Shasta County Grand Jury
2008-2009
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
F1:
Adult Protective Services (APS) social workers stated that an ide al workload is around 30 cases; however, they currently manage between 40 and 50 cases each.
F2:
APS social workers told th e Grand Jury that th ey are often concerned for their safety. Cell phone reception is poor i n some areas of the cities and no n-existent in many outlying communities such as Shingletown, Fall River Mills and Platina. Conse quently, a social worker who encounters a personal safety situation may be unable to call for help.
F3:
A Shasta Count y Sheriff’ s deput y or a city pol ice officer may accom pany a social worker investigating a case of alleged abuse who is aware of or suspects a threatening situation.
F4:
Through fiscal y ear 2007/2008 APS had a contract with the Redding Poli ce Dep artment for $92,000 to provide a specially trained investigator to assist social workers on cases as needed. APS also had contracts with the Shasta County Sheriff’s Office and the Anderson Police Department. However, due to County budget cuts this past fiscal y ear, the contract with the Redding Police Depart ment was terminated and substantia l reduc tions were made to the Shasta Count y S heriff’s Office and the Anderson Police Department contracts.
F5:
Staff interviewed by the Grand Jury stated that in their opinion elder abuse is under-reported. However APS has im plemented a media campaign using posters and advertisem ents to educate the public. APS offers training to report suspicious actions which might indicate abuse.
F6:
There is no formal sign-out mechanis m to indicate the destinations of soci al workers when they leave the APS office. Consequently, their locations and expected return tim es are often un known. If 141
F7:
According to staff the Grand Jury interviewed, APS social workers are expected to learn their jobs through unstructured on-the-job training. Social workers’ attendance at professional conferences offering knowledge and skill development has been curtailed because of budget restraints. Peace officers provide limited training on safety issues.
F8:
The Grand Jury learned that although any person is capable of abusing an elder, the typical abuser is a son, 40 to 50 years old, a substance abuser, w ho moves in with an elderly parent to act as the primary caregiver. Some indicators of abuse are disappearance of money, cars and person al property; irregularities with bank accounts; and i solation from friends and family. Frequently elderly people do not know what is happening or, if the y do, they are too embarrassed or humiliated to report the abuse. They also fear causing trouble for their son/caregiver.
Additional Recommendations
4
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Grand Jur y recommends that APS purchase tw o satellite phones for use by social workers traveling to areas of the count y where cell phone usage is limited. Satellite phones would provide a much needed measure of safety.
R2:
The Grand Jur y recommends that APS provide a personnel sign-in/sign-out board on which all employees leaving the premises during work hours are required to post their times of departure, their destinations and their expected ti mes of return. In addition, the Grand Jury recommends integrating GPS capabilities into the cell phones used by social workers. In case of an emergency a GPS could pinpoint the location of a social worker.
R3:
The Grand Jury recommends that APS provide formal, structured on-the-job training, utilizing a learning check list that articulates in detail what th e social wor kers must do to perform the job to expected standards. The training also should prepare social workers to meet and respond to threatening or emergency situations.
R4:
The Grand Jur y recommends that Shasta County Adult Services re- evaluate its budget to make available funds for reinst ating law enforcem ent contracts which would pro vide specially traine d investigators to assist in abuse cases.
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
Hardware/software: The AS400 computer system was introduced in 1988 and depends to a large degree on a programming language called RPG (Report Program Generator). RPG was first released in 1959 and was created for punch-card machines. City staff estimates that software to replace RPG would cost millions of dollars plus the cost of the new hardware that would be needed. City staff reports that, while so me of their equipment and s oftware may be old, they are acco mplishing their mission. However, two of the RPG-trained city programmers are due to retire in 2009, creating a void that the Grand Jury thinks will be very difficult to fill. The city’s personal co mputers run Windows 2000, XP or Vista operatin g systems. The city uses software programs for firewall protection and for prevention of unauthorized access from outside the city’s system. However, there is no pr oactive software installed on the city’ s computers that controls access to unauthorized or malicious Internet sites. Furthermore, the city’s computer system does not use filters that would inhibit access to Internet sites that may c ontain either malicious software or inappropriate content. In addition, there is no “t ime out” program on city computers that would blank the screens and lock the keyboards when the computers are idle, as when employees are away at lunch; thus the computers are left vulnerable to unauthorized access.
F2:
Policy: The City of Redding has regulated computer use since 1998, wh en a Redding Cit y Manager’s policy (CM 98-1) was created. The original CM 98-1 Policy prohibited transmission of non- city related information on city computers. After city employees misused the city’s computers in 2007, instead of reigning in personal use of city computers, the city revised and appa rently weakened CM 98- 1 by now allowing transmission of personal matters on city computers. Originally the policy stated: All software, data, reports, messages and information stored on local and network resources are the property of the City. Therefore, no data shall be removed or transmitted via e-mail or any method of electronic file transfer to any other agency or person unless it is for the sole purpose of completing City business. On April 14, 2008, after the misconduct became public, CM 98-1 was revised to read: All software, data, reports, messages and information stored on local and network resources are the property of the Cit y. Therefore, no data relating to t he conduct of City business (italics added) shall be removed or transmitted via e-mail or any method of electronic file transfer to any other agency or person unless I.T. is for the sole purpose of completing City business. Research into the polic y of other governmental agencies revealed that Shasta County, the Shasta County Superior Court, t he County of Los Angeles and several state agenci es prohibit u se of their computers for personal reasons. The 2008 re vision of C M 98-1 also banned “Excessive use f or personal matter s unrelated to City business,” but the term “excessive” is not defined in the policy. The Grand Jury also finds that the current computer use policy includes complicated language such as the following: All electronic communications to, from, between or among any City officials or employees by use of an electronic co mmunication system to facilitate any business of the City, where it is neither nece ssary nor intended that the info rmational content of the communication be preserved for future City use or refere nce, may be deleted from the City’ s computer system without preserving the informational content of the communication or any portion thereof, unless (1) a law expressly requires such communication to be kept; or (2) preservation of th e communication is necessary or convenient to the discharge of the public officer’ s or employee’s duties and the communication was made or retained for the purpos e of preserving this informational content for future City use or reference. In 2008, city department managers were directed to discuss with staff the city’ s policies on co mputer use. Later in the year the city manager decided that CM 98-1 should be converted to a personnel policy, and in October the policy entitled, “Policy Regarding Use of Computers and Management of Electronic Records” was added to the Personnel Policies and Procedures Manual. City management also decided that all employees should be reminded annuall y of several i mportant policies. On October 19, 2008, the personnel director sent th e co mputer use policy t o all city employees. The employees were directed to read th e policy, sign an acknowledgment form and return the form to the personnel department by November 15, 2008. However, as of February 24, 2009, more than 100 employees still had not returned the acknowledgment.
