Shasta County Grand Jury
2002-2003
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
13 findings
F1:
While investigating two citizens’ complaints, the Grand Jury found that the Superintendent and the District complied with relevant sections of both District policy and the California Education Code in a timely manner.
F2:
During the tour of four campuses, the Grand Jury found the facilities to be in good repair and well maintained.
F3:
The California Department of Education publishes the Academic Performance Index (API) for each school in the state annually. The API is an index designed to measure the school’s overall academic performance. Test scores, socio-economic factors, and location (rural or urban) determine the API. For the 2001/2002 school year, Anderson High School had an API of
F4:
The California Education Code requires districts such as AUHSD to maintain a 3% budgetary reserve for economic uncertainties. As of July 2002, the District had accumulated a reserve of approximately 13.5% of its annual budget. In March of 2003, the Board of Trustees decided to use approximately $500,000 of this reserve in order to retain 11 teachers and some classes which would otherwise have been eliminated due to state budget cuts.
F5:
During fiscal year 2001/2002, the Anderson Union High School District had a financial deficit of $697,688. A deficit of $114,603 is projected for 2002/2003. Adequate funds were available from the reserve to cover the deficits.
F6:
According to Shasta County Office of Education information, AUHSD has experienced declining enrollment over the past four years, as have most other districts within the county.
F7:
During the investigation of a citizen’s complaint, the Grand Jury found the District’s administering of certain grant funds to be in order.
F8:
AUHSD provides a benefit to the elected Board of Trustees in the form of a paid health insurance policy. The cost of this comprehensive, family health insurance policy is $9,324 per year per Trustee. Some Trustees have declined the benefit. Other school districts in Shasta County that were contacted by the Grand Jury do not offer this benefit to their board members.
F9:
The Grand Jury conducted random checks of the credentials held by certain administrators of AUHSD and found the credentials held to be the proper ones for the current assignment.
F10:
Early in the investigation, the Grand Jury interviewed the publisher of a local newspaper in Anderson. The newspaper had published several articles critical of AUHSD. These articles were of both the editorial and hard news type. During the interview, the publisher provided the Grand Jury with several allegations and “facts” in both written and verbal form regarding the District. These statements, if true, would indicate improper acts. The Grand Jury spent considerable time and effort attempting to corroborate these allegations and “facts”. The Grand Jury ascertained that nearly all of the “facts” and allegations were unfounded.
F11:
The Grand Jury obtained information from seven other counties in the State, all of which have delegated the authority of approving and paying claims to the Auditor-Controller through resolution or other action of the Board. It appears that Shasta County’s process of categorizing some claims as board claims requires less scrutiny by the Auditor-Controller’s staff because if there is no obvious reference on the claim to a purchase order, contract, or other authorization, the claim is simply passed on to the Board for approval. This practice may save time during the initial steps of the process, but the time required for thorough review by members of the Board of Supervisors and the week-long delay in getting payments to vendors results in inefficiency.
F12:
California Government Code section 29747 requires the Auditor-Controller to prepare a list of all claims allowed by the Auditor-Controller, showing the date allowed, warrant number, name of claimant, and amount allowed. The list is required to be certified by the Auditor-Controller and one copy filed in the office of the Board of Supervisors, which is not currently being done.
F13:
The 2001/2002 Grand Jury recommended that the Auditor-Controller process claims for payment in a timely manner and that the Board of Supervisors authorize an outside contract auditor to conduct a management audit of the Auditor-Controller’s Office. On October 8, 2002, the Board of Supervisors voted to authorize such an audit. As of June1, 2003, the management audit had not been conducted.
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
During the past year, several incidents have occurred which underscore safety concerns at the jail. On June 5, 2002, an inmate worker escaped through the front door of the jail and was later apprehended. On June 22, 2002, two inmates severely beat a Correctional Officer with a hand-made weapon during an attempted escape. On November 17, 2002, one of those inmates committed suicide in his cell with an instrument fashioned out of a razor blade. On January 7, 2003, an inmate was mistakenly released from the jail after impersonating another inmate. On January 11, 2003, an inmate attempted suicide by hanging.
F2:
The Shasta County Sheriff requested the California State Board of Corrections to perform a Security Audit on the Main Jail in October of
F3:
The Shasta County Jail is currently operating at minimum staffing levels. These levels are inadequate to safely monitor the activities of a near capacity and increasingly dangerous inmate population. The Shasta County Main Jail staff works a 12-hour day with four days on, and three days off. It was reported to the Grand Jury early in 2003 that some of the staff were working as many as 40 hours of overtime per week and that all security staff were working at least some mandatory overtime each week. This leads to fatigue, decreased productivity, and low morale, all of which become safety issues in a jail setting. The total overtime hours in the custody unit due to staffing shortages in 2002 was 12,492 hours at time- and-a-half, resulting in a cost of $312,300. There appear to be two reasons for the shortage of staff: 1) there currently are not enough positions allocated to provide for adequate staffing and, 2) the Department has been unable to recruit, hire, and train enough staff to fill the already authorized positions due, in part, to a shortage of qualified applicants. One result of the staffing shortages has been to leave the individual module control rooms on each housing unit floor un-staffed during the night shift. Service Officers, who have no contact with inmates, work in the central control room at night, which limits their ability to monitor inmates, Deputies, and Correctional Officers assigned to the housing units on different levels. There are no call buttons in the inmate cells and sounds from the housing areas go unheard if there is no one in the module control rooms on each level. Security staff patrol the housing units during the night with only two, or sometimes three, Deputies or Correctional Officers assigned to eight housing units. The Sheriff’s Department is in the process of phasing out the use of Deputy Sheriffs in the Main Jail in favor of using Correctional Officers. This plan will be phased in over a four year period and calls for Correctional Sergeant positions and eventually a Correctional Lieutenant in order to create a career ladder for those interested in the corrections field. A resulting factor of this change is a cost saving to the County because Correctional Officers are paid less than Deputy Sheriffs. However, as the transition proceeds, it is imperative that sufficient staff is available to allow for adequate training. One of the recommendations of the Security Audit was to conduct a comprehensive staffing analysis, which the Board of Corrections was expected to complete by May of 2003.
F4:
In July of 2002, the Shasta County Sheriff’s Office solicited input regarding security issues from several personnel working in the Main Jail. Ten written responses from concerned staff were returned to administration. There were several suggestions for improvements, including: a) increase module control room coverage to 24 hours a day, seven days a week b) increase staffing so there would always be a two-person prowler/rover team c) modify the shower curtains so inmates cannot hide behind them d) install food ports on all maximum-security cell doors e) increase staffing or decrease inmate movement during the hours of 8am-5pm f) reconfigure security cameras and have them cleaned regularly g) improve screening of inmate workers and searching of intakes (new detainees) h) serve boneless chicken, as bones can be made into weapons
F5:
In January 2003, the Sheriff closed the Detention Annex because of serious staffing shortages in Field and Custody personnel, retirement of seasoned officers, and the large number of newly hired personnel. This action allowed for staff to supplement the Main Jail and Patrol with experienced officers. When the Detention Annex is open, its 66-bed capacity helps lower the jail population. When crowding occurs at the Main Jail, inmates are released early due to capacity limits, as mandated by court order. During the past year, there was an average of approximately 30 inmates booked per day and an average daily population of approximately 350 inmates. The highest daily population reported to the Grand Jury was 378 on January 14, 2003. It was reported to the Grand Jury that the Sheriff expects about 800 early releases this year due to capacity limits.
F6:
A preliminary architectural feasibility study for the food service relocation and inmate capacity expansion for the Shasta County Jail was conducted in September
Additional Recommendations
3
Not linked to specific findings.
R3:
The Sheriff’s Department should be more aggressive in recruiting qualified personnel to apply for vacancies in the Department. The Sheriff should report monthly to the Board of Supervisors on the progress in filling these vacancies.
R4:
The Sheriff’s Department should analyze the results of the comprehensive staffing analysis and request additional staff positions as indicated. The Board of Supervisors should consider and support requests made by the Department to increase staffing positions at the jail in order to improve the level of staff and community safety.
R5:
The County and the Sheriffs Department should pursue funding for the relocation of the kitchen and laundry, and renovations to add additional beds to the jail, as recommended by the feasibility study. RESPONSES REQUIRED: The Shasta County Board of Supervisors, as to Recommendations 4 and 5 Shasta County Sheriff, as to Recommendations 1 through 5
Findings & Recommendations
13 findings
F1:
The facilities include the following: two-story dormitory, kitchen and dining area, laundry room, administration building, fire fighting equipment storage building, garage and vehicle maintenance building, and inmate hobby shop. The camp also has an engraving shop where inmates produce nameplates and signs. The inmates are responsible for grounds maintenance, vehicle repairs, food service and preparation, and all other general maintenance that is required to keep the facility in good order.
F2:
California Conservation Camp fire crews, also known as hand crews, provide the labor that helps CDF achieve the Department’s mission. A primary objective within that mission is to “reduce loss of life, property, and natural resources through the implementation of balanced fire prevention, fire protection planning, presuppression, and suppression activities.” Sugar Pine has six organized and well trained fire crews, each consisting of approximately 15 inmates.
F3:
Inmates are responsible for meal preparation and serving. Breakfast and evening meals are served in the dining hall. Lunch is packaged for consumption at the various crew work sites. Special meals are prepared for inmate crews when returning from fighting a fire.
F4:
It was reported to the Grand Jury that approximately 95% of the inmates at this camp are there because of drug related offenses. Inmates cannot have a record of any sex- related offenses, escapes from other CDC facilities, or an arson offense, and they cannot be potentially violent. The average length of stay is less than a year. It is a rare occasion for an inmate to try an escape, as he knows that he will be returned to the state prison in Susanville. There was one attempted escape in 2001.
F5:
The inmates have telephone and visitation privileges. An inmate who meets special requirements may spend a weekend with his family at a house that is located on the property. Inmates are searched before and after these visits and must report for inmate count every two hours. Any food brought in by the family must be prepackaged and inspected by the officer in charge.
F6:
The citizens of California enjoy a significant fiscal benefit by housing their low risk inmates in the conservation camps. Many of the inmates at the camp learn skills and work ethics that will serve them well after their prison stay. The taxpayers also benefit from the labor these inmates provide for conservation related projects. The inmates provide labor, with Fire Crew Captain supervision, for work projects that would not otherwise be affordable for many government agencies. Statewide, California Conservation Camp fire crews average in excess of eight million hours of labor on work projects for CDF and other federal, state, and local agencies each year. CDF is careful not to compete with private enterprise. Sugar Pine Conservation Camp statistics provided to the Grand Jury indicate that in 2002, a total of 13,350 man-hours were dedicated to providing public service and 94,500 man-hours were utilized for emergency service. Each year the inmates at Sugar Pine, in conjunction with the local Lions Clubs in the Redding area, provide senior citizens and needy families with a supply of firewood.
