Shasta County Grand Jury
2015-2016
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
There is a need for a Mobile Crisis Stabilization Team to reduce the strain on law enforcement and hospital emergency rooms, while providing vital care, support, and referrals to individuals and families experiencing a mental health crisis.
F2:
The stigma of mental illness contributes to the use of hospital emergency rooms to access mental health services, resulting in crowded emergency rooms, delayed treatment, and long waits for all patients seeking medical or mental health care.
F3:
The public, in particular families who are experiencing a first-time mental health crisis, is often not aware of available services at the Shasta County Mental Health walk-in clinic, resulting in lack of early intervention and treatment. 26
F4:
The Shasta County Mental Health walk-in clinic is not available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, resulting in the need to access care through hospital emergency rooms.
F5:
Law enforcement officers may or may not have received Crisis Intervention Training (CIT) beyond that received during their academy training. Continuing updated CIT education in the recognition of mental illness and de-escalation techniques could help prevent transporting patients to hospital emergency rooms or county jail.
F6:
There are only 16 adult psychiatric beds in Shasta County and none available for children. This results in delayed treatment, long waits in the emergency rooms, and separating patients from their support system. With the limited number of beds for adults and none for children, treatment time increases because of the time necessary for transporting patients outside Shasta County. COMMENDATIONS The Grand Jury commends Shasta County Mental Health Services for initiating its recent pilot program to co-locate county mental health evaluators in the two Redding hospital emergency departments. This program is intended to expedite the process of completing the mental health assessments and locating licensed psychiatric beds.
Additional Recommendations
7
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends that by December 31, 2016, the Board of Supervisors direct Shasta County Mental Health Services to develop a plan that provides a permanent Mobile Crisis Stabilization Team in partnership with law enforcement to address crisis situations in the field, utilizing new Mental Health Services Act (MHSA) funding.
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends that by December 31, 2016, the Board of Supervisors adopts a plan with Shasta County Mental Health Services to establish a Mental Health Resource Center with expanded hours to provide support and counseling services.
R3:
The Grand Jury recommends that by December 31, 2016, the Board of Supervisors directs Shasta County Mental Health Services to expand the hours of the Mental Health walk-in clinic, to include nights and weekends, until the proposed Mental Health Resource Center is open to the public.
R4:
The Grand Jury recommends that by December 31, 2016, the Board of Supervisors directs Shasta County Mental Health Services to initiate an ongoing campaign to promote public awareness of current mental health services available to children and adults in Shasta County.
R5:
The Grand Jury recommends that by December 31, 2016, the City of Redding City Council, City of Anderson City Council, and the Shasta County Sheriff’s Office each adopt a departmental policy that requires Crisis Intervention Training, at a minimum of every two years, for all law enforcement officers, beginning.
R6:
The Grand Jury recommends that by December 31, 2016, the Board of Supervisors adopts a plan with Shasta County Mental Health Services to work with Restpadd and other interested providers to locate additional facilities in Shasta County that will increase the number of inpatient psychiatric beds for adults. 27
R7:
The Grand Jury recommends that by December 31, 2016, the Board of Supervisors adopts a plan with Shasta County Mental Health Services with detailed action and implementation timelines to establish a facility in Shasta County providing inpatient psychiatric beds for children.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
The Shasta County Board of Supervisors discourages public awareness and open discussion of Grand Jury report responses by placing its official responses on its consent calendar.
F2:
The Shasta County Board of Supervisors has failed to publicly discuss its own Grand Jury report responses, choosing instead to fully rely on county staff recommendations without any public discussion of the basis of their agreement with the county staff
F3:
The City of Redding City Council discourages public awareness and open discussion of Grand Jury report responses by placing its official responses on its consent calendar.
F4:
The City of Redding City Council has failed to publicly discuss its own Grand Jury report responses, choosing instead to fully rely on city staff recommendations without any public discussion of the basis of their agreement with the city staff recommendations. COMMENDATIONS C1. The Grand Jury commends the City of Anderson City Council for encouraging public awareness and open discussion about Grand Jury report responses by placing its official responses on its regular calendar. C2. The Grand Jury commends the City of Shasta Lake City Council for encouraging public awareness and open discussion about Grand Jury report responses by placing its official responses on its regular calendar.
F5:
The total loss absorbed by the Water Agency for 2014 is projected to similarly occur for 201 5. Response. The Auditor-Controller agrees with the finding. Using water for which the Water Agency has no allocation can result in heavy fines. Because of the need to forecast water demand as well as purchase suffrcient water to prevent exceeding the legal allocation when negotiating a purchase contract, some excess water will be purchased, resulting in a loss to the Water Agency. 23
F6:
The same employee preparing the annual Water Agency billings to the CSA's is also approving billings for payment. This lack of segregation of duttes does not provide proper checks and balances to prevent errors Response. The Auditor-Controller disagrees wholly with the finding. After accounting personnel prepare annual billings they are reviewed and approved by Water Agency engineering staff.