F3:
Personal use of computers by city personnel: The misconduct that occurred within city hall in 2007 included transmission of thousan ds of personal e-mails that perpetuated relationships and that were often sexually explicit. As a result of the misconduct four city employees resigned, two received suspensions, and two received written reprimands. Two of the employees investigated were quoted as saying “…putting the ha mmer down on all of the se e-mails would be the best thing,” and “I am confident that city officials would be stunned if they were to investigate the level of personal use of computers which occurs on a dail y basis citywide.” One employee expressed shock “about the city’s lackadaisical attitude on inappropriate e-mail usage.” 43 During its investigation the Grand Jury found t hat most of the city employees interviewed could not define specifically what is meant by “excessive” in the city’s computer use policy and think that the y are allowed minimal personal use of city com puters. Some employees consider online shopping and reading non-work-related e-mail as acceptable personal uses of the city’s computers.
F4:
System administration: The City of Redding does not audit e-mail messages of city employees and does not archive or store e-mail messages for more than several weeks. Most employees have Internet access from their city computer. City supervisors do not monitor Internet usage, and there is no system to prevent employees from viewing inappropriate sites. The common games that come installed on a typical computer are not removed from city computers before they are placed into service. City staff estimated an archiving sy stem for e-mail storage would cost approxim ately $50,000. Staff ha s considered Internet tracking software and barriers to unauthorized sites, but they think that the costs of the equipment are prohibitive.
F5:
Security/redundancy: The city’ s primary central computer systems are located in a room at city hall deep within a complex of offices not accessed by the public and an ancillary computer room is off a main hallway. When the Grand Jury visited city hall, however, the primary computer room was not locked, and there appeared to be minimal access control; on the ot her hand, the ancillar y room was locked and unmarked. There is a similar but smaller computer room at the Redding Police Department. This room is locked, and no unauthorized entry is allowed. All three computer rooms are individually climate-controlled and equipped with special fire suppression equipment. The city’s computers contain a large amount of data relating to the city’s residents and to the operation of the city. The data from the computer is backed up daily on tape which is delivered to the Redding Police Department for sa fekeeping. The tapes ar e stored within a locked c ontainer in the locked computer room. However, there are no computers at the police station capable of running the city’s operations. City staff indi cated that, if a catastrophi c failure were to occur at city hall, replacement computers would be requested from outside the city and that it could take several day s before the city could access its data. City I.T. staff are currently working with the local emergency dispatch and communication center (SHASCOM) on a redundant computer system that would provide continuity in the event of a disaster. If commercial power is lost, city hall can be powered by an on-site emergency generator. The computer room at city hall is equipped with a battery uninterrupted power supply (UPS) that keeps the computer system operational until t he emergency generator c an provide power. This generator is fueled by a natural gas line supplied by Pacific Gas and Electric. The computer room at the police station also is equipped with a battery UPS, and an on-site emergency backup diesel-fueled generator is available.
Additional Recommendations
11
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends that the City of Redding modify its computer usage policy to prohibit personal use of city computers and to require random audits of e-mail. 44
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends that the City of Redding restrict access to inappropriate Internet sites and monitor city employee Internet activity.
R3:
The Grand J ury recommends that the City of Re dding institute automatic “time-outs” o n city personal computers. “Time-outs” either blank the screen or invoke a screen saver and lock the keyboard when the computer is not in use for a specific period of time.
R4:
The Grand Jury recommends that the City of Redding archive all e- mail traffic for a period of at least 12 months in order to monitor the appropriateness of e-mail.
R5:
The Grand Jury recommends that the City of Redding begin now either to phase-out or to replace software that is dependent upon the RPG programming language.
R6:
The Grand Jury recommends that the City of Redding simplify and make more specific its policy on computer usage.
R7:
The Grand Jury recommends that the city hall computer room remain locked at all times to prevent unauthorized access.
R8:
The Grand Jury recommends that the generator at city hall be fueled by either propane or diesel fuel to provide continuity during an emergency if natural gas lines are disrupted.
R9:
The Grand Jury recommends that the City of Redding establish a tracking sy stem to document which employees have read and agreed to abide by the computer policy.
R10:
The Grand Jury recommends that the City of Redding remove games from personal computers before placing them into service.