F7:
There are ten correctional officers and twelve fire captains at this facility. All employees live off the camp property. There is one supervisor and two officers on duty each day; at night there is one supervisor and one officer on duty. There is a count of inmates every two hours day and night, with other unscheduled counts at random.
F8:
There are no medical facilities on site; only basic first aid is available. Inmates are transported to Redding for emergency medical care. Non-emergency medical care is provided at the state prison in Susanville.
F9:
WSRCD’s gravel injection projects have also benefited the salmon population. WSRCD’s Clear Creek Gravel Project at the Placer Road Bridge (newly named the Shasta County Vietnam Veterans Memorial Bridge) is one of a number of successful gravel injection projects.
F10:
Illegal trash dumping from the Veterans Memorial Bridge into Clear Creek is contaminating the creek with garbage, household appliances, vehicle batteries, yard chemicals, etc. Fencing at the bridge would discourage the illegal trash dumping. WSRCD is willing to apply for funding to provide fencing at the bridge if maintenance can be ensured.
F11:
WSRCD maintains an informational web site, providing interested parties a list of topics. The web site includes landowner assistance information, reports on current and past projects, on-line newsletter, guide to weed identification, on-line survey, and organizational information.
F12:
The District’s fire and fuel projects have reduced the danger of catastrophic wildfires in Western Shasta County. The goal of WSRCD is to assist private landowners in reducing fuel buildup and constructing fuel breaks. WSRCD has an on-going working relationship with federal, state, and local fire districts/departments to reduce the risk of fire in high risk areas in the foothills east and west of Redding, or those near urban areas.
F13:
The Grand Jury met with a private landowner who has participated in a WSRCD fuel break project. The landowner stated that WSRCD staff members were polite, cooperative, and informative. A fuel break was created along a roadway and extended 150 feet beyond the roadway shoulder into the landowner’s property. The landowner indicated the fuel break was completed at no cost to the landowner. The landowner also stated that other agencies involved in the project, including California Department of Forestry (CDF), were helpful in explaining what fire dangers were apparent and how the landowner could do work around the property to lessen the fire danger. In general, the landowner gave WSRCD high marks.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
23 findings
F1:
While investigating two citizens’ complaints, the Grand Jury found that the Superintendent and the District complied with relevant sections of both District policy and the California Education Code in a timely manner.
F2:
During the tour of four campuses, the Grand Jury found the facilities to be in good repair and well maintained.
F3:
The California Department of Education publishes the Academic Performance Index (API) for each school in the state annually. The API is an index designed to measure the school’s overall academic performance. Test scores, socio-economic factors, and location (rural or urban) determine the API. For the 2001/2002 school year, Anderson High School had an API of
F4:
The California Education Code requires districts such as AUHSD to maintain a 3% budgetary reserve for economic uncertainties. As of July 2002, the District had accumulated a reserve of approximately 13.5% of its annual budget. In March of 2003, the Board of Trustees decided to use approximately $500,000 of this reserve in order to retain 11 teachers and some classes which would otherwise have been eliminated due to state budget cuts.
F5:
During fiscal year 2001/2002, the Anderson Union High School District had a financial deficit of $697,688. A deficit of $114,603 is projected for 2002/2003. Adequate funds were available from the reserve to cover the deficits.
F6:
According to Shasta County Office of Education information, AUHSD has experienced declining enrollment over the past four years, as have most other districts within the county.
F7:
During the investigation of a citizen’s complaint, the Grand Jury found the District’s administering of certain grant funds to be in order.
F8:
AUHSD provides a benefit to the elected Board of Trustees in the form of a paid health insurance policy. The cost of this comprehensive, family health insurance policy is $9,324 per year per Trustee. Some Trustees have declined the benefit. Other school districts in Shasta County that were contacted by the Grand Jury do not offer this benefit to their board members.
F9:
The Grand Jury conducted random checks of the credentials held by certain administrators of AUHSD and found the credentials held to be the proper ones for the current assignment.
F10:
Early in the investigation, the Grand Jury interviewed the publisher of a local newspaper in Anderson. The newspaper had published several articles critical of AUHSD. These articles were of both the editorial and hard news type. During the interview, the publisher provided the Grand Jury with several allegations and “facts” in both written and verbal form regarding the District. These statements, if true, would indicate improper acts. The Grand Jury spent considerable time and effort attempting to corroborate these allegations and “facts”. The Grand Jury ascertained that nearly all of the “facts” and allegations were unfounded.
F11:
The Grand Jury obtained information from seven other counties in the State, all of which have delegated the authority of approving and paying claims to the Auditor-Controller through resolution or other action of the Board. It appears that Shasta County’s process of categorizing some claims as board claims requires less scrutiny by the Auditor-Controller’s staff because if there is no obvious reference on the claim to a purchase order, contract, or other authorization, the claim is simply passed on to the Board for approval. This practice may save time during the initial steps of the process, but the time required for thorough review by members of the Board of Supervisors and the week-long delay in getting payments to vendors results in inefficiency.
F12:
California Government Code section 29747 requires the Auditor-Controller to prepare a list of all claims allowed by the Auditor-Controller, showing the date allowed, warrant number, name of claimant, and amount allowed. The list is required to be certified by the Auditor-Controller and one copy filed in the office of the Board of Supervisors, which is not currently being done.
F13:
The 2001/2002 Grand Jury recommended that the Auditor-Controller process claims for payment in a timely manner and that the Board of Supervisors authorize an outside contract auditor to conduct a management audit of the Auditor-Controller’s Office. On October 8, 2002, the Board of Supervisors voted to authorize such an audit. As of June1, 2003, the management audit had not been conducted.
F14:
In 2003, SLFPD lost its authorization from the American Heart Association to conduct CPR training due to non-compliance with their policies. As a result, SLFPD was unable to conduct CPR training classes for a short period of time. SLFPD is now authorized to conduct the CPR classes through the National Safety Council.
F15:
In January 2003, the U.S. Labor Department began an investigation of SLFPD regarding failure to pay overtime as required by law. The Labor Department’s ruling could require the District to remit back pay, plus penalties and interest. The Fire Chief became aware of this investigation in early 2003, yet he did not inform the Board of it at that time.
F16:
In accordance with the Brown Act, agendas for Board meetings are to be posted 72 hours prior to a regular meeting and 24 hours prior to a special meeting in a location freely accessible to the public 24 hours a day. Prior to three different board meetings, members of the Grand Jury attempted to find an agenda in a public place but could not locate one, except on the inside bulletin board at the fire hall, which is not accessible to the public 24 hours a day. Several members of the public have also reported not being able to locate posted agendas. On October 14, 2002, the Board of Directors violated the Brown Act when they invited two members of the Grand Jury to attend a closed session regarding a personnel issue to which the Grand Jury was not a critical party. On February 10, 2003, Grand Jury members were again invited to a closed session, but declined. Closed sessions cannot be open to some members of the public and not others. Another violation of the Brown Act observed on the District agendas at least twelve times by the Grand Jury was the improper description of closed session agenda items. California Government Code section 54954.5 contains recommended language to describe closed session agenda items. The descriptions on the Boards’ agendas did not follow the recommended language. For example, the agenda for October 14, 2002, reads “Closed Session” with no further description; the agenda for June 10, 2002, reads “Closed Session to discuss personal [personnel] actions;” and the agenda for January 14, 2002, reads “Closed Session for discussion on letter from District Attorney.” Only matters properly disclosed on the agenda may be considered during a closed session.
F17:
The Grand Jury was unable to confirm whether any of the current members of the SLFPD Board of Directors have attended any type of workshop or training session pertaining to the operation of a fire district or the Brown Act. Such training sessions are available through the California Fire Department Association and other agencies. Only one of the current Directors interviewed acknowledged having ever read the California Fire District Administration Handbook, which serves as a guide to special district board members and fire chiefs.
F18:
The Grand Jury reviewed minutes of each regularly scheduled and special meeting of the Board from January 2001 through April 2003. Most of the minutes taken during that time were recorded by the Fire Chief, who is also responsible for reporting on District business during the meeting. The Board voted at the February 10, 2003, meeting to direct the Fire Chief to hire a secretary to take minutes in the future. As of the May 12, 2003, Board meeting, the secretary position remained unfilled.
F19:
The By-Laws and Rules and Regulations for SLFPD currently being used are dated April 13, 1998, and do not contain a revision to Article IV, Procedures for Disciplinary Actions, that was approved at the April 9, 2001, Board meeting. During that meeting it was also recommended by legal counsel that the Board adopt Article IX, Policy Against Discrimination and Harassment. It was noted in the minutes that this would be considered “at a future date.” On March 10, 2003, the Board adopted the Fire Agencies Insurance Risk Authority’s (FAIRA) Risk Management Manual and Board members indicated that they will be working with that agency to revise the By-Laws and Rules and Regulations for the District.
F20:
In June 2002, the District agreed to lease a water tender for a term of one year for $1.00 per year. However, on February 10, 2003, prior to expiration of the lease and at the recommendation of the Fire Chief and at the request of the lessor, the Board voted to purchase the water tender for $25,000. A member of the SLFPD Board of Directors is an owner and the CEO of the company that owned the water tender. This board member abstained from voting on the lease or the purchase. Nevertheless, California Government Code section 1090 prohibits a public official from having a financial interest in any contract entered into by the body or board of which he/she is a member, even if the official does not vote on the contract. Moreover, several employees reported that, in their opinion, the water tender was not useable due to mechanical defects resulting in safety issues and that the purchase was not a prudent use of District funds.
F21:
The SLFPD By-Laws state there shall be five members of the Board of Directors and that members are elected by the public for terms of four years each. The By-Laws further state that if a vacancy occurs during the term of office of a Board member, the Board shall post the vacancy to allow members of the public to apply for the position. The Board then appoints a person to serve until the next election. All of the current Board members were appointed to fill incomplete terms and none have ever run for election. There has not been a Board election since sometime prior to 1987 due to a lack of candidates. As of March 2003, there was one vacancy on the Board and three of the other four members’ terms expire at the end of 2003. California Government Code section 1780 states that a vacancy in an unexpired term of an elective office on the governing board of a special district shall be filled by appointment or by calling for an election within a period of 60 days. If the position is not filled as specified, the county board of supervisors may fill the vacancy within 90 days of the vacancy or order the district to call an election.
F22:
At a special meeting of the SLFPD Board of Directors on March 27, 2003, the Board voted to hire legal counsel to represent and advise them on District matters.