Additional Recommendations
9
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends the Shasta County Board of Supervisors places all Grand Jury report topics and responses on its regular calendar.
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends the Shasta County Board of Supervisors places its responses to this 2015/16 Grand Jury Report on its regular calendar for public discussion.
R3:
The Grand Jury recommends the City of Redding City Council places all Grand Jury report topics and responses on its regular calendar.
R4:
The Grand Jury recommends the City of Redding City Council places its responses to this 2015/16 Grand Jury Report on its regular calendar for public discussion. 53
R5:
The Grand Jury recommends the Auditor-Controller workwith the County Executive Officer to develop afraud hotline voicemail messaging system that ensures that all fraud hotline tnessages are simultaneously and tndependentlyforwarded to both the County Executive Officer and Auditor-Controller no later than August 31, 2016. Response. The recommendation will not be implemented. Califomia Government Code section 53087.6 permits Auditor-Controllers to maintain a whistleblower hotline to receive calls from persons who have information regarding possible violations by local government employees of state, federal, or local statutes, rules, or regulations. The calls are confidential and can provide information about employees from any department including the County Administrative office.
R6:
The Grand Jury recommends that Shasta LAFCO engage in cost saving efforts such as shared office space and personnel costs, shared insurance costs, reimbursement for costs from other agencies for providing them with assistance and turning to the California Association of Local Agency Formation Commissions for hosting its website no later the December 31,2016. Response: Shasta LAFCo agrees that it should constantly look for feasible means of performing its services in the most cost-effective way. Accordingly, it has in recent years engaged independent consultant services for the performance of Executive Officer functions, and to obtain related contract staff support, in a professional but cost-effective manner. LAFCo will continue to explore and implement other cost-effective opportunities for the performance of its services. This review has been incorporated into the Executive Officers FY 2016-17 Scope of Work as follows: The Executive Officer will prepare a shared services plan that includes cost savings proposals for shared office space, member organization assistance reimbursements, web site hosting, insurance and other operating costs. Present shared services plan to the commission at or before the December 2016 meeting. Current local web hosting services shall be continued as CALAFCO no longer offers website hosting services to individual LAFCos.
R7:
The Grand Jury recommends Shasta LAFCO updates it Policies and Procedures no later than March 31,2017. Response: Shasta LAFCO agrees that its Policies and Procedures need to be periodically updates, and intends to undertake such a review and update in FY 2016/17. This review has been incorporated into the Executive Officers FY 2016-17 Scope of Work as follows: The Executive Officer will review and where appropriate recommend policy and procedures updates for clear direction and consistent action in LAFCo operations and decision-making. Provi I de : P olicies t and Procedures Update at the February 2017 commission meeting. i ~rely ~ D-n1-W , ames Yarbr ugh, Chai n Shasta Local Formation Commission 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 Shasta County j,4 E'' OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR.CONTROLLER 1450 Court Street, Suite 238 BRIAN MUIR Redding, California 96001 -1 671 AUDITOR-CONTROLLER Phone (530) 225-5771 NOLDA SHORT ASST. AUDITOR-CONTROLLER Jwrc24,2016 The Honorable Gregory Gaul Presiding Judge, Shasta County Superior Court 1500 Court Street, Room 205 Redding, CA 96001 Re: Response of the Auditor-Controller to Fiscal Year 2015-2016 Grand Jury Report - Shasta County Sheriffs Office Dear Judge Gaul: The Auditor-Controller appreciates the dedication of the Grand Jurors as well as the courtesy and professionalism shown in completing their work.
R8:
The Grand Jury recommends the Auditor-Controller and the Sheriffs Of/ice ensure all Sheriff's Office trust account reconctliations occur monthly, with old outstanding items cleared, by December 31,2016. Response. The recommendation will be implemented by the Sheriff s Office, since County departments are responsible for reconciling to the ONESolution finance system. The Auditor- Controller will provide assistance as needed.
R9:
The Grand Jury recommends the Auditor-Controller initiates a plan by December 31, 2016, to conduct more frequent surprise audits of assets held as evidence. Response. The recommendation will not be implemented. The SherifPs Offrce has a system of internal controls in place that includes the audit of assets held as evidence. Sincerely Brian Muir Shasta County Auditor-Controller cc: Shasta County Board of Supervisors 61 62 63 64 65 66 Shasta County ,-4. OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR-CONTROLLER '1450 Court Street, Suite 238 BRIAN MUIR Reddlng, California 96001 -l 671 AUDITOR-CONTROLLER Phone (530) 225-5771 NOLDA SHORT ASST. AUDITOR-CONTROLLER Jr:r;,ie24,2016 The Honorable Gregory Gaul Presiding Judge, Shasta County Superior Court 1500 Court Street, Room 205 Redding, CA 96001 Re: Response of the Auditor-Controller to Fiscal Year 2015-2016 Grand Jury Report - Shasta County Joint Audit Committee Dear Judge Gaul: The Auditor-Controller appreciates the dedication of the Grand Jurors as well as the courtesy and professionalism shown in completing their work.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F1:
Shasta LAFCO failed to take timely action over concerns regarding meeting deadlines for Municipal Service and Sphere of Influence Reviews and financial instability, resulting in a class-action lawsuit and budgetary crisis.
