County should consider adopting an ordinance that would require new apartment buildings to have meters that register indoor water used by individual units. To reduce costs, meters could be a type intended only for use by apartment building owners, instead of those supplied by water providers for water service hook-ups.
F6:
Residential sewer providers that base charges on volume of water consumed do not clearly indicate on their bills that water volume affects sewer charges, with the exception of the City of San Luis Obispo
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
Arroyo Grande, Grover Beach, Morro Bay, Avila Beach CSD, Cambria CSD, Heritage Ranch CSD, and San Simeon CSD should consider revising sewer bills to show that water usage affects sewer charges.
Findings & Recommendations
15 findings
F1:
The District Administrator, John Wallace, and his company, the Wallace Group, have a pervasive presence in all facets of the District’s operation, from executing Board policy and exercising oversight responsibility for daily operations and to providing numerous financial services, including budget preparation and financial reporting. There are few District activities that the District Administrator or the Wallace Group does not manage, provide or control.
F2:
The Board should consider independent management for the District. An independent District Administrator could become familiar with District operations and finances, and then develop and recommend to the Board an organizational structure and plan to transition to the new organization.
F3:
As long as the District Administrator’s conflict of interest exists, the Board must demand and receive a level of information that allows it to manage and mitigate the conflict. Because this conflict of interest has not been a focus of the Board, the current budget and budget tracking process is not adequate to mitigate it. The budget and budget monitoring process provides inadequate information about Wallace Group charges. Appropriate controls should be designed, independent of the District Administrator. The District Administrator has had 25 years to put appropriate budget controls in place and has not done so.
F4:
The Board should evaluate and compare operational alternatives for the District. This would include a review of all services provided to operate the District below the level of the Board. The District and Wallace Group have been molded together for 25 years, with no independent evaluation of what has evolved. This review should be done independently of the involvement or influence of the District Administrator because of his conflict of interest.
F5:
The County’s Audit Division would provide considerable benefit to the District and the public if it were to conduct an audit. The result would be an independent professional opinion regarding the adequacy of the District’s internal controls to mitigate a conflict of interest. FINDINGS
F6:
The District’s Board is dependent on the District Administrator for the information it reviews in order to make policy decisions. The Board has limited resources to verify or evaluate this information independently.
F7:
The District Administrator has a conflict of interest because of his dual simultaneous roles with the District and the Wallace Group.
Related Recommendations (3)
R3:
The Board should consider hiring independent management for the District in order to eliminate the current District Administrator conflict of interest and to begin the process to review and evaluate the organizational structure of the District. (Addresses Findings 1-7, and 10)
R4:
The Board should evaluate and compare all operational alternatives for the District. This review should include all services provided to the District below the level of the state- mandated Board of Directors. (Addresses Findings 1-7)
R5:
The Board must review operational alternatives independently of the District Administrator because of his conflict of interest. (Addresses Findings 1-7)
F8:
The contract provides the District with some ability to mitigate a conflict of interest by means of the following clause: “Services rendered pursuant to this Agreement shall be at the direction and request of the District’s Board of Directors.”
F9:
The budget and payment processes do not currently provide the information necessary for the Board to mitigate the District Administrator’s conflict of interest.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
As long as the District Administrator has a conflict of interest, the District’s budget/ payment process should be modified to provide the Board with the specific Wallace Group information it needs to mitigate the conflict. (Addresses Findings 2-13)
R2:
The budget/payment process changes required and the manner and timing of reporting Wallace Group charges must be determined independently of the District Administrator. (Addresses Findings 2-13)
F10:
The Board does not recognize that the dual roles of the District Administrator create a conflict of interest.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Board should consider hiring independent management for the District in order to eliminate the current District Administrator conflict of interest and to begin the process to review and evaluate the organizational structure of the District. (Addresses Findings 1-7, and 10)
F11:
The Investigation Report commissioned by the Board to investigate allegations of unnecessary Wallace Group work being charged to a District project concluded the allegation was false.
F12:
The limited facts presented in the Investigation Report were not adequate to support the report’s conclusion.
F13:
The Investigation Report supporting documentation includes evidence that the budget process did not inform the Board of the total Wallace Group costs charged to the maintenance building roof capital project.