F23:
The Grand Jury believes that it is essential to provide those persons and bodies who are subject to a civil investigation a full opportunity to provide any and all relevant information to the Grand Jury. After compiling the results of this investigation into the above findings and conclusions, the Grand Jury requested a final interview with the members of the SLFPD Board of Directors and with the Fire Chief in order to obtain their input on the findings and conclusions. On May 23, 2003, the Board members and the Fire Chief declined a Grand Jury invitation to participate in a final interview.
Additional Recommendations
23
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Public Guardian Office, under the current Program Manager, appears to be staffed with dedicated, committed, professional individuals who take pride in their work.
R2:
The Grand Jury observed the Public Guardian office to be neat, orderly, secure, and professional in appearance.
R3:
The Sheriff’s Department should be more aggressive in recruiting qualified personnel to apply for vacancies in the Department. The Sheriff should report monthly to the Board of Supervisors on the progress in filling these vacancies.
R4:
The Sheriff’s Department should analyze the results of the comprehensive staffing analysis and request additional staff positions as indicated. The Board of Supervisors should consider and support requests made by the Department to increase staffing positions at the jail in order to improve the level of staff and community safety.
R5:
The County and the Sheriffs Department should pursue funding for the relocation of the kitchen and laundry, and renovations to add additional beds to the jail, as recommended by the feasibility study. RESPONSES REQUIRED: The Shasta County Board of Supervisors, as to Recommendations 4 and 5 Shasta County Sheriff, as to Recommendations 1 through 5
R6:
An annual review of Public Guardian client files for compliance to policy, procedures, and proper client care is performed by the Shasta County Department of Social Services. In addition, the Superior Court reviews conservatorships annually, and the Public Guardian Office interviews clients on a regular basis to ensure that their needs are being met. RECOMMENDATIONS:
R7:
In January 2001, the Board gave a confidential survey to the employees of the Shasta Lake Fire Department. Attached to the survey was a letter from the Board asking that the survey be completed and returned to the Board. The letter asked for employee’s assistance in formulating policy for the District and for written suggestions and criticisms. The letter stated that only the Board would see the results of the survey. After the new Fire Chief was hired in May of 2001, he was shown the confidential surveys by a member of the Board. The Fire Chief, who was a Battalion Chief at the time of the survey, was the subject of some of the criticism. Some employees reported that the Board’s disclosure of this confidential information created strained working relationships.
R8:
The Shasta County Fire Marshall recommends that buildings occupied or visited by the public be periodically inspected by local fire departments. The Grand Jury found that SLFPD has not routinely performed building safety inspections within the District as recommended. The inspection records of one retail business, which employs approximately 50 people, show that it had not been inspected since 1991. The District’s Fire Marshall, who is also a Battalion Chief, is the only one who currently performs building safety inspections for SLFPD. Several employees expressed concerns over their inability to have prior knowledge (or “pre-plans”) of potentially dangerous situations because they do not have the opportunity to perform building inspections.
R9:
It was reported to the Grand Jury that an accident took place in 2002 during a SLFPD training session involving one of the District fire trucks and a commercial semi-trailer dolly parked on a street near Shasta Lake Industrial Park. Both the fire truck and the semi-trailer dolly incurred damage. The semi-trailer dolly was repaired on scene by SLFPD personnel and the fire truck was returned to the fire station, where all repairs were made by the fire department. The Grand Jury interviewed the company that owned the semi-trailer dolly and found that no accident had been reported to them by the SLFPD. The Grand Jury contacted the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) and ascertained that no accident was ever reported. At the time of the accident, California law required traffic accidents on a California street/highway or private property to be reported to the DMV within ten days if there was property damage to anyone’s property in excess of $500.00. The actual amount of damage could not be ascertained because no estimate was ever obtained, but it was reported to the Grand Jury that the damage was well in excess of $500.
R10:
It was reported to the Grand Jury that the training program for paid and volunteer firefighters is insufficient, although employees indicated that the program has improved greatly since the current Training Officer, who is also a Battalion Chief, took over the training program in 2001. The Training Officer is not provided with sufficient resources to fulfill his responsibilities. For example, equipment is sometimes not made available for training purposes and most training is done during off-duty time for both paid staff and volunteers. Furthermore, the Department does not have a basic training manual for new recruits and it was reported that the Fire Chief seldom approves expenditures of District funds to pay for fire fighting classes for employees or volunteers.
R11:
The District received a $24,723 federal grant in November of 2002 to purchase training materials for the Department. The grant application required a 10% cost share from the District equaling $2,472, and specified that the funds would be used for training purposes. The money from the grant was deposited in the Shasta Lake Fire Protection District Volunteer Association checking account rather than into the District’s general funds, which are administered by the Shasta County Auditor- Controller’s office. It was reported to the Grand Jury that the volunteers’ checking account is not routinely audited, as is the District’s general fund account. A routine audit of District funds would include a test for compliance with certain provisions of a federal grant. After the funds were deposited, a desktop computer, a laptop computer, a power point projector, and training software were purchased and paid for through the volunteer account. The new computers are reportedly being used by the Fire Chief, Battalion Chiefs, and the District employees in the course of their regular work and are not dedicated to training.
R12:
The Shasta Lake Fire Protection District does not currently have a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) manual. Policy changes and directives are given verbally rather than in writing and passed on from shift to shift, which leads to confusion. At the January 13, 2003, Board meeting, the District’s paid employees requested an opportunity to address the Board to request that the Department develop an SOP manual. The employees were not granted an opportunity to speak on the subject.
R13:
In 2003, the District was audited by the DMV on its DL 170 program. This program is an employer testing program under which certain employees are certified to give driving tests only to other District employees for their Class B firefighters’ licenses. The auditor found that testing had been improperly provided to employees of other outside agencies. It was reported to the Grand Jury that such infractions could result in loss of the DL 170 program.
R14:
In 2003, SLFPD lost its authorization from the American Heart Association to conduct CPR training due to non-compliance with their policies. As a result, SLFPD was unable to conduct CPR training classes for a short period of time. SLFPD is now authorized to conduct the CPR classes through the National Safety Council.
R15:
In January 2003, the U.S. Labor Department began an investigation of SLFPD regarding failure to pay overtime as required by law. The Labor Department’s ruling could require the District to remit back pay, plus penalties and interest. The Fire Chief became aware of this investigation in early 2003, yet he did not inform the Board of it at that time.
R16:
In accordance with the Brown Act, agendas for Board meetings are to be posted 72 hours prior to a regular meeting and 24 hours prior to a special meeting in a location freely accessible to the public 24 hours a day. Prior to three different board meetings, members of the Grand Jury attempted to find an agenda in a public place but could not locate one, except on the inside bulletin board at the fire hall, which is not accessible to the public 24 hours a day. Several members of the public have also reported not being able to locate posted agendas. On October 14, 2002, the Board of Directors violated the Brown Act when they invited two members of the Grand Jury to attend a closed session regarding a personnel issue to which the Grand Jury was not a critical party. On February 10, 2003, Grand Jury members were again invited to a closed session, but declined. Closed sessions cannot be open to some members of the public and not others. Another violation of the Brown Act observed on the District agendas at least twelve times by the Grand Jury was the improper description of closed session agenda items. California Government Code section 54954.5 contains recommended language to describe closed session agenda items. The descriptions on the Boards’ agendas did not follow the recommended language. For example, the agenda for October 14, 2002, reads “Closed Session” with no further description; the agenda for June 10, 2002, reads “Closed Session to discuss personal [personnel] actions;” and the agenda for January 14, 2002, reads “Closed Session for discussion on letter from District Attorney.” Only matters properly disclosed on the agenda may be considered during a closed session.
R17:
The Grand Jury was unable to confirm whether any of the current members of the SLFPD Board of Directors have attended any type of workshop or training session pertaining to the operation of a fire district or the Brown Act. Such training sessions are available through the California Fire Department Association and other agencies. Only one of the current Directors interviewed acknowledged having ever read the California Fire District Administration Handbook, which serves as a guide to special district board members and fire chiefs.
R18:
The Grand Jury reviewed minutes of each regularly scheduled and special meeting of the Board from January 2001 through April 2003. Most of the minutes taken during that time were recorded by the Fire Chief, who is also responsible for reporting on District business during the meeting. The Board voted at the February 10, 2003, meeting to direct the Fire Chief to hire a secretary to take minutes in the future. As of the May 12, 2003, Board meeting, the secretary position remained unfilled.
R19:
The By-Laws and Rules and Regulations for SLFPD currently being used are dated April 13, 1998, and do not contain a revision to Article IV, Procedures for Disciplinary Actions, that was approved at the April 9, 2001, Board meeting. During that meeting it was also recommended by legal counsel that the Board adopt Article IX, Policy Against Discrimination and Harassment. It was noted in the minutes that this would be considered “at a future date.” On March 10, 2003, the Board adopted the Fire Agencies Insurance Risk Authority’s (FAIRA) Risk Management Manual and Board members indicated that they will be working with that agency to revise the By-Laws and Rules and Regulations for the District.
R20:
In June 2002, the District agreed to lease a water tender for a term of one year for $1.00 per year. However, on February 10, 2003, prior to expiration of the lease and at the recommendation of the Fire Chief and at the request of the lessor, the Board voted to purchase the water tender for $25,000. A member of the SLFPD Board of Directors is an owner and the CEO of the company that owned the water tender. This board member abstained from voting on the lease or the purchase. Nevertheless, California Government Code section 1090 prohibits a public official from having a financial interest in any contract entered into by the body or board of which he/she is a member, even if the official does not vote on the contract. Moreover, several employees reported that, in their opinion, the water tender was not useable due to mechanical defects resulting in safety issues and that the purchase was not a prudent use of District funds.
R21:
The SLFPD By-Laws state there shall be five members of the Board of Directors and that members are elected by the public for terms of four years each. The By-Laws further state that if a vacancy occurs during the term of office of a Board member, the Board shall post the vacancy to allow members of the public to apply for the position. The Board then appoints a person to serve until the next election. All of the current Board members were appointed to fill incomplete terms and none have ever run for election. There has not been a Board election since sometime prior to 1987 due to a lack of candidates. As of March 2003, there was one vacancy on the Board and three of the other four members’ terms expire at the end of 2003. California Government Code section 1780 states that a vacancy in an unexpired term of an elective office on the governing board of a special district shall be filled by appointment or by calling for an election within a period of 60 days. If the position is not filled as specified, the county board of supervisors may fill the vacancy within 90 days of the vacancy or order the district to call an election.
R22:
At a special meeting of the SLFPD Board of Directors on March 27, 2003, the Board voted to hire legal counsel to represent and advise them on District matters.
R23:
The Grand Jury believes that it is essential to provide those persons and bodies who are subject to a civil investigation a full opportunity to provide any and all relevant information to the Grand Jury. After compiling the results of this investigation into the above findings and conclusions, the Grand Jury requested a final interview with the members of the SLFPD Board of Directors and with the Fire Chief in order to obtain their input on the findings and conclusions. On May 23, 2003, the Board members and the Fire Chief declined a Grand Jury invitation to participate in a final interview. RECOMMENDATIONS:
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
23 findings
F1:
While investigating two citizens’ complaints, the Grand Jury found that the Superintendent and the District complied with relevant sections of both District policy and the California Education Code in a timely manner.