R11:
The Grand Jur y recommends that the City of Redding reprioritize its I.T. bu dget to pay for the previous recommendations, possibly taking from funds allocated for overtime, consulting services, or office equipment maintenance/repair. Responses Required: The City of Redding City Council as to Recommendations 1 through 11. Method of Inquiry: The Grand Jury interviewed: City of Redding City Manager City of Redding Support Services Director City of Redding Personnel Director 45 City of Redding Chief of Police Redding Police Department captain City of Redding technology manager Shasta County Chief Technology Officer City of Redding information technology supervisor City of Redding management analyst II City of Redding building inspector The Grand Jury reviewed: City of Redding policies for use of computers and management of electronic records, employee conduct and honesty and discipline Redding Police Department policies relating to use of the police radio, police officer minimum performance standards, and harassment in the workplace Shasta County policy on electronic assets and in formation security, pre-login warning to all employees signing on t o their computers, and an acknowledgment form regarding e-mail and Internet access monitoring An agreement for the operation of the Integrated Public Safety System (IPPS) An IPPS security clearance signature form A document titled, “Preparation of a Plan for Upgrade and Expansion of Mobile Digital Data” dated Dec. 2, 2008 City of Redding form titled, “City of Redding Receipt for Personnel Policies” City of Redding Internal Communication relating to personnel policies dated Feb. 24, 2009 City of Redding budget for the Infor mation Technology Division of the Support Servi ces Department A list of Cit y of Redding personnel who had not acknowledged receipt of policies, dat ed February 24, 2009 Numerous documents prepared by a private investigator relating to City of Redding employee misconduct and misuse of city computer systems in 2007 Three Redding Record Searchlight articles dated Sept. 14, 2007 and May 4, 2008 46 California Department of Transportation Dir ector’s Policy 17R, Information Technology and computer network and Internet access guidelines California Highway Patrol network security and administration policy, Chapter 2 of Highway Patrol Manual 40.4 and form CHP 101, appropriate use of automated information and systems statement Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors policies 6.105 and 6.101, Internet usage policy and policy on the use of county information technology resources; and an employee agreement for acceptable use and confidentiality of Los Angeles County’s information technology assets Two Shasta County Superior Court memoranda relating to e-mail and Internet use California Office of Information Security and Privacy Protection website, www.oispp.ca.gov California State Administrative Manual, www.sam.dgs.ca.gov SANS Institute Web site, www.sans.org Municipal Information Systems Association of California Web site, www.misac.org California Counties Information Services Directors Association Web site, www.ccisda.org 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55
Findings & Recommendations
13 findings
F1:
The Mountain Gate board was advised by its legal counsel that there was no conflict of interest in the hiring of the General Manager. The Grand Jury, however, determined there was the appearance of favoritism when the board lowered the employment standards and hired the former board member to be general manager.
F2:
Prior to the board implementing a policy on credit card usage, charges to the district’s credit card were incorrectly reported as fuel expenses when actually they were meals for employees. Although the bylaws allow for a per diem, there is no specific authorization in the bylaws for employees to charge meals on the district’s credit card.
F3:
After receiving training, board meetings attended by the Grand Jury were orderly.
F4:
Enterprise/non-enterprise: The district’s enterprise funds (from the sale of water and services) and non-enterprise funds (property taxes for fire protec tion) are no t separated in the district budget as recommended by Governmental Accounting Standards Board Statement No. 34.
F5:
Credit cards: The district has not a uthorized issuance of credit cards for use by its fire protection personnel. The lack of credit cards available to the fire department impedes the ability of fire personnel to purchase fuel and other needed items when responding to out-of-area fires. Although these responses eventually generate money, the department must have the means to sustain itself while working these fires.
F6:
Management: Three present and former board members reported to the Grand Jury that the current manager has technical field expertise but lacks administrative abilities.
F7:
Two departments: Although the present manager is head of the water and fire operations of the district, he has no expertise in the area of firefighting but depends on information provided by the part- time fire chief.
F8:
Board interactions: The board of directors v iolated the Brown Act on March 1 0, 2 009, b y discussing an agenda item during a break in its meeting. Board meetings attended by members of the Gra nd Jury were not conducted in accordance wit h Robert’s Rules of Order. Audience p articipation was not cont rolled, and audience outb ursts were tolerated. As a conseq uence of board infighti ng a recall petiti on was cir culated that re sulted in a c ost to the district of approximately $10,000.
F9:
Statement of Economic Interests (700 Form): The law requires that special dist ricts’ board members each m ust complete a 700 Form , which is public info rmation. The Grand Jury could not locate 700 Forms for some of the board members.
F10:
Policy & Procedures: The district’s policy and procedures manual is outdated and consists mainly of board resolutions, making it difficult to locate pertinent information.
F11:
Training: The general manager an d board m embers acknowledged that the y have not receive d training on how to perfor m their duties. District board mem bers and staff do not participate in an y association conferences, such as the Association of California Water Agencies or the California Special Districts Association. 34
F12:
Fire Department Manuals: Neither the fire department’s training manual nor the policy and procedures manual comprehensively guides the firefighters in understanding what is expected of them.
F13:
Infrastructure: Board members and the general manager stated to the Grand Jury that the district’s infrastructure is in “severe disrepair.” For example, the water pipeline contains asbestos, is very old and is prone to breaks.
Additional Recommendations
3
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The board create a policies and procedures manual separate from the bylaws for all operations of the district The manual should state which personnel may use the district’s credit card and for what purpose.
R2:
All board members complete training on the Brown Act and government ethics every two years as required by law.
R3:
The policies and procedures manual should designate the maximum reimbursement rates for lodging. Further, meal reimbursement should be limited to authorized out-of-county travel. RESPONSE
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
10 findings
F1:
Personnel assigned to the propert y/evidence facility estimate that approximately 75 percent of the property and evidence currently stored there could be process ed and rem oved because the cases involved have been fully adjudicated.
F2:
Sheriff’s office personnel told the Grand Jury that with current staffing it would take about 20 years to process and remove the items no longer required to be stored.
F3:
Property and evidence are stored throughout the property/evidence facility in closets, hallway s and rooms not designed for such purposes, and most areas are filled to capacity.