F14:
and Recommendation 6. The responses shall be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the San Luis Obispo County Superior Court by August 2, 2011. Please provide a paper copy and an electronic version of all responses to the Grand Jury. The mailing addresses for delivery are: Presiding Judge Grand Jury Presiding Judge Charles S. Crandall San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury Superior Court of California P.O. Box 4910 1050 Monterey Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93402 San Luis Obispo, CA 93408 The email address for the Grand Jury is: GrandJury@co.slo.ca.us
F15:
The same audit principal has audited the District’s financial statements since 1998.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
The Board should adopt the practice of rotating the District’s principal auditor every five years. (Addresses Finding 15)
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R6:
The responses shall be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the San Luis Obispo County Superior Court by August 29, 2011. Please provide a paper copy and an electronic version of all responses to the Grand Jury The County of San Luis Obispo Office of Auditor-Controller is required to respond to
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
F1:
The Foundation does not operate in accordance with the purposes and the corporate structure and requirements established by its Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
The Foundation should review and revise its Articles of Incorporation and the Bylaws to reflect the manner in which it actually operates. (Finding 1)
R2:
The Foundation should hold regular Board meetings, maintain minutes of such meetings and make the minutes accessible to interested parties. (Finding 1)
F2:
The Foundation files annual federal and state tax returns that accurately report its total revenues and expenses, but that do not accurately report its sources of revenue, its categories of expenses or the basis for its classification as a public charity.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Foundation should review its tax returns and financial records and determine what, if any, revisions and/or modifications are necessary to: (1) accurately reflect its sources of revenue and types of expenditures, and (2) properly state the basis for its classification as a public charity. (Finding 2)
F3:
The financial books and records of the Foundation: (1) do not consistently categorize its revenues and expenses by specific sport or activity; (2) are not structured in a manner that confirms revenues raised by specific sports are expended only for specific sports; and, (3) do not provide accurate or timely financial statements on a periodic basis.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The Foundation should implement a financial recordkeeping system that: (1) categorizes revenues and expenses by sport or other activities; (2) confirms whether or not revenues generated for a specific sport are used solely to fund expenditures in support of that sport; and, (3) generates accurate and timely monthly and year-end financial statements. (Finding 3)
F4:
The Foundation has not signed contracts for the use of PRHS athletic facilities and has not provided PRHS or the District the proof of liability insurance as required by District policy.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The Foundation should provide the District and/or PRHS with evidence it carries the $1,000,000 liability insurance required to use PRHS athletic facilities or secure a contract with the school board that exempts it from this policy. (Finding 4) 2010-2011 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
F5:
The Foundation Board has no written policies or procedures that regulate the types of fundraising activities that may be conducted by the Foundation; nor does the Board have a process for reviewing and approving fundraising activities.
Related Recommendations (2)
R6:
The District should develop and implement policies and procedures that specify the types of fundraising activities in which the Foundation may engage. (Findings 5 , 6, and 7)
R7:
The District should provide for review and oversight of these fundraising activities by the District or its designee. (Findings 5 , 6, and 7)
F6:
The District has no written policies or procedures that regulate the types of fundraising activities that may be conducted by the Foundation or that require the review and approval of fundraising activities.
F7:
The Foundation has conducted some student fundraising activities that might more appropriately be conducted through ASB. In accordance with Section 933.05(d) of the Penal Code, the Grand Jury invited representatives of the Foundation, the subject of this report, to come before the Grand Jury for the purpose of reviewing the Findings and the Narrative sections to verify factual accuracy prior to the release of the report. 2010-2011 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
F8:
The Foundation operates with a lack of transparency: minimal publicity, no website, no publications bearing its name, and no mention in PRHS or District publications or websites.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
The Foundation should establish a public information program that fully explains its purposes, describes its activities, sources of revenue and expenditures, and presents information about its Board. (Finding 8) 2010-2011 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
SLO County has implemented and continues to develop and implement e-Gov services for its citizens.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
SLO County should consider establishing an e-Gov advisory group consisting of local public users of e-Gov services, ideally a cross-section of business people and private citizens.
F2:
County government has focused primarily on external clients/customers in its e-Gov efforts
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
SLO County should establish a focus group approach to obtaining feedback from public users of e-Gov services.
F3:
County government has not placed similar focus on its own, currently underutilized, intranet.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
SLO County should conduct an initial survey of County staff on how it might improve utilization of the County intranet, in order to establish a baseline. Thereafter, it should conduct periodic surveys to track progress and solicit ideas for further improvements.