F2:
During the tour of four campuses, the Grand Jury found the facilities to be in good repair and well maintained.
F3:
The California Department of Education publishes the Academic Performance Index (API) for each school in the state annually. The API is an index designed to measure the school’s overall academic performance. Test scores, socio-economic factors, and location (rural or urban) determine the API. For the 2001/2002 school year, Anderson High School had an API of
F4:
The California Education Code requires districts such as AUHSD to maintain a 3% budgetary reserve for economic uncertainties. As of July 2002, the District had accumulated a reserve of approximately 13.5% of its annual budget. In March of 2003, the Board of Trustees decided to use approximately $500,000 of this reserve in order to retain 11 teachers and some classes which would otherwise have been eliminated due to state budget cuts.
F5:
During fiscal year 2001/2002, the Anderson Union High School District had a financial deficit of $697,688. A deficit of $114,603 is projected for 2002/2003. Adequate funds were available from the reserve to cover the deficits.
F6:
According to Shasta County Office of Education information, AUHSD has experienced declining enrollment over the past four years, as have most other districts within the county.
F7:
During the investigation of a citizen’s complaint, the Grand Jury found the District’s administering of certain grant funds to be in order.
F8:
AUHSD provides a benefit to the elected Board of Trustees in the form of a paid health insurance policy. The cost of this comprehensive, family health insurance policy is $9,324 per year per Trustee. Some Trustees have declined the benefit. Other school districts in Shasta County that were contacted by the Grand Jury do not offer this benefit to their board members.
F9:
The Grand Jury conducted random checks of the credentials held by certain administrators of AUHSD and found the credentials held to be the proper ones for the current assignment.
F10:
Early in the investigation, the Grand Jury interviewed the publisher of a local newspaper in Anderson. The newspaper had published several articles critical of AUHSD. These articles were of both the editorial and hard news type. During the interview, the publisher provided the Grand Jury with several allegations and “facts” in both written and verbal form regarding the District. These statements, if true, would indicate improper acts. The Grand Jury spent considerable time and effort attempting to corroborate these allegations and “facts”. The Grand Jury ascertained that nearly all of the “facts” and allegations were unfounded.
F11:
The Grand Jury obtained information from seven other counties in the State, all of which have delegated the authority of approving and paying claims to the Auditor-Controller through resolution or other action of the Board. It appears that Shasta County’s process of categorizing some claims as board claims requires less scrutiny by the Auditor-Controller’s staff because if there is no obvious reference on the claim to a purchase order, contract, or other authorization, the claim is simply passed on to the Board for approval. This practice may save time during the initial steps of the process, but the time required for thorough review by members of the Board of Supervisors and the week-long delay in getting payments to vendors results in inefficiency.
F12:
California Government Code section 29747 requires the Auditor-Controller to prepare a list of all claims allowed by the Auditor-Controller, showing the date allowed, warrant number, name of claimant, and amount allowed. The list is required to be certified by the Auditor-Controller and one copy filed in the office of the Board of Supervisors, which is not currently being done.
F13:
The 2001/2002 Grand Jury recommended that the Auditor-Controller process claims for payment in a timely manner and that the Board of Supervisors authorize an outside contract auditor to conduct a management audit of the Auditor-Controller’s Office. On October 8, 2002, the Board of Supervisors voted to authorize such an audit. As of June1, 2003, the management audit had not been conducted.
F14:
In 2003, SLFPD lost its authorization from the American Heart Association to conduct CPR training due to non-compliance with their policies. As a result, SLFPD was unable to conduct CPR training classes for a short period of time. SLFPD is now authorized to conduct the CPR classes through the National Safety Council.
F15:
In January 2003, the U.S. Labor Department began an investigation of SLFPD regarding failure to pay overtime as required by law. The Labor Department’s ruling could require the District to remit back pay, plus penalties and interest. The Fire Chief became aware of this investigation in early 2003, yet he did not inform the Board of it at that time.
F16:
In accordance with the Brown Act, agendas for Board meetings are to be posted 72 hours prior to a regular meeting and 24 hours prior to a special meeting in a location freely accessible to the public 24 hours a day. Prior to three different board meetings, members of the Grand Jury attempted to find an agenda in a public place but could not locate one, except on the inside bulletin board at the fire hall, which is not accessible to the public 24 hours a day. Several members of the public have also reported not being able to locate posted agendas. On October 14, 2002, the Board of Directors violated the Brown Act when they invited two members of the Grand Jury to attend a closed session regarding a personnel issue to which the Grand Jury was not a critical party. On February 10, 2003, Grand Jury members were again invited to a closed session, but declined. Closed sessions cannot be open to some members of the public and not others. Another violation of the Brown Act observed on the District agendas at least twelve times by the Grand Jury was the improper description of closed session agenda items. California Government Code section 54954.5 contains recommended language to describe closed session agenda items. The descriptions on the Boards’ agendas did not follow the recommended language. For example, the agenda for October 14, 2002, reads “Closed Session” with no further description; the agenda for June 10, 2002, reads “Closed Session to discuss personal [personnel] actions;” and the agenda for January 14, 2002, reads “Closed Session for discussion on letter from District Attorney.” Only matters properly disclosed on the agenda may be considered during a closed session.
F17:
The Grand Jury was unable to confirm whether any of the current members of the SLFPD Board of Directors have attended any type of workshop or training session pertaining to the operation of a fire district or the Brown Act. Such training sessions are available through the California Fire Department Association and other agencies. Only one of the current Directors interviewed acknowledged having ever read the California Fire District Administration Handbook, which serves as a guide to special district board members and fire chiefs.
F18:
The Grand Jury reviewed minutes of each regularly scheduled and special meeting of the Board from January 2001 through April 2003. Most of the minutes taken during that time were recorded by the Fire Chief, who is also responsible for reporting on District business during the meeting. The Board voted at the February 10, 2003, meeting to direct the Fire Chief to hire a secretary to take minutes in the future. As of the May 12, 2003, Board meeting, the secretary position remained unfilled.
F19:
The By-Laws and Rules and Regulations for SLFPD currently being used are dated April 13, 1998, and do not contain a revision to Article IV, Procedures for Disciplinary Actions, that was approved at the April 9, 2001, Board meeting. During that meeting it was also recommended by legal counsel that the Board adopt Article IX, Policy Against Discrimination and Harassment. It was noted in the minutes that this would be considered “at a future date.” On March 10, 2003, the Board adopted the Fire Agencies Insurance Risk Authority’s (FAIRA) Risk Management Manual and Board members indicated that they will be working with that agency to revise the By-Laws and Rules and Regulations for the District.
F20:
In June 2002, the District agreed to lease a water tender for a term of one year for $1.00 per year. However, on February 10, 2003, prior to expiration of the lease and at the recommendation of the Fire Chief and at the request of the lessor, the Board voted to purchase the water tender for $25,000. A member of the SLFPD Board of Directors is an owner and the CEO of the company that owned the water tender. This board member abstained from voting on the lease or the purchase. Nevertheless, California Government Code section 1090 prohibits a public official from having a financial interest in any contract entered into by the body or board of which he/she is a member, even if the official does not vote on the contract. Moreover, several employees reported that, in their opinion, the water tender was not useable due to mechanical defects resulting in safety issues and that the purchase was not a prudent use of District funds.
F21:
The SLFPD By-Laws state there shall be five members of the Board of Directors and that members are elected by the public for terms of four years each. The By-Laws further state that if a vacancy occurs during the term of office of a Board member, the Board shall post the vacancy to allow members of the public to apply for the position. The Board then appoints a person to serve until the next election. All of the current Board members were appointed to fill incomplete terms and none have ever run for election. There has not been a Board election since sometime prior to 1987 due to a lack of candidates. As of March 2003, there was one vacancy on the Board and three of the other four members’ terms expire at the end of 2003. California Government Code section 1780 states that a vacancy in an unexpired term of an elective office on the governing board of a special district shall be filled by appointment or by calling for an election within a period of 60 days. If the position is not filled as specified, the county board of supervisors may fill the vacancy within 90 days of the vacancy or order the district to call an election.
F22:
At a special meeting of the SLFPD Board of Directors on March 27, 2003, the Board voted to hire legal counsel to represent and advise them on District matters.
F23:
The Grand Jury believes that it is essential to provide those persons and bodies who are subject to a civil investigation a full opportunity to provide any and all relevant information to the Grand Jury. After compiling the results of this investigation into the above findings and conclusions, the Grand Jury requested a final interview with the members of the SLFPD Board of Directors and with the Fire Chief in order to obtain their input on the findings and conclusions. On May 23, 2003, the Board members and the Fire Chief declined a Grand Jury invitation to participate in a final interview.
Additional Recommendations
23
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Public Guardian Office, under the current Program Manager, appears to be staffed with dedicated, committed, professional individuals who take pride in their work.
R2:
The Grand Jury observed the Public Guardian office to be neat, orderly, secure, and professional in appearance.
R3:
The Sheriff’s Department should be more aggressive in recruiting qualified personnel to apply for vacancies in the Department. The Sheriff should report monthly to the Board of Supervisors on the progress in filling these vacancies.
R4:
The Sheriff’s Department should analyze the results of the comprehensive staffing analysis and request additional staff positions as indicated. The Board of Supervisors should consider and support requests made by the Department to increase staffing positions at the jail in order to improve the level of staff and community safety.
R5:
The County and the Sheriffs Department should pursue funding for the relocation of the kitchen and laundry, and renovations to add additional beds to the jail, as recommended by the feasibility study. RESPONSES REQUIRED: The Shasta County Board of Supervisors, as to Recommendations 4 and 5 Shasta County Sheriff, as to Recommendations 1 through 5
R6:
An annual review of Public Guardian client files for compliance to policy, procedures, and proper client care is performed by the Shasta County Department of Social Services. In addition, the Superior Court reviews conservatorships annually, and the Public Guardian Office interviews clients on a regular basis to ensure that their needs are being met. RECOMMENDATIONS:
R7:
In January 2001, the Board gave a confidential survey to the employees of the Shasta Lake Fire Department. Attached to the survey was a letter from the Board asking that the survey be completed and returned to the Board. The letter asked for employee’s assistance in formulating policy for the District and for written suggestions and criticisms. The letter stated that only the Board would see the results of the survey. After the new Fire Chief was hired in May of 2001, he was shown the confidential surveys by a member of the Board. The Fire Chief, who was a Battalion Chief at the time of the survey, was the subject of some of the criticism. Some employees reported that the Board’s disclosure of this confidential information created strained working relationships.