F4:
Personnel assigned to the proper ty/evidence f acility use t wo separate incom patible softwar e programs to inventory and manage the property and evidence. One software program was in use prior to 2003, and a different software program was put into use at that time. The use and maintenance of these two separate inventor y control software program s has exacerbated the co mplexity of the inventor y process. Currently an eff ort is underway to obtai n or write a new software program to improve efficiency by facilitating an interface between the two existing programs.
F5:
The Shasta Count y District Attorney’s office is working with t he Shasta County Superior Court to establish a method for flagging cases when property and evidence can be returned or disposed of at the final adjudication of a case. However, this effort will only assist with recently filed criminal cases and will not reduce the number of stored items which relate to older cases.
F6:
Cash being held as evidence or for safekeeping is kept in a safe in th e property/evidence facility. Currently, five employees of the sheriff’s office have access to the safe’s combination.
F7:
For audits the sheriff’s office personnel assigned to the property/evidence facility utilize the “Law Enforcement Property & Evidence Sy stem Audit Guide (2005),” published b y State of California Department of Justice. This guide reco mmends that annual audits be con ducted by a supervisor. According to the guide, t hese audits, at a m inimum, should review cases involving drugs, money and guns. Cal-MMET performs audits with respect to its own case-specific property and evidence.
F8:
During a tour of the property/evidence facility, the Grand Jury found that there was no place reserved for storing bio -hazardous materials. After the Grand Jury’s vis it, a place for storing bio-hazardous materials was designated, and written procedures, “Bio-Hazard Protocol,” were adopted.
F9:
There is little or no initial or follow-up training provided by the sheriff’s office for personnel assigned to the property/evidence facility. Formal and annual training on the various software programs for inventory control is limited.
F10:
Property and evidence, except for guns, are destroyed periodically at a local cement company where they are put into an incinerator which burns at 2,500 degrees. Guns are either sold at auction or taken to an incinerator near Oakland where they are melted. 113
Additional Recommendations
5
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
A com prehensive annual audit should be performed by sheriff’s office personnel not assigned to the property/evidence facility. In addition, quarterly self-audits of guns, drugs and cash by property/evidence fac ility personnel should be conduc ted and then reviewed and approved by the sheriff or undersheriff.
R2:
All sheriff’s office property/evidence facili ty personnel should rece ive initial and ongoing training on property and evidence handling, including the training available from C.A.P.E.
R3:
All sheriff’s office property/evidence facili ty personnel should rece ive initial and ongoing training on the software programs used to inventory and manage stored items.
R4:
The sheriff’s office should deve lop a plan for disposing of pr operty and evidence that does not need to be stored any longer in the property/evidence facility. Personnel currently assigned to the prope rty/evidence facility and to the co-l ocated sheriff’s office crime lab, as well as employees on light duty, volunteers and retired sh eriff’s office personnel could carry out the plan.
R5:
The Shasta County District Attorney’s office, working with the Shasta Count y Superior Court, should expedite the establishment of a method to flag adjudicated cases to initiate return or disposal of associated property and evidence.
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
F1:
Everyone the 2008/2009 Grand Jury interviewed or contacted about the Redding Police Department California Street facility agreed that a new building is needed. The need fo r a new building has been apparent for more than 21 years and is well documented in city files.
F2:
The RPD building was constructed 61 years ago and is not in accordance with modern building and safety standards. The buil ding was not designed to withstand a significant earthquake or any other major disaster, as is now required by the state’s the Essential Services Building Seismic Safety Act of 1986 (Health & Safety Code, §16000 et seq.) for new police facilities. The defi ciencies found by the 2005/2006 Grand Jury still exist today. Indeed, the problems with the building have been compounded by four more years of use and exacerbated by the need for a new roof and by recent problems with the sewer system.
F3:
The RPD building is n ot protected by an automatic fire protection sprinkler system. Although the building does have a m odern fire and smoke detection alarm system and someone is present in the building at all times, there are numerous concealed spaces where a fire could start and burn undetected.
F4:
On September 9, 2008, the City of Redding’s Safety Inspection Team (S.I.T.) comprised of risk management, fire and building maintenance personnel completed an inspection of the RPD building. The S.I.T.’s report identified potential general safety and Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) violations, general liabilit y exposures and buildi ng maintenance and fire co de issues. T he report concluded: 57 The potential for an employee complaint or incident as a result of unsafe working conditions is heightened by the lack of workspace. The City could face substantial fines and penalties if an OSHA investigation were to occur. However, when interviewed by the Grand Jury, only one of the current five city council members claimed to have seen the S .I.T. report, and even th at member of the city council could not recall the report’s contents.
F5:
The Grand Jury re-visited the RPD facili ty on April 29, 2009, to follow-up on the items identified in the S.I.T. report. The Grand Jury was particularly concerned about the fire code violations and structural and egress deficiencies that could hamper fire control or obstruct a safe, quick exit from the building. The Grand Jur y found that many of the item s identified in th e S.I.T. report had been corrected, including fire extinguisher mountings and signage, so me wiring issues and a bulging partition. A sagging ceiling in the property and evidence storage area also had been partially repaired, althoug h the support beam holding up the ceiling is still not attached to one wall on the so uth side of the room. However, many other identified code violations were not, or could not be, corrected. For several years the city has minimized or not even undertaken repairs to the police station, because there was a belief that a new building would be constructed soon. The result is that unacceptable and, in some cases, unsafe workspace conditions continue to exist, such as in the property and evidence storage area, briefing room and locker room. The roof continues to leak; electrical power strips and extension cords are overloaded; dry-rot is present in the roof fascia in the front of the building and portions of the building flood during heavy rains. Based upon the deficiencies of the RPD building that have existed for many years, and upon the conclusions of the city’s own S.I.T. report, the Grand Jury finds that RPD employees are working i n an unsafe environm ent. For example, there is not enough space in the property and evidence storage areas to allow for proper lifting, for maneuvering between aisles or for safe egress in the event of an emergency.