F4:
County government has not developed and implemented a regular, formal method of obtaining feedback from the citizens of SLO County on its e-Gov services, both current and potential.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
SLO County should establish an internal task force targeted at improving the County’s intranet, perhaps spearheaded by the e-Gov COI.
F5:
The County has not formally surveyed its staff on how it might improve utilization of its intranet.
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F1:
EHS policy is to inspect restaurants every nine months, without regard to prior violation history, age or location of building where the restaurant is housed.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
a. Develop a risk-based inspection policy that tracks high and low-risk offenders and adjusts their inspection cycle accordingly. b. Initiate an ‘excellence award’ program and consider combining it with a less frequent inspection cycle.
F2:
The EHS scoring system used by restaurant Inspectors results in artificially high scores for restaurants.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
a. Deduct additional points for a repeat violation of the same standard in a previous report. b. Deduct additional points for multiple violations found on the same type of equipment, such as two refrigerators with unsafe temperatures. c. Revise the point deductions so that the resulting percentage score more accurately reflects the restaurant conditions found.
F3:
The first inspection and the first reinspection are included in the annual restaurant inspection fees. EHS can charge for subsequent inspections but rarely does.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
a. Charge for first reinspection and ensure that restaurant owners are aware of the additional costs, in order to motivate compliance and to help support cost recovery. b. Move towards full cost recovery for all types of inspections by increasing fees to cover inspection staff hours.
F4:
EHS enforcement policy is minimal and violation deterrents are insufficient.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
a. Incorporate all fines allowed by CALCODE into EHS Policies and Procedures. b. Apply the CALCODE authorized fines for violating the Food Safety Certification requirement. c. Charge for all reinspections.
F5:
Performance evaluations for Inspectors include a quota for inspections but no credit for reinspections. Reinspections are performed at the discretion of individual Inspectors.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
a. Include reinspections in Inspectors’ performance evaluations. b. Establish a policy that states when reinspections are to be performed instead of allowing inspections to be performed at the Inspector’s discretion.
F6:
The EHS computer system is not effectively used for statistical reports or for producing useful management documentation due to the complexity of the system and/or the insufficient training of staff. EHS spends $70,000 per year for software vendor maintenance.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
a. Provide additional staff training on the EHS computer system. b. Require management to work more actively with the already established ‘user group’ and vendor to achieve more effective operations and functions. c. Provide additional training on the report writer feature to the staff member assigned responsibility for report development. A backup staff member should also be trained in this function. d. Request that a senior County IT employee be assigned to review the capabilities of the system in order for management to be able to determine the value of the system. A determination should be made as to what major changes are needed and what the additional vendor costs will be.
F7:
EHS website information concerning restaurant inspections is incomplete. It does not include the full inspection report and is not ‘user-friendly.’ Multi-page inspection report searches are conducted differently, depending on the type of PC used. No user guide or notes are displayed.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
To improve website access and information: a. Provide easier access to restaurant inspection reports and searches and implement a more “user friendly” website with a consistent search method. b. Include inspector comments on each violation for viewing in the inspection report. c. Include notes of uncorrected violations from previous inspections. d. Make the restaurant complaint form easily accessible and tailor it to food facility complaints.
F8:
The public notice stating that a restaurant has been inspected by the EHS is not easily visible in most restaurants and does not include sufficient information.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
a. Post notices in an easily seen location, preferably in a front window or at the payment or hostess station. b. Include the score or grade in the notices when a new scoring or rating system is implemented. c. Include an EHS “hotline” telephone number for registering complaints.
F9:
Food safety instructions observed in the kitchens were in English, although many Latinos work in restaurant kitchens.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
a. Post food safety instruction signs in kitchens in both English and Spanish.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
1 findings
F14:
The County of San Luis Obispo's Audit Division has the right to audit the accounts and records of the District. Response: We agree substantially with this finding. However, there is a small issue that we believe can be dealt with under the circumstances. Government Code Section 26909 (a) (1) contains the following language: The county auditor shall either make or contract with a certified public accountant or public accountant to make an annual audit of the accounts and records of every special district within the county for which an audit by a certified public accountant or public accountant is not otherwise provided. We have a report of audit on file for the District's 2009-2010 fiscal year by a certified public accountant. So there is a question whether the county auditor can make his own annual audit for that fiscal year. However, as of this response date there is no audit on file for the District's 2010-2011 fiscal year. Therefore it appears that the county auditor could perform audit procedures as suggested by the Grand Jury for 2010-2011 or a future year.