R8:
The Shasta County Fire Marshall recommends that buildings occupied or visited by the public be periodically inspected by local fire departments. The Grand Jury found that SLFPD has not routinely performed building safety inspections within the District as recommended. The inspection records of one retail business, which employs approximately 50 people, show that it had not been inspected since 1991. The District’s Fire Marshall, who is also a Battalion Chief, is the only one who currently performs building safety inspections for SLFPD. Several employees expressed concerns over their inability to have prior knowledge (or “pre-plans”) of potentially dangerous situations because they do not have the opportunity to perform building inspections.
R9:
It was reported to the Grand Jury that an accident took place in 2002 during a SLFPD training session involving one of the District fire trucks and a commercial semi-trailer dolly parked on a street near Shasta Lake Industrial Park. Both the fire truck and the semi-trailer dolly incurred damage. The semi-trailer dolly was repaired on scene by SLFPD personnel and the fire truck was returned to the fire station, where all repairs were made by the fire department. The Grand Jury interviewed the company that owned the semi-trailer dolly and found that no accident had been reported to them by the SLFPD. The Grand Jury contacted the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) and ascertained that no accident was ever reported. At the time of the accident, California law required traffic accidents on a California street/highway or private property to be reported to the DMV within ten days if there was property damage to anyone’s property in excess of $500.00. The actual amount of damage could not be ascertained because no estimate was ever obtained, but it was reported to the Grand Jury that the damage was well in excess of $500.
R10:
It was reported to the Grand Jury that the training program for paid and volunteer firefighters is insufficient, although employees indicated that the program has improved greatly since the current Training Officer, who is also a Battalion Chief, took over the training program in 2001. The Training Officer is not provided with sufficient resources to fulfill his responsibilities. For example, equipment is sometimes not made available for training purposes and most training is done during off-duty time for both paid staff and volunteers. Furthermore, the Department does not have a basic training manual for new recruits and it was reported that the Fire Chief seldom approves expenditures of District funds to pay for fire fighting classes for employees or volunteers.
R11:
The District received a $24,723 federal grant in November of 2002 to purchase training materials for the Department. The grant application required a 10% cost share from the District equaling $2,472, and specified that the funds would be used for training purposes. The money from the grant was deposited in the Shasta Lake Fire Protection District Volunteer Association checking account rather than into the District’s general funds, which are administered by the Shasta County Auditor- Controller’s office. It was reported to the Grand Jury that the volunteers’ checking account is not routinely audited, as is the District’s general fund account. A routine audit of District funds would include a test for compliance with certain provisions of a federal grant. After the funds were deposited, a desktop computer, a laptop computer, a power point projector, and training software were purchased and paid for through the volunteer account. The new computers are reportedly being used by the Fire Chief, Battalion Chiefs, and the District employees in the course of their regular work and are not dedicated to training.
R12:
The Shasta Lake Fire Protection District does not currently have a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) manual. Policy changes and directives are given verbally rather than in writing and passed on from shift to shift, which leads to confusion. At the January 13, 2003, Board meeting, the District’s paid employees requested an opportunity to address the Board to request that the Department develop an SOP manual. The employees were not granted an opportunity to speak on the subject.
R13:
In 2003, the District was audited by the DMV on its DL 170 program. This program is an employer testing program under which certain employees are certified to give driving tests only to other District employees for their Class B firefighters’ licenses. The auditor found that testing had been improperly provided to employees of other outside agencies. It was reported to the Grand Jury that such infractions could result in loss of the DL 170 program.
R14:
In 2003, SLFPD lost its authorization from the American Heart Association to conduct CPR training due to non-compliance with their policies. As a result, SLFPD was unable to conduct CPR training classes for a short period of time. SLFPD is now authorized to conduct the CPR classes through the National Safety Council.
R15:
In January 2003, the U.S. Labor Department began an investigation of SLFPD regarding failure to pay overtime as required by law. The Labor Department’s ruling could require the District to remit back pay, plus penalties and interest. The Fire Chief became aware of this investigation in early 2003, yet he did not inform the Board of it at that time.
R16:
In accordance with the Brown Act, agendas for Board meetings are to be posted 72 hours prior to a regular meeting and 24 hours prior to a special meeting in a location freely accessible to the public 24 hours a day. Prior to three different board meetings, members of the Grand Jury attempted to find an agenda in a public place but could not locate one, except on the inside bulletin board at the fire hall, which is not accessible to the public 24 hours a day. Several members of the public have also reported not being able to locate posted agendas. On October 14, 2002, the Board of Directors violated the Brown Act when they invited two members of the Grand Jury to attend a closed session regarding a personnel issue to which the Grand Jury was not a critical party. On February 10, 2003, Grand Jury members were again invited to a closed session, but declined. Closed sessions cannot be open to some members of the public and not others. Another violation of the Brown Act observed on the District agendas at least twelve times by the Grand Jury was the improper description of closed session agenda items. California Government Code section 54954.5 contains recommended language to describe closed session agenda items. The descriptions on the Boards’ agendas did not follow the recommended language. For example, the agenda for October 14, 2002, reads “Closed Session” with no further description; the agenda for June 10, 2002, reads “Closed Session to discuss personal [personnel] actions;” and the agenda for January 14, 2002, reads “Closed Session for discussion on letter from District Attorney.” Only matters properly disclosed on the agenda may be considered during a closed session.
R17:
The Grand Jury was unable to confirm whether any of the current members of the SLFPD Board of Directors have attended any type of workshop or training session pertaining to the operation of a fire district or the Brown Act. Such training sessions are available through the California Fire Department Association and other agencies. Only one of the current Directors interviewed acknowledged having ever read the California Fire District Administration Handbook, which serves as a guide to special district board members and fire chiefs.
R18:
The Grand Jury reviewed minutes of each regularly scheduled and special meeting of the Board from January 2001 through April 2003. Most of the minutes taken during that time were recorded by the Fire Chief, who is also responsible for reporting on District business during the meeting. The Board voted at the February 10, 2003, meeting to direct the Fire Chief to hire a secretary to take minutes in the future. As of the May 12, 2003, Board meeting, the secretary position remained unfilled.
R19:
The By-Laws and Rules and Regulations for SLFPD currently being used are dated April 13, 1998, and do not contain a revision to Article IV, Procedures for Disciplinary Actions, that was approved at the April 9, 2001, Board meeting. During that meeting it was also recommended by legal counsel that the Board adopt Article IX, Policy Against Discrimination and Harassment. It was noted in the minutes that this would be considered “at a future date.” On March 10, 2003, the Board adopted the Fire Agencies Insurance Risk Authority’s (FAIRA) Risk Management Manual and Board members indicated that they will be working with that agency to revise the By-Laws and Rules and Regulations for the District.
R20:
In June 2002, the District agreed to lease a water tender for a term of one year for $1.00 per year. However, on February 10, 2003, prior to expiration of the lease and at the recommendation of the Fire Chief and at the request of the lessor, the Board voted to purchase the water tender for $25,000. A member of the SLFPD Board of Directors is an owner and the CEO of the company that owned the water tender. This board member abstained from voting on the lease or the purchase. Nevertheless, California Government Code section 1090 prohibits a public official from having a financial interest in any contract entered into by the body or board of which he/she is a member, even if the official does not vote on the contract. Moreover, several employees reported that, in their opinion, the water tender was not useable due to mechanical defects resulting in safety issues and that the purchase was not a prudent use of District funds.
R21:
The SLFPD By-Laws state there shall be five members of the Board of Directors and that members are elected by the public for terms of four years each. The By-Laws further state that if a vacancy occurs during the term of office of a Board member, the Board shall post the vacancy to allow members of the public to apply for the position. The Board then appoints a person to serve until the next election. All of the current Board members were appointed to fill incomplete terms and none have ever run for election. There has not been a Board election since sometime prior to 1987 due to a lack of candidates. As of March 2003, there was one vacancy on the Board and three of the other four members’ terms expire at the end of 2003. California Government Code section 1780 states that a vacancy in an unexpired term of an elective office on the governing board of a special district shall be filled by appointment or by calling for an election within a period of 60 days. If the position is not filled as specified, the county board of supervisors may fill the vacancy within 90 days of the vacancy or order the district to call an election.
R22:
At a special meeting of the SLFPD Board of Directors on March 27, 2003, the Board voted to hire legal counsel to represent and advise them on District matters.
R23:
The Grand Jury believes that it is essential to provide those persons and bodies who are subject to a civil investigation a full opportunity to provide any and all relevant information to the Grand Jury. After compiling the results of this investigation into the above findings and conclusions, the Grand Jury requested a final interview with the members of the SLFPD Board of Directors and with the Fire Chief in order to obtain their input on the findings and conclusions. On May 23, 2003, the Board members and the Fire Chief declined a Grand Jury invitation to participate in a final interview. RECOMMENDATIONS:
Findings & Recommendations
23 findings
F1:
While investigating two citizens’ complaints, the Grand Jury found that the Superintendent and the District complied with relevant sections of both District policy and the California Education Code in a timely manner.
F2:
During the tour of four campuses, the Grand Jury found the facilities to be in good repair and well maintained.
F3:
The California Department of Education publishes the Academic Performance Index (API) for each school in the state annually. The API is an index designed to measure the school’s overall academic performance. Test scores, socio-economic factors, and location (rural or urban) determine the API. For the 2001/2002 school year, Anderson High School had an API of
F4:
The California Education Code requires districts such as AUHSD to maintain a 3% budgetary reserve for economic uncertainties. As of July 2002, the District had accumulated a reserve of approximately 13.5% of its annual budget. In March of 2003, the Board of Trustees decided to use approximately $500,000 of this reserve in order to retain 11 teachers and some classes which would otherwise have been eliminated due to state budget cuts.
F5:
During fiscal year 2001/2002, the Anderson Union High School District had a financial deficit of $697,688. A deficit of $114,603 is projected for 2002/2003. Adequate funds were available from the reserve to cover the deficits.
F6:
According to Shasta County Office of Education information, AUHSD has experienced declining enrollment over the past four years, as have most other districts within the county.
F7:
During the investigation of a citizen’s complaint, the Grand Jury found the District’s administering of certain grant funds to be in order.
F8:
AUHSD provides a benefit to the elected Board of Trustees in the form of a paid health insurance policy. The cost of this comprehensive, family health insurance policy is $9,324 per year per Trustee. Some Trustees have declined the benefit. Other school districts in Shasta County that were contacted by the Grand Jury do not offer this benefit to their board members.
F9:
The Grand Jury conducted random checks of the credentials held by certain administrators of AUHSD and found the credentials held to be the proper ones for the current assignment.
