Shasta County Grand Jury
2001-2002
Findings & Recommendations
10 findings
F1:
Federal regulations {49 C.F.R. 213.9(a)} adopted under the Federal Railroad Safety Act of 1970 establish the maximum allowable operating speeds for all freight and passenger trains for each class of track on which they travel. The maximum allowable operating speed increases with each class of track, with ranges from Class l to Class 9.
F2:
Union Pacific railroad tracks traveling through Shasta County, including Redding, are Class 4 tracks. The maximum allowable speed for Class 4 tracks is 60 mph for freight trains and 80 mph for passenger trains.
F3:
Federal law regarding train speed limits preempts any local ordinance.
F4:
The 1965 City of Redding ordinance limiting train speeds to 45 mph through the city limits has been preempted by federal law and, therefore, is not binding on the railroad.
F5:
The above notwithstanding, the Union Pacific Railroad has established, by internal policy, a maximum speed limit of 45 mph for all trains traveling through the downtown Redding area.
F6:
The RPD Commendation or Complaint brochure provides information on other means of recourse if a complainant is dissatisfied with the results of an investigation. The other means referenced include contacting the City Council, City Manager, District Attorney’s Office, the California Department of Justice or the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The brochure does not reference the Grand Jury as an alternate means of recourse.
F7:
Statistical data on the number of commendations received is not maintained by RPD. However, during the calendar year 2001, the Redding Police Department replied to over 100 letters of appreciation or commendation on behalf of its employees.
F8:
It is Department policy, when recruiting new officers, to have a member of the public participate on the interview selection panel. In addition to the police academy, successful applicants are required to complete a 10 to 17 week in-house orientation and training program before being allowed to patrol unaccompanied.
F9:
Police officer recruitment has become more challenging with fewer candidates applying for RPD openings than in previous years. However, some officers are opting to transfer from urban areas at a substantial cut in pay in exchange for the rural life style of the north state.
F10:
RPD has adopted a “Ride-Along” program that provides the general public an opportunity to ride with a patrol officer for several hours during the normal course of duties. This program enables the participant a first-hand look at local law enforcement in action. Participants must complete a Release of Liability Agreement prior to the ride along.
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
1. In light of more recent federal regulations, the Grand Jury recommends the City of Redding review its 1965 ordinance limiting train speeds. If warranted, the City of Redding should consider repealing said ordinance. RESPONSE REQUIRED: Redding City Council REDDING POLICE DEPARTMENT REASON FOR INVESTIGATION: California Penal Code Section 925a provides that the Grand Jury may at any time examine the books and records of any incorporated city located in the county. Since the Redding Police Department (RPD) had not been the subject of a general investigation for over ten years, the Grand Jury felt it timely to conduct a review with emphasis on citizen complaints and the internal affairs investigation process. Section 832.5(a) of the Penal Code requires, “Each department or agency in this state which employs peace officers shall establish a procedure to investigate citizen’s complaints against the personnel of such departments or agencies, and shall make a written description of the procedure available to the public.” BACKGROUND: The mission of the Redding Police Department is to work in partnership with the community to protect life and property, solve neighborhood problems, and enhance the quality of life in our city. RPD employs 110 sworn peace officers along with 50 full time and 20 part-time civilian staff. The Chief of Police is appointed by and reports to the City Manager. Departmental organization consists of three divisions: Field Operations, Investigations, and Administrative Services, each overseen by a Division Commander with the rank of Captain. RPD’s annual budget of $15.2 million for the 2001/02 fiscal year represents 35% of Redding’s general fund budget. METHOD OF INVESTIGATION: The Grand Jury interviewed: • Redding Chief of Police • RPD Division Commanders • A Shasta County Public Defender • A private investigator • A Shasta County deputy district attorney • A private criminal defense attorney • Shasta County Jail management The Grand Jury obtained and reviewed: • General Orders Manual, Redding Police Department • Instructions Manual, Redding Police Department • Redding Police Department’s Mission Statement • Department organizational charts • Redding Crime Statistics Reports • Redding Police Department informational brochures • Statistical data regarding complaints for the past five years • Statewide citizen complaint statistics • Five typical internal investigation files selected at random FINDINGS: 1. The Redding Police Department has prepared a written description of the department’s procedures to investigate complaints along with instructions on how to commend or complain about a police department employee. The Commendation or Complaint brochure is available in the lobby of RPD. 2. Formal complaints are investigated in accordance with Penal Code Section 832.5 and established RPD procedures. The supervisor taking the complaint provides the complainant with a copy of their statement. The complainant is required to sign a Personnel Complaint and Procedures Report, which defines the right to make a complaint and the law regarding false accusations. The complaint is assigned to an investigating officer who conducts an inquiry and prepares a report of findings. The Chief of Police reviews and approves the results of all internal affairs investigations. Complainants are notified of the disposition of the complaint in writing; however, any disciplinary actions taken against the officer are confidential. The Grand Jury found the internal affairs investigation process to be professional, thorough, objective and well documented. 