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R6:
The County of San Luis Obispo's Audit Division should consider conducting an audit of the District that would include an independent professional assessment of whether the District has the controls in place to mitigate the financial risks inherent in a conflict of interest. (Addresses Findings 5, 9, and 14) F:\WordDocs\GereWordDocs\Grand Jury\South SLO Sanitation Response June 2011.docx Presiding Judge Charles Crandall June 22, 2011 Response: The District has engaged an independent certified public accountant each year to make an audit of its accounts and records. I am also told that the District plans to rotate its principal auditor in accordance with the Grand Jury's recommendation (recommendation #7) for rotation every five years. Therefore, it does not appear cost effective or necessary for the county auditor to also perform a full audit. I would propose an alternative that in my view would better address the Grand Jury's expressed concerns. I will assign staff from our Audit Division to perform a limited review of internal financial controls at the District, with a specific emphasis on possible conflicts of interest between the District Administrator and District Engineer. I also understand that the District is adopting new contracts for District Administrator and District Engineer. I will ask Audit Division staff to review the new contracts as well and evaluate the controls under the new agreements. The Auditor-Controller has a very small Audit Division with many critical responsibilities to perform. However, in light of the Grand Jury's interest and the evolving nature of District management, we will attempt to schedule this work within the next 6 months. Our report will be addressed to the District Board of Directors, with copies provided to the Grand Jury and the Board of Supervisors for their information. Conclusion: I believe this response and our planned action meets the requirements of law and the spirit of the Grand Jury's report. Gere W. Sibbach, CPA SLO County Auditor-Controller Cc: SLO County Board of Supervisors James Grant, County Administrative Officer Board of Directors, South SLO County Sanitation District
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
In each of the programs it visited, the Grand Jury found the directors and staff dedicated, supportive, and caring. They encourage each juvenile to become the best he/she can be and achieve his/her dreams. Every juvenile the Grand Jury observed was treated with ultimate respect.
F2:
County officials developed the 5-year Strategic Prevention Framework Plan. There appears to be no direct relationship between the County’s accomplishments and the Plan’s expected outcomes and measurement indicators.
F3:
Juveniles facing court actions do not appear to recognize, respect or acknowledge the seriousness of the court proceedings.
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Findings & Recommendations
12 findings
F1:
Current Med-Com policy and practice (i) immediately initiates the emergency medical helicopter dispatch process under Policy 119 whenever an Incident Commander requests an emergency medical helicopter and (ii) does not permit Med-Com dispatchers to question or cancel the request.
F2:
Both County emergency medical helicopter operators have equipment and procedures enabling them to contact flight crews for ETAs and provide Med-Com with ETAs within three (3) minutes of requests.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
EMSA should revise Policy 119 to require that Med-Com dispatch the emergency medical helicopter that has responded to Med-Com with an ETA, if no ETA has been received from the other emergency medical helicopter within three (3) minutes after it was simultaneously requested by Med-Com to provide an ETA. (Finding 2)
F3:
Policy 119 authorizes the Incident Commander, in consultation with the most medically- qualified first responder, to determine that a requested medical helicopter is not needed and to cancel the request.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
EMSA should consult with State Parks Rangers concerning application of the Policy 119 cancellation procedure at the Dunes and determine what, if any, revisions should be made in either State Parks procedures or Policy 119 so the cancellation procedure and actual cancellation practice are consistent. (Findings 3-6)
F4:
A State Parks Ranger is usually the Incident Commander for a medical emergency at the Dunes and under Policy 119 is authorized to make the final determination of whether an emergency medical helicopter is needed.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
EMSA should consult with State Parks Rangers concerning application of the Policy 119 cancellation procedure at the Dunes and determine what, if any, revisions should be made in either State Parks procedures or Policy 119 so the cancellation procedure and actual cancellation practice are consistent. (Findings 3-6)
F5:
State Parks training and procedures are the opposite of Policy 119 and require Rangers to defer to the determination of the most medically-qualified first responder on scene as to whether an emergency medical helicopter is needed.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
EMSA should consult with State Parks Rangers concerning application of the Policy 119 cancellation procedure at the Dunes and determine what, if any, revisions should be made in either State Parks procedures or Policy 119 so the cancellation procedure and actual cancellation practice are consistent. (Findings 3-6)
F6:
In medical emergency calls at the Dunes, the Policy 119 procedure for canceling an emergency medical helicopter requested by the Incident Commander is often reversed and the most medically-qualified first responder (usually the ground ambulance paramedic) on scene, in consultation with the Incident Commander (usually a State Parks Ranger), determines whether or not the requested emergency medical helicopter is needed.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