F6:
The estimated cost to buil d a new RPD facility has ranged from approximately $15 million for a retrofitted structure to more than $40 million for a new building with a shooti ng range and a separate storage building. So many cost figures have been given over such a long period that there is no clarity about how much a new or retrofitted building would cost. The present poor economy also has altered cost escalation trends. At one point in 2008 the city council decided on the construction of a new building rather than the retrofitting of an existing structure. However, afte r elections and the seating of a new council mem ber the current city council changed course and, ba sed on statemen ts made during council meetings, appears to be considering a retrofitted building. Since the city council has not made a decision on what size or type of facility it is willing to construct or retrofit, it has not yet been able to det ermine the ultimate cost of a police facility.
F7:
The most prevalent answer heard by the Grand Jury to the question of why a new RPD building has not been built or an existing building retrofitted is that there is no money to do it. The Grand Jury does 58 not accept this answer. Over the past 21 years there have been numerous opportunities to designate or set aside sufficient funds to build a new RPD facility or to retrofit an existing structure, as evidenced by the many improvements in city infrastructure that ha ve occurred in that time. The City of Redding’s overall budget for Fiscal Year 2008-09 is approxi mately $360 m illion. The am ount encompasses various types of funds that make up the city’s annu al budget, including enterprise funds (utilities such as water, wastewater and the Redding Electric Utility); internal service funds (in-house services such as information technology or fleet maintenance); special revenue funds (targeted revenue such as gas tax or federal block grants) and the general fund. Each of the funds is managed separately with revenues and expendit ures unique to each. The general fund, as its name i mplies, pays for m ost general government services, including police and fire protec tion, street and park maintenance, recreation programs, development services and city facilities. The city’s budgeted gene ral fund for fiscal year 2008-09 was $76.7 million before any reductions were made because of the weak economy. In 2008 the city council established a citizens’ committee to explore the issues surro unding the construction and financing of a new RPD facility . One of the charges given to the committ ee was to identify and recommend funding sources for construction. The committee fulfilled its responsibility and identified numerous funds that could be used for a new building. Despite the identified fun ds, all city council members still maintain that there is no money to build a RPD facility.
F8:
Ultimately, it is the city council that is res ponsible for seeing that the faciliti es used by RPD are safe, modern and efficient. In the past 21 years, the various city councils have failed in meeting that responsibility.
Additional Recommendations
4
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Given the current condition of the property and evidence storage areas, the Grand Jury recommends that the Redding Police Department immediately relocate the property unit personnel, along with all evidence and confiscated property, to a different facility. This facility should have enough space to allow for proper lifting, for maneuvering between aisle s and f or safe egress in the ev ent of an emergency.
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends that all Redding Police Department staff and equipment be relocated temporarily to a facility that is safe for all employees and large enough for them to conduct RPD work.
R3:
The Grand Jur y recommends that the Redding City Council expedite the con struction of a new facility or the retrofitting of an existing building to house the Redding Police Department.
R4:
The Grand Jur y recommends that the Redding City Council sho uld fund a n ew RPD facilit y or retrofit an existing b uilding, using public/private partnerships, bonds, one-time funding previously identified by the Police Facility Review Co mmittee, general fund reprioriti zation or reserve draw downs, borrowing from other funds or reserves, or any other such funding method. 59
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
Installation: Redflex, Inc. examined the intersections in Redding and conducted traffi c analyses to determine which intersections are best suited for red light cameras (i.e. traffic volumes, likely number of red light violations). As previously stated, th e contract between Redflex, Inc. and t he City of Redding allowed photo enforcement equipment to be installed at up to 10 intersections. The intersection of Cypress Avenue and Bechelli Lane in the east/west direction was the first to receive the equipm ent. Next, Redflex, Inc. installed equipment at the inte rsection of Shasta Stre et and Market Street and in 2008, at Cypress Avenue and Churn Creek Road. The intersection of Market Street and Lake Boulevard was the last to receive the red light photo enforcement equipment.
F2:
Costs: While the photo enforcement program cannot apprehend dangerous drivers as well as could an officer stationed at an intersection, the 24/7 c overage ability of the red light program represents a phenomenal law enforcement tool at very little, if any, cost to the law-abiding citizens of the city. The contract between Redflex, Inc. and the City of Redding states, “Customer shall be obligated to pay Redflex a fixed fee of $5,500 per month for each Designated Intersection Approach (“Fixed Fee”) for one to two lanes, and $6,000 for three or four la nes as full remuneration for performing all of the services contemplated in this Agreement.” The City of Redding is never obligated to pay Redflex, Inc. more than the actual cash received by the City. The Redding Police Department budgeted $30,000 annually to pay retired officers to ad minister the Red Light Photo Enforcement Program. In the 2007/2008 budget year $26,919.62 of the budgeted funds were spent. As of September 17, 2008, Redflex, Inc. had invoiced the Redding Police Department for $200,516.40. The city paid Redflex, Inc. $116,000, the total amount collected from red light violation fines. Becau se of the cost neutra lity clause of t he Redflex, Inc. contract, the Red Li ght Phot o Enforcement Program cost the City of Redding $ 26,919.62, the wages for the retired officers, but generated no revenue for the city. In 2009 Redflex, Inc. agreed to an amendment of the contract and assumed responsibility for paying the wages of the retired officers. If the fines collected ever exceed Redflex, Inc. charges, the city’s general fund would benefit from the Red Light Photo Enforcement Program.
