Shasta County Grand Jury
2012-2013
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
Additional members added to the Board of Directors would allow for a greater diversity of opinion in the operation of the district and would reduce difficulties in setting up subcommittees due to constraints imposed by the Brown Act.
F2:
Marketing the availability of the resources of the WSRCD to the public on selected “fee for service” projects would both promote resource conservation and assist the District in meeting its financial obligations.
F3:
Inmate labor from the Sugar Pine Conservation Camp is the most economical way for the WSRCD to obtain experienced and qualified labor at minimal cost while working on selected projects.
F4:
The WSRCD website is out-of-date and fails to provide the public with necessary information.
Additional Recommendations
4
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends that the WSRCD seek out interested citizens in order to nominate them to the Shasta County Board of Supervisors for appointment to the board. This should be accomplished within the next three months.
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends that the WSRCD review its practice of not marketing “fee for service” contracts with a view toward performing such services for private landowners who would not otherwise avail themselves of conservation work on their property. This review should be undertaken as soon as possible following the addition of new members to the Board.
R3:
The Grand Jury recommends that the WSRCD continues to utilize (through Cal-Fire) inmate labor from the Sugar Pine Conservation Camp as a means of obtaining experienced and qualified labor while at the same time keeping down the cost of services provided.
R4:
The Grand Jury recommends that the WSRCD review and update its website for the specific purpose of providing the public with accurate, relevant and timely information concerning its activities and the dates, times and agendas of the WSRCD Board meetings. The review and update of the website should be completed within three months (the committee feels that 3 months is adequate.). REQUESTED RESPONSES Pursuant to California Penal Code section 933.05 the Grand Jury requests that: The Board of the WSRCD is requested to respond to Findings F1, F2, F3 and F4 as well as to Recommendations R1, R2, R3 and R4 within 90 days.
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
Sugar Pine and other conservation camps in California provide significant monetary savings to the State in fire prevention and suppression.
F2:
Sugar Pine provides significant monetary savings and community service to local public entities, many of whom would not otherwise be able to accomplish necessary maintenance.
F3:
The cost of conservation camp bed space is substantially lower than inmate housing costs now incurred by Shasta County at other holding facilities.
F4:
The recidivism rate from conservation camps is lower than that of the general prison population.
F5:
Sugar Pine provides rehabilitation, education and training opportunities that can be beneficial to the inmates. Summary of 2012-2013 Grand Jury Activities Agencies, Departments and Facilities Toured 14 Autopsies Attended 3 Committee Meeting Held 228 Complaints Received 44 Criminal Hearings Held 0 Interviews Conducted During Course of Investigation 87 Final Reports Issues 7 Government Board Meeting Attended 13 Indictments Issued 0 Joint Audit Committee Meetings Attended 3 Meetings of the Full Grand Jury 28 18 City Of Redding Employee Conduct and Honesty Policy SUMMARY The City of Redding currently has in place an Employee Conduct and Honesty Policy which has not been revised since 1987.While the policy addresses violations for accepting a gift, it does not define a gift, nor does it adequately detail the consequences of a violation. Interviews with city employees indicated a lack of understanding of what constitutes a gift and what is a violation of this policy. A well-defined gift policy would provide guidance for employees, and adherence would lessen the potential for a conflict of interest. Department heads or direct supervisors should review all reports of an employee receiving gifts. BACKGROUND In August, 2012, a City of Redding official forwarded to the Grand Jury information regarding allegations of misconduct made against a former employee. One allegation concerned the acceptance of gifts. After reviewing the Employee Conduct and Honesty Policy, we found that the section referring to gifts is vague and subject to misinterpretation. We also discovered that there was no procedure in place for management review of documentation regarding gifts received by city employees. APPROACH The Grand Jury reviewed: the Employee Conduct and Honesty Policy; Fair Political Practice Commission (FPPC) Limitations and Restrictions on Gifts, Honoraria, Travel and Loans – FPPC Gift Reporting Pamphlet; FPPC Statement of Economic Interest ( Form 700) which includes Gift Report- ing Schedules D and E; California Government Code 87200; Redding Municipal Code, Chapter 2.90 (Conflict of Interest for Designated Po- sitions of the City). elected City of Redding Officials; City of Redding employees. DISCUSSION The only reference to gifts within the City of Redding Personnel Policies Manual, Employee Conduct and Honesty is: “C. CONFLICT OF INTEREST “Some examples of violations: “C2. When an employee accepts gifts, payments, entertainment, loans, services, or promises of future benefits from any concern doing business or seeking to do business with the City, except personal loans from banks or other lending institutions.” Some of the city employees interviewed interpreted the above referenced policy as a “zero tolerance” policy which prohibits employees from accepting any gifts. Other employees in- terviewed stated that some gifts were allowed. Among acceptable gifts listed by some of those interviewed were boxes of candy at Christmas, rounds of golf, pens and pencils, and other trinkets. California Government Code 87200 requires elected officials, other designated employees and consultants to file an annual FPPC 700 Form which lists gifts received to an allowable maximum of $420 per any single source in 2011 and 2012. The maximum was increased to $440 beginning January 1, 2013. While the majority of city employees are not required to file the FPPC 700 Form, all are ex- pected to comply with the current Conduct and Honesty Policy. The state policy allows ac- ceptance of gifts while the city policy does not allow gifts “from any concern doing business or seeking to do business with the City, except personal loans from banks or other lending institutions.” For the period January 1 through November 28, 2012, the City Clerk’s office had received 232 FPPC 700 Forms. Ten employees, none of whom was an elected official, filed FPPC 700 Forms reporting gifts received in excess of $50. This violated the city policy. The City of Redding Personnel Policies Manual, Page No. 17.14, “MISCELLANEOUS: POLICY – EMPLOYEE CONDUCT AND HONESTY” states: “1. Violation of this policy will subject any employee to disciplinary action, up to and including discharge. In addition, supervisors and management who knowingly allow others to engage in acts of misconduct are subject to appropriate disciplinary action…” City officials and staff members interviewed were unaware of any disciplinary action ever taken against employees violating this policy. Current city practice requires management review of FPPC 700 Forms only if a reported gift is over $440. FINDINGS
Additional Recommendations
5
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends the Redding City Council, working with city manage- ment, revise and adopt an Employee Honesty and Conduct Policy specific to accept- ing gifts.