F10:
Early in the investigation, the Grand Jury interviewed the publisher of a local newspaper in Anderson. The newspaper had published several articles critical of AUHSD. These articles were of both the editorial and hard news type. During the interview, the publisher provided the Grand Jury with several allegations and “facts” in both written and verbal form regarding the District. These statements, if true, would indicate improper acts. The Grand Jury spent considerable time and effort attempting to corroborate these allegations and “facts”. The Grand Jury ascertained that nearly all of the “facts” and allegations were unfounded.
F11:
The Grand Jury obtained information from seven other counties in the State, all of which have delegated the authority of approving and paying claims to the Auditor-Controller through resolution or other action of the Board. It appears that Shasta County’s process of categorizing some claims as board claims requires less scrutiny by the Auditor-Controller’s staff because if there is no obvious reference on the claim to a purchase order, contract, or other authorization, the claim is simply passed on to the Board for approval. This practice may save time during the initial steps of the process, but the time required for thorough review by members of the Board of Supervisors and the week-long delay in getting payments to vendors results in inefficiency.
F12:
California Government Code section 29747 requires the Auditor-Controller to prepare a list of all claims allowed by the Auditor-Controller, showing the date allowed, warrant number, name of claimant, and amount allowed. The list is required to be certified by the Auditor-Controller and one copy filed in the office of the Board of Supervisors, which is not currently being done.
F13:
The 2001/2002 Grand Jury recommended that the Auditor-Controller process claims for payment in a timely manner and that the Board of Supervisors authorize an outside contract auditor to conduct a management audit of the Auditor-Controller’s Office. On October 8, 2002, the Board of Supervisors voted to authorize such an audit. As of June1, 2003, the management audit had not been conducted.
F14:
In 2003, SLFPD lost its authorization from the American Heart Association to conduct CPR training due to non-compliance with their policies. As a result, SLFPD was unable to conduct CPR training classes for a short period of time. SLFPD is now authorized to conduct the CPR classes through the National Safety Council.
F15:
In January 2003, the U.S. Labor Department began an investigation of SLFPD regarding failure to pay overtime as required by law. The Labor Department’s ruling could require the District to remit back pay, plus penalties and interest. The Fire Chief became aware of this investigation in early 2003, yet he did not inform the Board of it at that time.
F16:
In accordance with the Brown Act, agendas for Board meetings are to be posted 72 hours prior to a regular meeting and 24 hours prior to a special meeting in a location freely accessible to the public 24 hours a day. Prior to three different board meetings, members of the Grand Jury attempted to find an agenda in a public place but could not locate one, except on the inside bulletin board at the fire hall, which is not accessible to the public 24 hours a day. Several members of the public have also reported not being able to locate posted agendas. On October 14, 2002, the Board of Directors violated the Brown Act when they invited two members of the Grand Jury to attend a closed session regarding a personnel issue to which the Grand Jury was not a critical party. On February 10, 2003, Grand Jury members were again invited to a closed session, but declined. Closed sessions cannot be open to some members of the public and not others. Another violation of the Brown Act observed on the District agendas at least twelve times by the Grand Jury was the improper description of closed session agenda items. California Government Code section 54954.5 contains recommended language to describe closed session agenda items. The descriptions on the Boards’ agendas did not follow the recommended language. For example, the agenda for October 14, 2002, reads “Closed Session” with no further description; the agenda for June 10, 2002, reads “Closed Session to discuss personal [personnel] actions;” and the agenda for January 14, 2002, reads “Closed Session for discussion on letter from District Attorney.” Only matters properly disclosed on the agenda may be considered during a closed session.
F17:
The Grand Jury was unable to confirm whether any of the current members of the SLFPD Board of Directors have attended any type of workshop or training session pertaining to the operation of a fire district or the Brown Act. Such training sessions are available through the California Fire Department Association and other agencies. Only one of the current Directors interviewed acknowledged having ever read the California Fire District Administration Handbook, which serves as a guide to special district board members and fire chiefs.
F18:
The Grand Jury reviewed minutes of each regularly scheduled and special meeting of the Board from January 2001 through April 2003. Most of the minutes taken during that time were recorded by the Fire Chief, who is also responsible for reporting on District business during the meeting. The Board voted at the February 10, 2003, meeting to direct the Fire Chief to hire a secretary to take minutes in the future. As of the May 12, 2003, Board meeting, the secretary position remained unfilled.
F19:
The By-Laws and Rules and Regulations for SLFPD currently being used are dated April 13, 1998, and do not contain a revision to Article IV, Procedures for Disciplinary Actions, that was approved at the April 9, 2001, Board meeting. During that meeting it was also recommended by legal counsel that the Board adopt Article IX, Policy Against Discrimination and Harassment. It was noted in the minutes that this would be considered “at a future date.” On March 10, 2003, the Board adopted the Fire Agencies Insurance Risk Authority’s (FAIRA) Risk Management Manual and Board members indicated that they will be working with that agency to revise the By-Laws and Rules and Regulations for the District.
F20:
In June 2002, the District agreed to lease a water tender for a term of one year for $1.00 per year. However, on February 10, 2003, prior to expiration of the lease and at the recommendation of the Fire Chief and at the request of the lessor, the Board voted to purchase the water tender for $25,000. A member of the SLFPD Board of Directors is an owner and the CEO of the company that owned the water tender. This board member abstained from voting on the lease or the purchase. Nevertheless, California Government Code section 1090 prohibits a public official from having a financial interest in any contract entered into by the body or board of which he/she is a member, even if the official does not vote on the contract. Moreover, several employees reported that, in their opinion, the water tender was not useable due to mechanical defects resulting in safety issues and that the purchase was not a prudent use of District funds.
F21:
The SLFPD By-Laws state there shall be five members of the Board of Directors and that members are elected by the public for terms of four years each. The By-Laws further state that if a vacancy occurs during the term of office of a Board member, the Board shall post the vacancy to allow members of the public to apply for the position. The Board then appoints a person to serve until the next election. All of the current Board members were appointed to fill incomplete terms and none have ever run for election. There has not been a Board election since sometime prior to 1987 due to a lack of candidates. As of March 2003, there was one vacancy on the Board and three of the other four members’ terms expire at the end of 2003. California Government Code section 1780 states that a vacancy in an unexpired term of an elective office on the governing board of a special district shall be filled by appointment or by calling for an election within a period of 60 days. If the position is not filled as specified, the county board of supervisors may fill the vacancy within 90 days of the vacancy or order the district to call an election.
F22:
At a special meeting of the SLFPD Board of Directors on March 27, 2003, the Board voted to hire legal counsel to represent and advise them on District matters.
F23:
The Grand Jury believes that it is essential to provide those persons and bodies who are subject to a civil investigation a full opportunity to provide any and all relevant information to the Grand Jury. After compiling the results of this investigation into the above findings and conclusions, the Grand Jury requested a final interview with the members of the SLFPD Board of Directors and with the Fire Chief in order to obtain their input on the findings and conclusions. On May 23, 2003, the Board members and the Fire Chief declined a Grand Jury invitation to participate in a final interview.
Additional Recommendations
23
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Public Guardian Office, under the current Program Manager, appears to be staffed with dedicated, committed, professional individuals who take pride in their work.
R2:
The Grand Jury observed the Public Guardian office to be neat, orderly, secure, and professional in appearance.
R3:
The Sheriff’s Department should be more aggressive in recruiting qualified personnel to apply for vacancies in the Department. The Sheriff should report monthly to the Board of Supervisors on the progress in filling these vacancies.
R4:
The Sheriff’s Department should analyze the results of the comprehensive staffing analysis and request additional staff positions as indicated. The Board of Supervisors should consider and support requests made by the Department to increase staffing positions at the jail in order to improve the level of staff and community safety.
R5:
The County and the Sheriffs Department should pursue funding for the relocation of the kitchen and laundry, and renovations to add additional beds to the jail, as recommended by the feasibility study. RESPONSES REQUIRED: The Shasta County Board of Supervisors, as to Recommendations 4 and 5 Shasta County Sheriff, as to Recommendations 1 through 5
R6:
An annual review of Public Guardian client files for compliance to policy, procedures, and proper client care is performed by the Shasta County Department of Social Services. In addition, the Superior Court reviews conservatorships annually, and the Public Guardian Office interviews clients on a regular basis to ensure that their needs are being met. RECOMMENDATIONS:
R7:
In January 2001, the Board gave a confidential survey to the employees of the Shasta Lake Fire Department. Attached to the survey was a letter from the Board asking that the survey be completed and returned to the Board. The letter asked for employee’s assistance in formulating policy for the District and for written suggestions and criticisms. The letter stated that only the Board would see the results of the survey. After the new Fire Chief was hired in May of 2001, he was shown the confidential surveys by a member of the Board. The Fire Chief, who was a Battalion Chief at the time of the survey, was the subject of some of the criticism. Some employees reported that the Board’s disclosure of this confidential information created strained working relationships.
R8:
The Shasta County Fire Marshall recommends that buildings occupied or visited by the public be periodically inspected by local fire departments. The Grand Jury found that SLFPD has not routinely performed building safety inspections within the District as recommended. The inspection records of one retail business, which employs approximately 50 people, show that it had not been inspected since 1991. The District’s Fire Marshall, who is also a Battalion Chief, is the only one who currently performs building safety inspections for SLFPD. Several employees expressed concerns over their inability to have prior knowledge (or “pre-plans”) of potentially dangerous situations because they do not have the opportunity to perform building inspections.
R9:
It was reported to the Grand Jury that an accident took place in 2002 during a SLFPD training session involving one of the District fire trucks and a commercial semi-trailer dolly parked on a street near Shasta Lake Industrial Park. Both the fire truck and the semi-trailer dolly incurred damage. The semi-trailer dolly was repaired on scene by SLFPD personnel and the fire truck was returned to the fire station, where all repairs were made by the fire department. The Grand Jury interviewed the company that owned the semi-trailer dolly and found that no accident had been reported to them by the SLFPD. The Grand Jury contacted the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) and ascertained that no accident was ever reported. At the time of the accident, California law required traffic accidents on a California street/highway or private property to be reported to the DMV within ten days if there was property damage to anyone’s property in excess of $500.00. The actual amount of damage could not be ascertained because no estimate was ever obtained, but it was reported to the Grand Jury that the damage was well in excess of $500.
R10:
It was reported to the Grand Jury that the training program for paid and volunteer firefighters is insufficient, although employees indicated that the program has improved greatly since the current Training Officer, who is also a Battalion Chief, took over the training program in 2001. The Training Officer is not provided with sufficient resources to fulfill his responsibilities. For example, equipment is sometimes not made available for training purposes and most training is done during off-duty time for both paid staff and volunteers. Furthermore, the Department does not have a basic training manual for new recruits and it was reported that the Fire Chief seldom approves expenditures of District funds to pay for fire fighting classes for employees or volunteers.