F3:
Fines: According to the Shasta County Superior Court, the base fine for conviction of running a red light is $400. The fine can be increased by court fees, prior convictions and traffic school costs. The California Penal and Government Codes require th at the fine money be distributed to 14 different accounts. Those accounts include funding for a ctivities such as court automation, automated fingerprinting, courthouse construction, county services, and criminal justice program s. The Cit y of Redding receives the largest single share of each fine, approximately 41 percent, to operate the red light photo enforcement program. Redflex Inc. is paid out of this 41 percent for its services. Theoretically, the City of Redding could experience surplus revenue from the red light photo enforcement program. However, since the fine revenue is currently significantly lower than Redflex, Inc. charges, income in excess of expenditures will not occur in the near future.
F4:
Collision statistics: Red light camera effectiveness has been studied fairly extensively. According to the Federal Highway Administration, red light cameras reduce overall injury crashes by as much as 25 percent although rear-end collisions may increase. Because the equipment was installed at various times throughout 2007, 2008 and 2009, comparative analysis of collision statistics was not available at the time of the writing of this report. The number of collisions at all intersections with active red light photo enforcement is down almost 48 percent in the first six months of 2008, and the total number of collisions citywide is down just over 21 percent for the same time period. There is no evidence of an increase in rear-end collisions. Redding Police Department traffic experts postulate that a primary cause of the dramatic improvement in traffic safety is the presence of red light cameras. In the last year of October 2007 to October 2008, the Shasta Count y Superior Court file d 2,783 red light camera citations, which un doubtedly made thousands of drivers think about their driving habits. The full year of 2009 should allow more accurate statistical comparisons from year to y ear and she d more light on the effect of the red light photo enforcement program.
F5:
Evidence and convictions: The members of the Grand Jury were impressed by the clarity of both the still images and video of violators who run red lights. The images themselves left no doubt i n the Grand Jurors’ minds that the drivers had committed violations. Every driver who is cited for a red light camera violation is able to view the ph otographic evidence pertaining to the incident. The quality of evidence pro vided b y Redflex, Inc., combined with the exper t testim ony of the Reddi ng Pol ice Department personnel, have resulted in every citation being upheld, excepting one which was dismissed on a non-red light camera technicality. This conviction rate is i mpressive, considering that the court processed over 2,700 citations in the last year. Additionally, since the cameras operate only during the red light phase, they are not capable of being rem otely focused on any thing but the intersection. The evidence is viewed only when a viola tion occurs. The Grand J ury saw no e vidence that the City of Redding is monitoring its citizens for anything other than detecting red light violations. 85
F6:
The Court: The Shasta County Superior Court, a state-funded agency, processes all red light photo enforcement program citations. Because of this program the court m ust process thousands m ore citations than in the past. Even though the state court system is to receive approximately 13 percent of red light viol ation fines, none of that money has yet returned to the Shasta Count y court. With no money to hire more personnel for the increased volume of violations, the court has automated citation processing to allow existing personnel to process the many additional citations.
F7:
Yellow light phasing times: In 2008, the Cit y of Redding i nitiated reviews of the y ellow light change intervals at all intersections w here the red light photo enforcement program operates. The change intervals have all b een set to meet or exceed the intervals required by the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices and were recorded in docum ents signed by the city’ s Director of Transportation.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
Responsibility: The G rand Jury finds that the R edding Police Department is aware of its duty to investigate com plaints by me mbers of the pub lic. A pam phlet, “Commen dation or C omplaint,” describing how to file a complaint or commend an employee, states: The Redding Police Departm ent acknowledges its responsibilities to establish a s ystem of complaint and disciplinary procedures for corr ective action when officers conduct them selves improperly. It is the purpose of these procedures to provide a pro mpt, just, open, an d expeditious resolution of complaints regarding the c onduct of officers and employ ees of the Department. The Redding Police Depart ment … welcomes feedback from citizens of the community regarding the performance of our employees as well as the department. Complaints concerning misconduct are investigated in accordance with applicable law and established RPD procedures. Only supervisors or managers conduct complaint investigations and prepare reports. The chief of police reviews and approves the results of all internal affairs investigations. Complainants are notified in writing of the disposition of com plaints; however, any disciplinary actions taken against peace officers are, by law, confidential and, therefore, not divulged to complainants or to the public.
F2:
Transparency: The former City of Redding Chief of Police had extended an invitation to the Grand Jury to review citizens’ complaints filed against members of the police department. The current chief of police also extended the invitation and expanded it to include all intern al investigati ons. RPD management granted the Grand Jury full access to all information concerning these investigations.
F3:
Quantity: Twenty-three internal investigations were undertaken by the Redding Police Departm ent in 2008. Thr ee of those investigations were revi ews of traffic collision reports prepared by the California Highway Patrol. These investigations resulted in discipline for the officers involved. Of the remaining investigations, eight were initia ted by RPD itself, and 12 were based upon citizens’ complaints. All investigations were focused on sworn peace officer personnel of the department. At the time of the review by the Grand Jury, the findings of the investigations were: # Investigation Outcomes 4 Unfounded (the alleged acts did not occur or did not involve police personnel) 5 Sustained (the alleged misconduct did occur) 9 Still being prepared or reviewed 1 Withdrawn by complainant
F4:
Quality: The Redding Police Depart ment has p repared a written description of the de partment’s procedures to be used in investigating complaints along with instructions on how to complain about or commend a police department em ployee. With one exception, t he Grand Ju ry determined that all 71 investigatory documentation was co mpleted in a ti mely manner. The one exception was a citizen’ s complaint that was misplaced during a transition in management. It has been determined that enough information about the complaint was av ailable, and, at the writing of this report, the complaint was under investigation. The Grand Jury examined every completed investigation prepared in 2008 and finds all conclusions to be reasonable and supported by the facts esta blished b y t he investigat ion. All rep orts were professionally prepared, well-documented, thorough and objective. For those investigations that w ere not complete, the Grand Jur y received a thorough briefing and information about the likel y outcome based on available evidence.