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends the Employee and Honesty and Conduct policy clearly defines what is a gift, what is an acceptable gift, and set a maximum value an em- ployee may receive.
R3:
The grand jury recommends the Redding City Council, working with management, develop a vehicle for employees not required to file FPPC 700 forms to report gifts received.
R4:
The Redding City Council adopt a policy that requires department heads or immediate supervisors to review all FPPC 700 Forms to determine if employees are adhering to the adopted City Gift policy.
R5:
The Grand Jury recommends the Redding City Council develop a plan to enforce the adopted city gift policy.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
There has been a lack of communication between SUHSD’s Special Education Department and the parents/guardians of special needs high school students regarding graduation options (Diploma vs. Certificate of Completion pathways).
F2:
There is no adequate forum for groups of parents/guardians to communicate with the special education staff on a regular and ongoing basis.
F3:
The Adult Transition Program Parents’ Club funds were not managed according to district policy; however, this has since been rectified.
F4:
The SUHSD Board of Trustees was responsive to several of the parents’ concerns, for example reinstating the use of a van and resuming recycling.
F5:
Based on the ratio of staff to students of 1:2, the SUHSD Adult Transition Program is staffed appropriately when compared to other local school districts.
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends that by September 1, 2013 the SUHSD Board of Trustees finalize the Course of Study Decisions document. It should contain a clear explanation of the outcomes of choosing the educational pathway leading to a diploma versus the pathway leading to a certificate of completion. The district should provide it to parents/guardians in a timely fashion
R2:
Jury recommends that SUHSD schedule regular meetings between parents/guardians and the special education staff to address and discuss general concerns beginning at the start of the next semester.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
the Redding Electric Utility staff report dated September 8, 2011 contained misleading and inaccurate information which led to misunderstanding as to the savings afforded Big League Dreams Redding, LLC under the recommended “blended” rate;
F2:
the City Council failed to follow its established procedure concerning its Consent Calendar when it considered and approved a rate reduction for Big League Dreams Redding, LLC during its regular meeting on September 20, 2011;
F3:
the City Council failed to respond to a request from a member of the public that the item related to the electric rate change for Big League Dreams Redding, LLC be taken off of the Consent Calendar and moved to the general agenda;
F4:
Redding Electric utility adjusted the electrical billings for Big League Dreams Redding, LLC retroactive to June 2011 without specific City Council Approval;
F5:
The rate reduction afforded Big League Dreams Redding, LLC was in substantial compliance with the terms of the Big League Dreams Redding, LLC lease agreement.
Additional Recommendations
5
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Redding Electric Utility ensure that all staff reports provided to members of the City Council are complete and accurate;
R2:
the City Council follow its established procedure and either remove an item from the Consent Calendar to allow for discussion or allow no spate discussion of that item;
R3:
the city council respond to and verbally approve or disallow any request from the public that an item on the Consent Calendar be moved to the general agenda;
R4:
Redding Electric Utility fully inform the City Council and the public whenever any significant retroactive rate reduction is afforded any large commercial customer.
R5:
The Grand Jury recommends the Redding City Council develop a plan to enforce the adopted city gift policy. Response: This recommendation will be implemented by Qctober 31, 2013. The City ofRedding appreciates and respects the important function that the Shasta County Grand Jury serves in local government. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact City Manager Kurt Starman at 225-4060, City Clerk Pamela Mize at 225-4444, or me at 225-4447. Rick Bosetti Mayor· N:\GrandJuryIL06-19-13GrandJuryResponse.wpd c: City Council Members Kurt Starman, City Manager Rick Duvernay, City Attorney Pam Mize, City Clerk