EMSA should consult with State Parks Rangers concerning application of the Policy 119 cancellation procedure at the Dunes and determine what, if any, revisions should be made in either State Parks procedures or Policy 119 so the cancellation procedure and actual cancellation practice are consistent. (Findings 3-6)
F7:
The ground ambulance paramedics responding to medical emergencies at the Dunes do not make any entries in their patient care records to confirm consultation with the Incident Commander or the determination by the Incident Commander that the emergency medical helicopter is not needed.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
EMSA should require that ground ambulance paramedics include in patient care reports a confirmation that they consulted with the Incident Commander. The note should identify the Incident Commander and confirm that the Incident Commander decided the helicopter was not needed following consultation. (Finding 7)
F8:
EMSA does not include a representative of the State Parks Rangers on its Operations or Quality Improvement Committees.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
EMSA should include a representative from State Parks Rangers on its Operations and Quality Improvement Subcommittees. (Finding 8)
F9:
State Parks Rangers are generally not aware of the formal and informal processes available for them to request EMSA review of whether their requests for an emergency medical helicopter were cancelled in accordance with Policy 119.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
EMSA should advise State Parks Rangers of the formal and informal procedures available to them for requesting that the appropriate EMSA Committee review cancellation of an emergency medical helicopter request the Rangers believe was in violation of Policy 119. (Finding 9)
F10:
Policy 119 does not incorporate the recently approved EMSA Policy 201.2 on STEMI triage and destination and therefore does not permit Incident Commanders to request an emergency medical helicopter for any medical emergency call involving a possible heart attack that meets STEMI criteria.
F11:
Transport of a heart attack patient on the Dunes who meets STEMI criteria to Marian Medical Center by emergency medical helicopter will result in a time savings of more than ten (10) minutes over ground ambulance transport to French Hospital.
F12:
Policy 119 does not give paramedics or flight nurses any discretion to consult with an available and more medically-qualified authority and to obtain their authorization to deviate from Policy 119 based on the particular circumstances of a case.
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R6:
The responses shall be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the San Luis Obispo Superior Court by July 25, 2011. Please provide a paper copy and an electronic version of all responses to the Grand Jury, as well. The San Luis Ambulance Company is required to respond to Findings 3, 6, 7 and 12 and Recommendations 3 and 7. The responses shall be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the San Luis Obispo Superior Court by July 25, 2011. Please provide a paper copy and an electronic version of all responses to the Grand Jury, as well. The CalStar Santa Maria Base is required to respond to Findings 2 and 12 and
R7:
The responses shall be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the San Luis Obispo Superior Court by July 25, 2011. Please provide a paper copy and an electronic version of all responses to the Grand Jury, as well. The mailing addresses for delivery are: Presiding Judge Grand Jury Presiding Judge Charles S. Crandall San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury Superior Court of California P.O. Box 4910 1050 Monterey Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93402 San Luis Obispo, CA 93408 The email address for the Grand Jury is: GrandJury@co.slo.ca.us State agencies are not subject to the jurisdiction of the Grand Jury and are not required to respond to any Grand Jury Findings or Recommendations. However, the two state agencies discussed in this report are important components of the County emergency medical response system, particularly at the Dunes. The Grand Jury wishes to thank representatives of these state agencies who voluntarily provided assistance to the Grand Jury during its investigation. The Grand Jury requests that these state agencies voluntarily respond to the Findings and Recommendations resulting from the Grand Jury investigation that are noted below. Any such responses may be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the San Luis Obispo Superior Court by July 25, 2011. Please provide a paper copy and an electronic version of all responses to the Grand Jury. The addresses for these responses are listed above. The California Highway Patrol is requested to respond to Finding 2. The Oceano District Office of the California State Parks Department is requested to respond to Findings 4-6 and 9 and Recommendations 2 and 4-6.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
Two additional supervisory courses titled “Establishing Performance Standards” and “Implementing Performance Standards” were rolled out in February 2011. 2. “Progressive Discipline” course still on target to be completed and presented to employees in FY 2011-2012.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
“The County should continue to require Human Resources Department, San Luis Obispo County: training in progressive discipline to all “…agrees and has already implemented this recommendation. This supervisors and managers.” mandated course remains in effect for the FY 2010-11. The Human Resources strategic training plan provides for this course to continue into ensuing fiscal years.”