F5:
Citizen Access: The Grand Jury finds that filing a citi zens’ complaint is a si mple process. The Redding Police Department Web site contains a link to access the pamphlet entitled “Commendation or Complaint.” This pamphlet explains the philosophy of the police department and identifies three ways for citizens to contact the departm ent: by phone, in person or b y e-mail. A link to dow nload the citizen’s complaint form is on the RPD Web site, but the form cannot be com pleted and transmitted online.
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
F1:
With respect to t he seizure of the co mplainant’s three handguns, the Gran d Jury finds that the sheriff’s office property unit was in error in se nding out a letter of rele ase when, in fact, the complainant was ineligible to retrieve his guns at th e time he received the letter. The firearms should have remained in inventory until the matter was resolved. 92
F2:
The series of events began when the c omplainant was served with a temporary restraining order. The complainant surrendered his weapons to t he sheriff’s substation in Bu rney, starting a 30-da y temporary hold on his guns.
F3:
When the 3 0-day period ended, sheriff’s office pr operty unit personnel sent out a letter to the complainant stating that he was eligible to retrieve his handguns, pending written clearance fro m Department of Justice (DOJ). The issuance and acce ptance of the sheriff’s office letter initiated a 180- day period during which the complainant could retrieve his guns.
F4:
The complainant told the Grand Jury that he phoned the property unit and spoke with a propert y unit clerk requesting that his guns be held in saf ekeeping while he attempted to secure the necessary DOJ clearance. The Grand Jury was unable to verify his claim, as the property unit does not keep track of inquiries.
F5:
In November 2005 the complainant attempted to secure DOJ clearance but was denied based on the extension of the TRO. In March 2006 he made another attempt to secure DOJ clearance, but this too was denied because by that time the TRO had been replaced with a three-year restraining order. The data utilized by DOJ to deny the retur n of the guns was generated by the local court and had been entered by the sheriff’ s office into the co mputer and onto the California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System (CLETS) in a ti mely manner. Ho wever, the Grand Jury finds that the Shasta County Sheriff’s Office Property Unit perso nnel failed to review CLETS before sending the letter.
F6:
The letter from the prop erty unit should not h ave been sen t because at the tim e the gun owner was still restricted by a TRO and inelig ible to receive the guns. The 180-day period during which the owner could retrieve his handguns should not have been started.
F7:
In 2008, when the restraining order was lifte d, the complainant received DOJ approval to retrieve his guns. To the owner’s dism ay, when he attempted to pick up his guns, he learned from the property unit that his guns had been sold at the July 2007 auction.
F8:
When he was unable to retrieve his guns, the complainant filed a claim with Shasta County Risk Management Office for the appraised va lue of his three handguns. Based on infor mation provided by the sheriff’s office, risk management denied the claim.
Additional Recommendations
5
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Sheriff ’s Office Property Unit personnel sh ould query the California Law Enforcem ent Telecommunications System (CLETS) data base prior to mailing firearm release letters. Such inquiry would ensure a check and balance between the different agencies’ data bases and would provide the most current information.
R2:
The prope rty unit technician should docum ent the CLETS query on the P roperty Control Report before release letters are sent.
R3:
The property unit technician should document on the Property Control Reports all inquiries made by property owners. 93
R4:
The Grand Jur y recommends that the Shast a Count y Risk Managem ent Office reopen the complainant’s claim and review new information discovered by the Grand Jury indicating that the guns should not have been sold.
R5:
The Grand Jury recommends that the complainant be reimbursed for the appraised value of his three handguns. Since this report was written Shasta County Risk Management has issued a check to the complainant for the appraised value of his three handguns.
Findings & Recommendations
17 findings
F1:
Although the credit card abuse allegations were confirmed, the abuse was due to carelessness on the part of the employee and not due to intentional fraud.
F2:
The SMVCD manager failed to apply appropriate disciplinary actions against the employee for the misuse of the SMVCD credit card.
F3:
The district’s grievance procedure was not f ollowed when the e mployee alleged a hostile work environment existed.
F4:
A majority of the trustees stated to the Grand Jury that because of a fear of a lawsuit fro m the employee they agreed to pay $15,000 toward the legal fees of the e mployee who had m isused the SMVCD credit card. One trustee told the Grand Jury that the board of trustees w anted to “s mooth things over,” and another trustee said that the board wanted to “make it go away.”
F5:
The Grand Jury finds that before the manager received the 13.5 percent raise, the additional $2,000 a month for four months, and the lump sum wage payment of $29,000, his wages had been in line with those of managers in other mosquito abatement districts in Northern California.
F6:
The Grand Jury finds that the SMVCD manager was an “at-will” em ployee; that is, the m anager could be terminated without cause and without the specially negotiated retirement package. The Grand Jury found that the board of trustees used taxpa yers’ money to entice the manager into retirement by granting extra wage increases and payments, paying for a leave of absence am ounting to more than $40,000, and allowing the manager to remain as an employee while using accrued vacation time until retirement on June 30, 2009, in spite of the manager’s “at-will” status.
F7:
The wage increas es and the lum p sum wage pay ment were negotiated in order to increase the manager’s retirement compensation, since the manager’s retirement co mpensation is based upon a percentage of the highest amount of wages earned by the manager prior to retirement.
F8:
The Grand Jury finds that the board of trus tees reimbursed the manager $38,000 of the $45,0 00 legal fees the manager incurred during the manager’s personal conflicts with the spouse of an SMVCD employee.
F9:
The board of trustees reimbursed the manager $6,900 for lumber which the manager regarded as his own without proof of ownership, condition or its original cost.