3. Of the 48 citizen complaints investigated in the past five years, ten were sustained and discipline administered; the remaining 38 were either exonerated, not sustained, or unfounded. The following table is a summary of citizen complaints filed against RPD for the past five calendar years: Year Citizen Complaints Sustained 1997 17 5 1998 11 3 1999 4 2 2000 9 0 2001 7 0 Five-Year Total 48 10 4. During the past five years, the RPD averaged 10 citizens’ complaints per year. The annual statewide rate for citizen complaints against peace officers averaged 57 complaints per 100,000 population, with eight being sustained. 5. Pursuant to section 13020 of the Penal Code, the Redding Police Department must report to the State Attorney General at the end of each calendar year regarding the disposition of citizen complaints. 6. The RPD Commendation or Complaint brochure provides information on other means of recourse if a complainant is dissatisfied with the results of an investigation. The other means referenced include contacting the City Council, City Manager, District Attorney’s Office, the California Department of Justice or the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The brochure does not reference the Grand Jury as an alternate means of recourse. 7. Statistical data on the number of commendations received is not maintained by RPD. However, during the calendar year 2001, the Redding Police Department replied to over 100 letters of appreciation or commendation on behalf of its employees. 8. It is Department policy, when recruiting new officers, to have a member of the public participate on the interview selection panel. In addition to the police academy, successful applicants are required to complete a 10 to 17 week in-house orientation and training program before being allowed to patrol unaccompanied. 9. Police officer recruitment has become more challenging with fewer candidates applying for RPD openings than in previous years. However, some officers are opting to transfer from urban areas at a substantial cut in pay in exchange for the rural life style of the north state. 10. RPD has adopted a “Ride-Along” program that provides the general public an opportunity to ride with a patrol officer for several hours during the normal course of duties. This program enables the participant a first-hand look at local law enforcement in action. Participants must complete a Release of Liability Agreement prior to the ride along. RECOMMENDATIONS: Redding Police Department’s Commendation or Complaint brochure should also reference the Shasta County Grand Jury as an alternate means of recourse. RESPONSE REQUIRED: The Redding City Council RESPONSE INVITED: The Redding Chief of Police COMMENDATIONS: The Redding Police Department is a professional, well-managed and progressive organization that provides exceptional public safety for the community
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F1:
Public services provided by the District include the distribution of public informational brochures and the availability of staff to conduct educational seminars. SMVCD participates in community activities and presentations.
F2:
The District strives to respond to calls from the public within 24 hours.
F3:
SMVCD operates independently of Shasta County, except for the following: a. The County assesses, bills, and collects property taxes for the District b. The District deposits its funds with the Shasta County Treasurer c. The Auditor-Controller processes the District’s board-approved claims for payment and mailing
F4:
The District is funded from a share of property taxes and a special assessment.
F5:
A five-member board of trustees governs the District. Two members are appointed by the Shasta County Board of Supervisors, and one each by the city councils of Anderson, Redding and City of Shasta Lake. Board members serve four-year terms with reappointment at the discretion of the appointing agency. The combined service of the current board is over 50 years.
F6:
The District staff totals 13 full time and 2 to 4 seasonal employees. All personnel with the exception of the office secretary are licensed vector control technicians. In addition to on-the-job training, application technicians are required to attend continuing education classes.
F7:
If the District were required to obtain a NPDES permit and because water would have to be tested before and after each application, the laboratory testing could cost from $800 to $1000 per application of chemicals. The District performs approximately 1000 applications per year; testing costs could potentially double the District’s annual budget.
F8:
The District effectively treats identified water areas and continuously monitors for signs of encephalitis, malaria, Dengue fever, and West Nile Virus.
F9:
At the time of this review, the District did have a personnel manual but did not have an operational manual. The District refers to the California Health and Safety Code for operational guidance.
Additional Recommendations
9
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Public services provided by the District include the distribution of public informational brochures and the availability of staff to conduct educational seminars. SMVCD participates in community activities and presentations.
R2:
The District strives to respond to calls from the public within 24 hours.
R3:
SMVCD operates independently of Shasta County, except for the following: a. The County assesses, bills, and collects property taxes for the District b. The District deposits its funds with the Shasta County Treasurer c. The Auditor-Controller processes the District’s board-approved claims for payment and mailing
R4:
The District is funded from a share of property taxes and a special assessment.