F3:
The original Basic Supervisory course, along with three other courses, will result in a total of four course offerings by the end of FY 2011-2012.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The original Basic Supervisory course, along with three other courses, will result in a total of four course offerings by the end of FY 2011-2012.
F4:
Basic Supervisory class being offered quarterly remains mandatory for new supervisors and is also available to existing supervisors. 2010-2011 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury TABLE 2 INADEQUATE RESPONSES REPORT TITLE/SUMMARY TO “GO SOLAR” OR NOT TO “GO SOLAR” The many and varied incentives to “go solar” – from saving the planet to saving a buck – are being looked at by homeowners, utility companies and government agencies alike. Stimulated by the state’s mandate to achieve the goal of obtaining 20% of our energy from renewable sources by 2010 and 33% by 2020, all parties are urgently looking at the alternatives.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
“City councils in Arroyo Grande, Atascadero and “The City Council has approved placing measures on the November 2, Paso Robles should consider trying again to 2010 ballot to make the City Treasurer and City Clerk positions convince the electorate to make at least the appointive. The Grand Jury findings are cited in the approved ballot position of treasurer appointive, while educating argument…The City Council has directed staff to prepare an Ordinance the electorate about qualifications needed in a delegating the appointive authority to the City Manager if the measures treasurer and committing the city to require are successful. Therefore, the City’s established process for recruitment appointed treasurers to possess those and hiring will be utilized in the future to ensure appointed treasurers and qualifications.” city clerks will possess the necessary qualifications.” BENEFICIAL OUTCOME On November 2, 2010, Measure C (Clerk) was approved 58.74% to 41.26%, and Measure D (Treasurer) was approved 55.94% to 44.06% by the voters in Arroyo Grande, making the City Treasurer and City Clerk positions appointive.2 REPORT TITLE/SUMMARY PROGRESSIVE DISCIPLINE OF COUNTY STAFF: POLICY AND PERFORMANCE With more than 2,400 people on the payroll, the county government is San Luis Obispo County’s largest employer. Employees who fail to perform (along with a few who cheat, steal or otherwise go astray) face progressive discipline. RECOMMENDATIONS AGENCY RESPONSES
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
There was no violation of law or other improper action by the City Manager of Atascadero in negotiating and signing a mutual agreement to terminate the employment of the former Chief in accordance with Section 3A of the former Chief’s Employment Agreement.
F2:
The City of Atascadero’s announcement on January 7, 2011 that the former Chief of Police resigned his position in order to spend time with his family omitted any announcement of the fact that the former Chief had at the same time signed a Settlement Agreement with a Settlement Payment of $126,000.
F3:
The City Manager released the Settlement Agreement only in response to a public information request.
F4:
The City’s partial and sequential disclosure of the circumstances surrounding the mutual agreement to terminate the employment of the former Chief exposed the City to media and community complaints about a lack of transparency from the City.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The City of Atascadero should review and consider an appropriate revision to the process by which its personnel decisions are disclosed to the public. This recommendation relates to
F5:
A disparity existed between Section 5B of the former Chief’s Employment Agreement and what the Grand Jury learned was the actual evaluation process the former Chief received. 2010-2011 San Luis Obispo Grand Jury
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The City Council should review the possible risk it is exposed to by a disparity between an Employment Agreement that requires the City Manager to provide a written annual review and an actual practice that does not conform to this provision. This recommendation relates to Finding 5.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Findings & Recommendations
2 findings
F6:
– As presently contemplated, the vision for the day center does not include overnight sleeping accommodations. Response – The 5CHC is undertaking a series of positive actions that address this concern: 1. The day center will provide an emergency overnight shelter during inclement weather and other emergencies. 2. 5CHC is working with South County Faith Communities to develop a workable plan for implementation of overnight shelters at Faith Community facilities similar to the overflow shelter plan at Maxine Lewis. This plan may be able to be implemented prior to start-up of the Day Center 3. The Day Center has commitments from housing service providers to participate in offering services at the Day Center from being on site or through regularly scheduled biweekly or monthly meetings. 4. The 5CHC is participating in the current Homeless Services Oversight Council, HSOC, study to provide overnight parking, a safe parking zone, for those homeless in vehicles and RVs. If approved by the County and local jurisdictions, 5CHC will offer this service at the Day Center. 5. The Day Center will have a computer center for job searching and housing and will have trained staff to assist in searching for housing. 6. 5CHC has a phase 2 plan that provides for an overnight shelter when the Day Center is operational and the required capital and operating funds can be secured.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
– County, south county cities and non- profits should pursue joint efforts to build a facility for both a Day Canter and night shelter. Response – The 5CHC is working diligently with the county, the cities, non profits and the SLO County Community Foundation to make the Day Center happen in a timely manner and to provide an opportunity for an overnight shelter. 5CHC has four members on the Foundation Task Team to select an agency to carry forward the homeless services program envisioned in the 1.5 million dollar Klaproad initiative. For the reasons set forth above under Findings 6, we believe that the current planned Day Center is viable with a high chance of success. The latter is the most important factor to consider in deciding on the best course of action/project plan to follow.