F10:
Without a receipt or adequate proof of ownership the board of trustees paid the manager $675 f or lava rock (based upon current costs) that sat on SMVCD property for years. 10
F11:
The Grand Jury finds that it is in disagreement with the judgment of the SMVCD Board of Trustees in approving the Retirement Agreement and Mutual Release negotiated between the SMVCD manager and the trustees.
F12:
The board of trustees violated the Brown Act (Government Code, § 54950 et seq.) by circulating a document outside of a board of trustees meeting to gather trustees’ signatures. The document authorized the $2,000-per-month pay increase to the manager for four months.
F13:
The board of trustees violated the Brown Act by having a sign-in sheet placed at the entrance to the room in which meetings were held without clearly stating that signing the sheet was voluntary and that all persons could attend a m eeting regardless of whether or not the person signed it.
F14:
At the meetings attended by the Grand Jury the SMVCD President of the Board of Trustees f ailed to control the meetings, in that he allowed constant interruptions by the district’s manager.
F15:
Regarding appointments to the board of trustees, there is no process in place for screening applicants, and there is no accountability in place for poor representation by trustees.
F16:
The SMVCD Personnel Manual contains no po licy or procedure for em ployee performance evaluations, and the SMVCD employees interviewed by the Gra nd Jury indicated that no evaluations have been conducted.
F17:
For many years the manager stored personal property on SMVCD premises. On March 17, 2009, the board of trustees adopted a resolution (Resolution 2009-01) prohibiting the storage of employees’ personal property on SMVCD grounds.
Additional Recommendations
6
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends that those SMVCD trustees who approved the Retirement Agreement and Mutual Release between the trustees and the manager consider resigning.
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends that the City Councils of the City of Redding, the City of Anderson, the City of Shasta Lake and the Shasta Count y Board of Super visors adopt a selection process that includes personal interviews for all ap pointments and reappointments to the board of trustees of the SMVCD.
R3:
The Grand Jury recommends that the SMVCD trus tees receive training on the Brown A ct and on the laws (and the SMVCD’s own policies) concerning anti-harassment, vacation and sick leave accrual, and grievances.
R4:
The Grand Jury recommends that the president of the SMVCD Board of Trustees control meetings by establishing, pu blishing and enfo rcing rul es concerning the public comment period and b y preventing interruptions.
R5:
The Grand Jury recommends that the SMVCD policy and procedures manual be revised to include definitive procedures for job performance evaluations. 11
R6:
The Grand Jury recommends that all S MVCD employees, including the manager, receive annual written job performance evaluations.
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
There are no written county level procedures for the process of establishing open accounts with local vendors or for making purchases on those accounts.
F2:
All depar tmental accounting personnel interviewed seem well-acquainted with the depart ment’s particular procedures for making open account pu rchases, but the Grand Jury finds either that the department does not have written procedures, or th at procedures, if written, are disorganized and incomplete.
F3:
Departmental personnel interviewed said that they received training on purchasing informally “on the job” and verbally from co-workers.
F4:
The county purchasing division is not involv ed in establishing or m onitoring open accounts with local vendors – only in maintaining and distributing the lists of authorized signers for those accounts.
Additional Recommendations
4
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends that Shasta Count y Board of Supervisors expand section 2.4 of the Shasta County Contracts Manual (contract manual) to include standardized procedural guidelines for establishing open accounts with local vendors and fo r making purchases and paying invoices on those accounts.
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends that in expanding Section 2.4 of the contracts manual the county adopt a policy that requires departments to go through the purchasing division to establish new open accounts so that the county maintains one central control for those accounts.
R3:
The Grand Jury recommends that each department head using open accounts be required to establish written purchasing polici es and procedures specifi c to that depart ment’s open account activity , in accordance with the standardized guidelines established by the county in Recommendations 1 and 2.
R4:
The Grand Jury recommends that all county employees involved in the purchasing process receive formal, written and documented training in purchasing procedures.
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
On non-com puterized pumps incorrect char ges may occur if the person fueling does not assure that the pump is set to zero before pumping.
F2:
The Shasta County Department of Agriculture/Weights and Measures assures that the price posted is the price used in the calculation of the sales. The law requires that gas stations post prices for all vehicle fuels they sell. Prices must be posted on a sign visible from the street and on the fuel pumps. When fuel prices change, management must have the prices updated on the signs and at the pumps.
F3:
In the past several years inspectors have found no fraudulent alterations of fueling devices in Shasta County. 137
F4:
The departm ent promptly has an inspector check com plaints from citizens about possible faulty fuel pumps. About 90 percent of all complaints concerning fuel pump accuracy prove to be unfounded.
F5:
The Grand Jury finds that the weights and measures inspector is not authorized to take home the county-owned truck but leaves it at the office site at the end of the day. In some instances a gas station subjec t to an inspection is closer to the inspector’s res idence than to the office. Even when inspecting fuel stations close to his residence, the inspector must travel to the office to obtain the testing vehicle.
F6:
The Grand Jury also finds that, with all of the equipment and testing samples, the primary testing vehicle, a three-quarter-ton truck, is close to load capacity.
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The fueling station inspector should be auth orized to take hom e the county testing vehicle when this practice would shorten travel time, save gas and vehicle wear and tear, and allow the inspector more time to inspect fuel pumps.
R2:
The Cou nty should consider increasing the load capacity of t he next vehicle used by the Shasta County Department of Agriculture/Weights and Measures for testing fuels and pum ps by purchasing a heavy duty one-ton truck during the next vehicle replacement cycle. Commendation The Grand Jury thinks that Shasta County Department of Agriculture/Weights and Measures is doing an excellent job of protecting us from unfair retail practices and inadvertent errors.