R11:
The District received a $24,723 federal grant in November of 2002 to purchase training materials for the Department. The grant application required a 10% cost share from the District equaling $2,472, and specified that the funds would be used for training purposes. The money from the grant was deposited in the Shasta Lake Fire Protection District Volunteer Association checking account rather than into the District’s general funds, which are administered by the Shasta County Auditor- Controller’s office. It was reported to the Grand Jury that the volunteers’ checking account is not routinely audited, as is the District’s general fund account. A routine audit of District funds would include a test for compliance with certain provisions of a federal grant. After the funds were deposited, a desktop computer, a laptop computer, a power point projector, and training software were purchased and paid for through the volunteer account. The new computers are reportedly being used by the Fire Chief, Battalion Chiefs, and the District employees in the course of their regular work and are not dedicated to training.
R12:
The Shasta Lake Fire Protection District does not currently have a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) manual. Policy changes and directives are given verbally rather than in writing and passed on from shift to shift, which leads to confusion. At the January 13, 2003, Board meeting, the District’s paid employees requested an opportunity to address the Board to request that the Department develop an SOP manual. The employees were not granted an opportunity to speak on the subject.
R13:
In 2003, the District was audited by the DMV on its DL 170 program. This program is an employer testing program under which certain employees are certified to give driving tests only to other District employees for their Class B firefighters’ licenses. The auditor found that testing had been improperly provided to employees of other outside agencies. It was reported to the Grand Jury that such infractions could result in loss of the DL 170 program.
R14:
In 2003, SLFPD lost its authorization from the American Heart Association to conduct CPR training due to non-compliance with their policies. As a result, SLFPD was unable to conduct CPR training classes for a short period of time. SLFPD is now authorized to conduct the CPR classes through the National Safety Council.
R15:
In January 2003, the U.S. Labor Department began an investigation of SLFPD regarding failure to pay overtime as required by law. The Labor Department’s ruling could require the District to remit back pay, plus penalties and interest. The Fire Chief became aware of this investigation in early 2003, yet he did not inform the Board of it at that time.
R16:
In accordance with the Brown Act, agendas for Board meetings are to be posted 72 hours prior to a regular meeting and 24 hours prior to a special meeting in a location freely accessible to the public 24 hours a day. Prior to three different board meetings, members of the Grand Jury attempted to find an agenda in a public place but could not locate one, except on the inside bulletin board at the fire hall, which is not accessible to the public 24 hours a day. Several members of the public have also reported not being able to locate posted agendas. On October 14, 2002, the Board of Directors violated the Brown Act when they invited two members of the Grand Jury to attend a closed session regarding a personnel issue to which the Grand Jury was not a critical party. On February 10, 2003, Grand Jury members were again invited to a closed session, but declined. Closed sessions cannot be open to some members of the public and not others. Another violation of the Brown Act observed on the District agendas at least twelve times by the Grand Jury was the improper description of closed session agenda items. California Government Code section 54954.5 contains recommended language to describe closed session agenda items. The descriptions on the Boards’ agendas did not follow the recommended language. For example, the agenda for October 14, 2002, reads “Closed Session” with no further description; the agenda for June 10, 2002, reads “Closed Session to discuss personal [personnel] actions;” and the agenda for January 14, 2002, reads “Closed Session for discussion on letter from District Attorney.” Only matters properly disclosed on the agenda may be considered during a closed session.
R17:
The Grand Jury was unable to confirm whether any of the current members of the SLFPD Board of Directors have attended any type of workshop or training session pertaining to the operation of a fire district or the Brown Act. Such training sessions are available through the California Fire Department Association and other agencies. Only one of the current Directors interviewed acknowledged having ever read the California Fire District Administration Handbook, which serves as a guide to special district board members and fire chiefs.
R18:
The Grand Jury reviewed minutes of each regularly scheduled and special meeting of the Board from January 2001 through April 2003. Most of the minutes taken during that time were recorded by the Fire Chief, who is also responsible for reporting on District business during the meeting. The Board voted at the February 10, 2003, meeting to direct the Fire Chief to hire a secretary to take minutes in the future. As of the May 12, 2003, Board meeting, the secretary position remained unfilled.
R19:
The By-Laws and Rules and Regulations for SLFPD currently being used are dated April 13, 1998, and do not contain a revision to Article IV, Procedures for Disciplinary Actions, that was approved at the April 9, 2001, Board meeting. During that meeting it was also recommended by legal counsel that the Board adopt Article IX, Policy Against Discrimination and Harassment. It was noted in the minutes that this would be considered “at a future date.” On March 10, 2003, the Board adopted the Fire Agencies Insurance Risk Authority’s (FAIRA) Risk Management Manual and Board members indicated that they will be working with that agency to revise the By-Laws and Rules and Regulations for the District.
R20:
In June 2002, the District agreed to lease a water tender for a term of one year for $1.00 per year. However, on February 10, 2003, prior to expiration of the lease and at the recommendation of the Fire Chief and at the request of the lessor, the Board voted to purchase the water tender for $25,000. A member of the SLFPD Board of Directors is an owner and the CEO of the company that owned the water tender. This board member abstained from voting on the lease or the purchase. Nevertheless, California Government Code section 1090 prohibits a public official from having a financial interest in any contract entered into by the body or board of which he/she is a member, even if the official does not vote on the contract. Moreover, several employees reported that, in their opinion, the water tender was not useable due to mechanical defects resulting in safety issues and that the purchase was not a prudent use of District funds.
R21:
The SLFPD By-Laws state there shall be five members of the Board of Directors and that members are elected by the public for terms of four years each. The By-Laws further state that if a vacancy occurs during the term of office of a Board member, the Board shall post the vacancy to allow members of the public to apply for the position. The Board then appoints a person to serve until the next election. All of the current Board members were appointed to fill incomplete terms and none have ever run for election. There has not been a Board election since sometime prior to 1987 due to a lack of candidates. As of March 2003, there was one vacancy on the Board and three of the other four members’ terms expire at the end of 2003. California Government Code section 1780 states that a vacancy in an unexpired term of an elective office on the governing board of a special district shall be filled by appointment or by calling for an election within a period of 60 days. If the position is not filled as specified, the county board of supervisors may fill the vacancy within 90 days of the vacancy or order the district to call an election.
R22:
At a special meeting of the SLFPD Board of Directors on March 27, 2003, the Board voted to hire legal counsel to represent and advise them on District matters.
R23:
The Grand Jury believes that it is essential to provide those persons and bodies who are subject to a civil investigation a full opportunity to provide any and all relevant information to the Grand Jury. After compiling the results of this investigation into the above findings and conclusions, the Grand Jury requested a final interview with the members of the SLFPD Board of Directors and with the Fire Chief in order to obtain their input on the findings and conclusions. On May 23, 2003, the Board members and the Fire Chief declined a Grand Jury invitation to participate in a final interview. RECOMMENDATIONS:
Findings & Recommendations
23 findings
F1:
The Grand Jury toured one of the three fire stations in the Shasta Lake Fire Protection District in September of 2002. The fire station was neat, clean, and appeared to be well equipped. The personnel were professional in appearance.
F2:
The Insurance Service Office, which is a nationwide organization funded by property and casualty insurance companies, periodically evaluates all fire protection districts. Districts are rated on a scale of one to ten, with one being the best rating a district can receive. If a district receives a good rating, citizens within that district may pay a lower premium on their fire insurance. The Insurance Service Office rates most properties within SLFPD as Class Four, which is considered to be a good rating.
F3:
The volunteers and paid firefighters who were interviewed by the Grand Jury appeared to be dedicated individuals whose goal is to make SLFPD a better place to work and a more professional organization.
F4:
The Independent Auditor’s Report on the Financial Statements of SLFPD, dated June 30, 2002, showed an un-designated fund balance of $362,411, which represents approximately 30% of that year’s total budget. The budget for the following fiscal year, 2002-2003, was $1,106,721, which included $714,265 of total expenditures, a contingency reserve of $192,456, and designated, non-available cash flow of $200,000. California Health and Safety Code section 13902 allows a fire district board to establish a reserve for capital outlays if the purpose for which the reserve is to be used is declared. The Code section provides that if a district board finds that a previously established reserve for capital outlays is no longer required for the intended purpose, it may discontinue the reserve and transfer any balance to the district’s general fund. The Grand Jury was unable to determine a legally declared purpose for the SLFPD reserve. Based on consultation with experts, the Grand Jury determined that while maintaining a reserve is a normal practice, setting aside such a large portion of the total budget by a public taxing agency appears to be unreasonable and unwarranted.
F5:
The SLFPD By-Laws state that, “The purpose of the Board of Directors is to conduct, manage and control all affairs of the Fire Department.” However, the Board has not exercised sufficient supervisory functions in overseeing the job performance and conduct of the Fire Chief, as demonstrated by the following examples: a. There have been allegations of sexual harassment against the current Fire Chief which have been reported to the Grand Jury or are a matter of public record as follows: 1) In 1996, a 15-year-old female high school student working at the fire station under the Private Industry Council (PIC) program reported that the current Fire Chief, who was then a Battalion Chief, sexually harassed her by way of inappropriate touching. Some District employees reported to the Grand Jury that when the PIC program administrators investigated the allegations, the Battalion Chief intimidated the employees into signing a statement prepared by him declaring they had not witnessed the incident. Several of the employees reported to the Grand Jury that they felt threatened by possible repercussions if they refused to sign the statement. 2) On January 25, 2002, a lawsuit was filed in Shasta County Superior Court alleging that on February 24, 2001, a young woman who was receiving fire safety education and training at the fire department was sexually harassed and battered by the current Fire Chief (then a Battalion Chief acting as the Fire Chief). The lawsuit also listed SLFPD as a defendant. The lawsuit stated that SLFPD “knew or should have known” that this employee had the “propensity to commit sexual battery and harassment against female persons coming into close proximity with him on the premises.” SLFPD was accused of “negligently failing to properly and adequately train, supervise, monitor and/or control the activities” of this employee. In closed session at a special meeting on January 24, 2003, the Board voted to settle the pending litigation. Court documents show that the lawsuit was settled on March 17, 2003, resulting in payment to the Plaintiff of $50,000. Even though the Board knew of this alleged incident and the possibility of litigation, the District continued to employ this person, who was then a Battalion Chief applying for the position of Fire Chief. The March 1, 2001, minutes of a special meeting show that the Board voted to “table the Chief’s appointment until such time when the litigation problem was settled.” Thus, at least as early as March 1, 2001, the Board was aware of the allegations. During a special meeting on May 8, 2001, the Board considered whether this Battalion Chief should be disciplined for his actions, put on administrative leave until the charges were settled, or terminated. The Board voted to place a letter of reprimand in the Battalion Chief’s personnel file regarding these incidents. Nevertheless, at the regular meeting just a few days later, on May 14, 2001, the Board promoted the Battalion Chief to his current position of Fire Chief. 3) Other similar instances of alleged misconduct by the current Fire Chief were reported to the Grand Jury. Members of the Board knew or should have known of other alleged misconduct. b. Several employees stated in interviews with the Grand Jury that the current Fire Chief lacks management expertise and people skills, that morale at the work site is low, and that the Fire Chief often uses his position of power to intimidate employees and threatens repercussions when and if challenged. For example, it was reported that the Fire Chief sometimes denies favorable work assignments to certain employees based on factors other than merit. c. Numerous current and former employees reported witnessing paid staff, volunteers, and trainees being subjected to loud and out-of-control verbal abuse by the Fire Chief in front of their peers. One of the findings in the Shasta Lake Fire District Evaluation Review, prepared by an Ad Hoc Committee of the Board, stated that, “There is a real problem with their [the Chiefs’] communication skills, including a lot of in your face belittling and chewing employees out while others are around.” This finding was incorporated in the Shasta Lake Fire District Evaluation Committee
F6:
The Board advertised on January 9, 2001, to fill the existing vacancy for fire chief. One of the minimum qualifications stated on the application was an Associate of Arts Degree in Fire Science. The application stated that “Only applications meeting the …. minimum qualifications will be accepted.” The current Fire Chief, hired on May 14, 2001, does not have an Associate of Arts Degree in Fire Science, but does hold an AA Degree in General Education.