F10:
– Some homeless persons who are afflicted with drug and alcohol problems or mentally ill are not well served. Response – The 5CHC agrees with this observation as to the current situation. The 5CHC is undertaking a series of positive actions that address this concern at the Day Center: 1. The Community Health Center will offer Primary Care at the Day Center which will include behavioral mental health services for the homeless. 2. County Drug and Alcohol Services is planning to offer group therapy sessions at the Day Center on a scheduled basis and from those services, Drug and Alcohol can make referrals to Good Samaritan in Santa Maria, CA for more intensive services. They also plan to offer education lectures on services and approaches to treatment. 3. Mental Health will train the client information intake staff, triage approach, at the Day Center, and will be on call to do the assessment of those needing their services at the Day Center. Mental Health will also work with staff, volunteers and interested people receiving services to do outreach to the homeless and underserved on the services that are available and the welcoming environment at the Day Center. Mental Health plans to offer lectures on mental health to all staff and service providers at the Day Center.
Additional Recommendations
4
Not linked to specific findings.
R3:
– Full Time County Homeless Services Coordinator Response – Two members of the 5CHC Board are members of HSOC and the Finance and Services Subcommittees. The HSOC member’s observations to date are that there is developing a series of activities directed at coordination and efficiency in services in the county. For example the services subcommittee is working to establish uniformity in information intake and assessment of clients among non-profit and county service providers for the Homeless Management Information System. The HSOC Executive Director is actively involved and we recommend that the current organizational approach with the HSOC Executive Director be continued.
R4:
– The Homeless Services Coordinator should monitor funds and offer guidance to all agencies and groups throughout the county. Response – The HSOC Executive Director is actively involved with the Finance and Services subcommittees and carrying out the functions recommended for a full time coordinator. We recommend that the current organizational approach with the HSOC Executive Director be continued.
R7:
– 5CHC should work with local churches to establish temporary shelter. Response – 5CHC is pursuing this course of action. See response to Finding 6 – Item 2
R9:
– Expand Echo Ideas and Methods to the south county. Response – 5CHC is very familiar with the ECHO system as well as the training of ECHO volunteers and coordination of North County services by CAPSLO. One of the thrusts of the HSOC services sub- committee is to exchange best practices between service providers within the county as well as from model programs outside the county. 5CHC will use best practices from all relevant sources and integrate such into the ongoing operations as well as through changes that would lead to a more efficient delivery of services. 5CHC has had extensive discussions with potential service providers not only on services to be provided at the Day Center but on best practices, training, education and coordination between service providers. As set forth above, Drug and Alcohol and Mental Health plan to be part of a training and education programs at the Day Center. Other examples of training, education and cooperation are The Food Bank Coalition, nutrition programs, Arroyo Grande Community Hospital, health and wellness programs, the Women’s Shelter, training of intake staff and case managers on identifying possible victims of domestic violence and using caring non-threatening ways to suggest services and the Five Cities One Stop for job seekers who will offer workshops and train staff to support Day Center job seeking services. There will be coordination of services between both job seeking services with referrals between agencies depending on what is best for the client. Respectfully submitted, Patti Diefenderfer President Five Cities Homeless Coalition
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R3:
The Recommendation and the Atascadero City Council formal responses are below. Grand Jury Recommendation #3 Each incorporated city within San Luis Obispo County adopt a parallel ordinance (regarding restriction of days and hours of operation allowed for leaf blower use, and a gradual two year phase-out of all two-cycle gasoline powered leaf blowers) to ensure consistency throughout the county. City Council Response to Recommendation #3
* 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.
Additional documents
Documents found alongside this year's reports — not grand jury reports or responses.