F2:
Shasta LAFCO violated Government Code Section 56381(a) when it made sharp decreases to staffing in its 2015/16 budget without first finding that reduced staffing will nevertheless allow the Commission to fulfill the purposes and programs required of Shasta LAFCO.
F3:
Shasta LAFCO has not updated its fee schedule since 2013, leaving the possibility that it is not charging sufficient fees for its services.
F4:
Shasta LAFCO has failed to take advantage of additional revenue sources by not charging for Municipal Service or Sphere of Influence Review updates.
F5:
Shasta LAFCO has exposed itself to potential future risk of litigation by adopting its current five year plan to conduct Municipal Service and Sphere of Influence Review updates without consideration of recent instability of the Executive Officer position.
F6:
Shasta LAFCO is not fulfilling its purposes and programs due to severe budgetary restrictions, partially because it has failed to sufficiently explore and act on all cost saving opportunities.
F7:
Shasta LAFCO’s actions violate its own Policies & Procedures, because their policies and procedures have not been updated to reflect their actual practices. 36
F8:
There is insufficient supervision over trust fund reconciliation processes, leaving the potential for fraud or errors to occur.
F9:
There is insufficient oversight of all Sheriff’s Office cash and property held as asset forfeiture, or in assets held in evidence, leaving the potential for fraud and errors to occur. COMMENDATIONS The Grand Jury commends the Shasta County Sheriff’s Office staff for initiating the debit card process, saving time and money. 43
Additional Recommendations
10
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends that Shasta LAFCO take action within 30 days of becoming aware of financial or staff concerns, and complete a comprehensive review of contracted Executive Officer performance at least bi-annually, commencing no later than December 31, 2016.
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends that Shasta LAFCO revise its budget to return to prior year staffing levels to allow the Shasta LAFCO office to be open Monday through Friday, 9:00 am – 5:00 pm, and to fully comply with Government Code Section 56381(a) no later than September 30, 2016.
R3:
The Grand Jury recommends that Shasta LAFCO review its current Fee Schedule and make revisions as needed no later than December 31, 2016.
R4:
The Grand Jury recommends that by no later than December 31, 2016, Shasta LAFCO establish a fee schedule to charge for Municipal Service and Sphere of Influence Review updates.
R5:
The Grand Jury recommends that by no later than December 31, 2016, Shasta LAFCO revise its five year plan for Municipal Service and Sphere of Influence Review updates to begin completing them in the 2016/17 fiscal year.
R6:
The Grand Jury recommends that Shasta LAFCO engage in cost saving efforts such as shared office space and personnel costs, shared insurance costs, reimbursement for costs from other agencies for providing them with assistance, and turning to the California Association of Local Agency Formation Commissions for hosting its website no later than December 31, 2016.
R7:
The Grand Jury recommends Shasta LAFCO updates its Policies & Procedures no later than March 31, 2017.
R8:
The Grand Jury recommends the Auditor-Controller and the Sheriff’s Office ensure all Sheriff’s Office trust account reconciliations occur monthly, with old outstanding items cleared, by December 31, 2016.
R9:
The Grand Jury recommends the Auditor-Controller initiates a plan by December 31, 2016, to conduct more frequent surprise audits of assets held as evidence.
R10:
The Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff’s Office assigns specific management personnel by September 30, 2016, to be responsible for the oversight of all aspects of assets held under asset forfeiture and in evidence.
Findings & Recommendations
2 findings
F1:
The word “appointed” in the Staff Recommendation was omitted from Resolution 2008- 138 when it was prepared and signed. This resulted in the resolution later being interpreted to include both appointed and elected executive managers (department heads).
F2:
As long as Resolution 2008-138 remains in place, eligibility of elected department heads for longevity stipends will continue indefinitely at the expense of taxpayers.
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends that, no later than September 30, 2016, the Board of Supervisors adopts a policy of proofreading draft resolutions to ensure that they accurately reflect the staff recommendations, and that the wording of final resolutions reflect the actual action taken by the Board of Supervisors.
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors adopts a new resolution that clearly states that the longevity stipend is applicable for appointed executive managers (department heads), but not applicable for elected officials. The Grand Jury also recommends that all stipends end for elected officials effective at the conclusion of their respective terms of office, or December 31, 2018, whichever occurs first.