F7:
In January 2001, the Board gave a confidential survey to the employees of the Shasta Lake Fire Department. Attached to the survey was a letter from the Board asking that the survey be completed and returned to the Board. The letter asked for employee’s assistance in formulating policy for the District and for written suggestions and criticisms. The letter stated that only the Board would see the results of the survey. After the new Fire Chief was hired in May of 2001, he was shown the confidential surveys by a member of the Board. The Fire Chief, who was a Battalion Chief at the time of the survey, was the subject of some of the criticism. Some employees reported that the Board’s disclosure of this confidential information created strained working relationships.
F8:
The Shasta County Fire Marshall recommends that buildings occupied or visited by the public be periodically inspected by local fire departments. The Grand Jury found that SLFPD has not routinely performed building safety inspections within the District as recommended. The inspection records of one retail business, which employs approximately 50 people, show that it had not been inspected since 1991. The District’s Fire Marshall, who is also a Battalion Chief, is the only one who currently performs building safety inspections for SLFPD. Several employees expressed concerns over their inability to have prior knowledge (or “pre-plans”) of potentially dangerous situations because they do not have the opportunity to perform building inspections.
F9:
It was reported to the Grand Jury that an accident took place in 2002 during a SLFPD training session involving one of the District fire trucks and a commercial semi-trailer dolly parked on a street near Shasta Lake Industrial Park. Both the fire truck and the semi-trailer dolly incurred damage. The semi-trailer dolly was repaired on scene by SLFPD personnel and the fire truck was returned to the fire station, where all repairs were made by the fire department. The Grand Jury interviewed the company that owned the semi-trailer dolly and found that no accident had been reported to them by the SLFPD. The Grand Jury contacted the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) and ascertained that no accident was ever reported. At the time of the accident, California law required traffic accidents on a California street/highway or private property to be reported to the DMV within ten days if there was property damage to anyone’s property in excess of $500.00. The actual amount of damage could not be ascertained because no estimate was ever obtained, but it was reported to the Grand Jury that the damage was well in excess of $500.
F10:
It was reported to the Grand Jury that the training program for paid and volunteer firefighters is insufficient, although employees indicated that the program has improved greatly since the current Training Officer, who is also a Battalion Chief, took over the training program in 2001. The Training Officer is not provided with sufficient resources to fulfill his responsibilities. For example, equipment is sometimes not made available for training purposes and most training is done during off-duty time for both paid staff and volunteers. Furthermore, the Department does not have a basic training manual for new recruits and it was reported that the Fire Chief seldom approves expenditures of District funds to pay for fire fighting classes for employees or volunteers.
F11:
The District received a $24,723 federal grant in November of 2002 to purchase training materials for the Department. The grant application required a 10% cost share from the District equaling $2,472, and specified that the funds would be used for training purposes. The money from the grant was deposited in the Shasta Lake Fire Protection District Volunteer Association checking account rather than into the District’s general funds, which are administered by the Shasta County Auditor- Controller’s office. It was reported to the Grand Jury that the volunteers’ checking account is not routinely audited, as is the District’s general fund account. A routine audit of District funds would include a test for compliance with certain provisions of a federal grant. After the funds were deposited, a desktop computer, a laptop computer, a power point projector, and training software were purchased and paid for through the volunteer account. The new computers are reportedly being used by the Fire Chief, Battalion Chiefs, and the District employees in the course of their regular work and are not dedicated to training.
F12:
The Shasta Lake Fire Protection District does not currently have a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) manual. Policy changes and directives are given verbally rather than in writing and passed on from shift to shift, which leads to confusion. At the January 13, 2003, Board meeting, the District’s paid employees requested an opportunity to address the Board to request that the Department develop an SOP manual. The employees were not granted an opportunity to speak on the subject.
F13:
In 2003, the District was audited by the DMV on its DL 170 program. This program is an employer testing program under which certain employees are certified to give driving tests only to other District employees for their Class B firefighters’ licenses. The auditor found that testing had been improperly provided to employees of other outside agencies. It was reported to the Grand Jury that such infractions could result in loss of the DL 170 program.
F14:
In 2003, SLFPD lost its authorization from the American Heart Association to conduct CPR training due to non-compliance with their policies. As a result, SLFPD was unable to conduct CPR training classes for a short period of time. SLFPD is now authorized to conduct the CPR classes through the National Safety Council.
F15:
In January 2003, the U.S. Labor Department began an investigation of SLFPD regarding failure to pay overtime as required by law. The Labor Department’s ruling could require the District to remit back pay, plus penalties and interest. The Fire Chief became aware of this investigation in early 2003, yet he did not inform the Board of it at that time.
F16:
In accordance with the Brown Act, agendas for Board meetings are to be posted 72 hours prior to a regular meeting and 24 hours prior to a special meeting in a location freely accessible to the public 24 hours a day. Prior to three different board meetings, members of the Grand Jury attempted to find an agenda in a public place but could not locate one, except on the inside bulletin board at the fire hall, which is not accessible to the public 24 hours a day. Several members of the public have also reported not being able to locate posted agendas. On October 14, 2002, the Board of Directors violated the Brown Act when they invited two members of the Grand Jury to attend a closed session regarding a personnel issue to which the Grand Jury was not a critical party. On February 10, 2003, Grand Jury members were again invited to a closed session, but declined. Closed sessions cannot be open to some members of the public and not others. Another violation of the Brown Act observed on the District agendas at least twelve times by the Grand Jury was the improper description of closed session agenda items. California Government Code section 54954.5 contains recommended language to describe closed session agenda items. The descriptions on the Boards’ agendas did not follow the recommended language. For example, the agenda for October 14, 2002, reads “Closed Session” with no further description; the agenda for June 10, 2002, reads “Closed Session to discuss personal [personnel] actions;” and the agenda for January 14, 2002, reads “Closed Session for discussion on letter from District Attorney.” Only matters properly disclosed on the agenda may be considered during a closed session.
F17:
The Grand Jury was unable to confirm whether any of the current members of the SLFPD Board of Directors have attended any type of workshop or training session pertaining to the operation of a fire district or the Brown Act. Such training sessions are available through the California Fire Department Association and other agencies. Only one of the current Directors interviewed acknowledged having ever read the California Fire District Administration Handbook, which serves as a guide to special district board members and fire chiefs.
F18:
The Grand Jury reviewed minutes of each regularly scheduled and special meeting of the Board from January 2001 through April 2003. Most of the minutes taken during that time were recorded by the Fire Chief, who is also responsible for reporting on District business during the meeting. The Board voted at the February 10, 2003, meeting to direct the Fire Chief to hire a secretary to take minutes in the future. As of the May 12, 2003, Board meeting, the secretary position remained unfilled.
F19:
The By-Laws and Rules and Regulations for SLFPD currently being used are dated April 13, 1998, and do not contain a revision to Article IV, Procedures for Disciplinary Actions, that was approved at the April 9, 2001, Board meeting. During that meeting it was also recommended by legal counsel that the Board adopt Article IX, Policy Against Discrimination and Harassment. It was noted in the minutes that this would be considered “at a future date.” On March 10, 2003, the Board adopted the Fire Agencies Insurance Risk Authority’s (FAIRA) Risk Management Manual and Board members indicated that they will be working with that agency to revise the By-Laws and Rules and Regulations for the District.
F20:
In June 2002, the District agreed to lease a water tender for a term of one year for $1.00 per year. However, on February 10, 2003, prior to expiration of the lease and at the recommendation of the Fire Chief and at the request of the lessor, the Board voted to purchase the water tender for $25,000. A member of the SLFPD Board of Directors is an owner and the CEO of the company that owned the water tender. This board member abstained from voting on the lease or the purchase. Nevertheless, California Government Code section 1090 prohibits a public official from having a financial interest in any contract entered into by the body or board of which he/she is a member, even if the official does not vote on the contract. Moreover, several employees reported that, in their opinion, the water tender was not useable due to mechanical defects resulting in safety issues and that the purchase was not a prudent use of District funds.
F21:
The SLFPD By-Laws state there shall be five members of the Board of Directors and that members are elected by the public for terms of four years each. The By-Laws further state that if a vacancy occurs during the term of office of a Board member, the Board shall post the vacancy to allow members of the public to apply for the position. The Board then appoints a person to serve until the next election. All of the current Board members were appointed to fill incomplete terms and none have ever run for election. There has not been a Board election since sometime prior to 1987 due to a lack of candidates. As of March 2003, there was one vacancy on the Board and three of the other four members’ terms expire at the end of 2003. California Government Code section 1780 states that a vacancy in an unexpired term of an elective office on the governing board of a special district shall be filled by appointment or by calling for an election within a period of 60 days. If the position is not filled as specified, the county board of supervisors may fill the vacancy within 90 days of the vacancy or order the district to call an election.
F22:
At a special meeting of the SLFPD Board of Directors on March 27, 2003, the Board voted to hire legal counsel to represent and advise them on District matters.
F23:
The Grand Jury believes that it is essential to provide those persons and bodies who are subject to a civil investigation a full opportunity to provide any and all relevant information to the Grand Jury. After compiling the results of this investigation into the above findings and conclusions, the Grand Jury requested a final interview with the members of the SLFPD Board of Directors and with the Fire Chief in order to obtain their input on the findings and conclusions. On May 23, 2003, the Board members and the Fire Chief declined a Grand Jury invitation to participate in a final interview.