R5:
A five-member board of trustees governs the District. Two members are appointed by the Shasta County Board of Supervisors, and one each by the city councils of Anderson, Redding and City of Shasta Lake. Board members serve four-year terms with reappointment at the discretion of the appointing agency. The combined service of the current board is over 50 years.
R6:
The District staff totals 13 full time and 2 to 4 seasonal employees. All personnel with the exception of the office secretary are licensed vector control technicians. In addition to on-the-job training, application technicians are required to attend continuing education classes.
R7:
If the District were required to obtain a NPDES permit and because water would have to be tested before and after each application, the laboratory testing could cost from $800 to $1000 per application of chemicals. The District performs approximately 1000 applications per year; testing costs could potentially double the District’s annual budget.
R8:
The District effectively treats identified water areas and continuously monitors for signs of encephalitis, malaria, Dengue fever, and West Nile Virus.
R9:
At the time of this review, the District did have a personnel manual but did not have an operational manual. The District refers to the California Health and Safety Code for operational guidance. RECOMMENDATION:
Findings & Recommendations
11 findings
F1:
The Grand Jury found the Shasta County Main Jail to be a clean, orderly and well run facility.
F2:
Section 4021 of the Penal Code requires a female custodial person to be available to supervise female inmates 24 hours a day. The Main Jail meets this requirement, although recruitment of female deputies has become increasingly difficult.
F3:
The Sheriff’s Office anticipates 35% of its staff will be retiring within the next three years while, at the same time, recruitment of deputy sheriffs has become increasingly difficult, particularly to work in the jail. To enhance recruitment and retention, in December 2001, the Board of Supervisors approved the Sheriff’s proposal to replace some 62 Shasta County deputy sheriffs employed at the Main Jail and Annex with correctional officers. Deputy sheriffs currently assigned to the detention facilities would be transitioned to field assignments over a three- year period as substitute correctional officers are recruited. The transition is currently underway and, when complete, will result in savings of over $800,000 annually due to reduced salary and training requirements for correctional officers.
F4:
There is a shortage of facilities available in Shasta County for medical de- toxification.
F5:
Because of California state licensing requirements, it would be difficult and impractical for Shasta County to expand its psychiatric hospital. The hospital is currently licensed for 15 beds as a freestanding psychiatric health facility by California mandates that limit them to 16 beds or less. Increasing the number of beds would lead to the county losing this license and the federal participation funding.
F6:
The Shasta County Mental Health Department is attempting to address a human resource shortage in the areas of mental health professionals, nurses and social workers. At the beginning of 2001 there were 35 vacancies in the department. The administration is working with educational institutions to develop training programs and internships and with their own staff to provide continuing education programs.
F7:
The administrators of the Shasta County Mental Health Department are instituting a re-organization of the department that includes better utilization of state and federal funding resources, better access by mental health patients to medical care, more emphasis on interagency services, and more private sector contracting for services.
F8:
California Government Code 5604 requires each community mental health service to have a Local Mental Health Board and specifies the makeup of the board. The Shasta County Mental Health Board is made up of 15 volunteer members appointed by the Board of Supervisors. Membership is made up of consumers of mental health services, family members of consumers, representatives of the community, and a member of the Board of Supervisors.
F9:
The Shasta County Mental Health Board has adopted bylaws that reflect the statutory requirements as outlined in California Government Code 5604. Government Code 5604.2(a)(5) specifically requires the Mental Health Board to submit an annual report to the Board of Supervisors on the needs and performance of the county’s mental health system. The Grand Jury was unable to find any evidence that this report had been submitted by the Shasta County Mental Health Board in at least the last five years.
F10:
The purpose of the Mental Health Board should be to insure that the community’s mental health needs are being adequately met. The Grand Jury found that the Board lacks focus in establishing priorities that would lead to accomplishing that purpose. The Board appears to be trying to facilitate a number of projects, but needs more direction from the leadership and participation from all members in order to meet its goals.
F11:
The Shasta County Mental Health-Medical Community Partnership Solutions Project Task Force was formed in 2001 to identify problems and recommend solutions regarding mental health care in the community. The Task Force is made up of members of the private medical community, members of the Shasta County Mental Health Board, staff members of the Shasta County Mental Health Department, a member of the Shasta County Board of Supervisors, a staff member from the Shasta County Administrative Office, members of the private non-profit sector, members of law enforcement, members of other community groups, a member of the County Counsel’s office, members of the Public Guardian’s Office, staff from the Shasta Community Health Center, and other members of the community. Some of the recommendations that came out of this dialogue, such as facilitating the transfer of medical records, have been implemented and are beneficial to the department and the community. Continuing participation from the private medical community is essential to the further success of this Task Force.