Siskiyou County Grand Jury
2026-2027
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
13 findings
F1:
The Siskiyou County Board of Education did not conduct documented performance evaluations prior to approving compensation increases for the County Superintendent of Schools, contrary to its oversight responsibilities under the California Constitution Article IX, Section 3.1(b) and California Education Code section 1209.
F2:
Siskiyou County Office of Education (SCOE) administration staffed Special Day Classes with non-credential or under-credentialed personnel in violation of California Education Code, Title 5, Section 3053 requirements for special education teacher accreditation. After reviewing all the documents and interviews, the Civil Grand Jury uncovered during its investigation that approximately 12 SCOE special education teachers, only three to four, are fully credentialed for their current assignments. This comes to an average of 180 students for each credentialed teacher.
F3:
Siskiyou County Office of Education failed to ensure that Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) were completed and implemented within timelines required by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and the California Education Code 56000.
F4:
School psychologists did not consistently attend IEP meetings as required by IDEA and California Education Code 34 CFR Section 300.321 and IEPs were written in some instances by staff not authorized to do so under law. 10
F5:
Physical conditions in Special Day Class facilities, including the presence of mold at multiple identified sites, pose health and safety risks to students with disabilities and school staff. Students and staff remained in mold-affected classrooms for extended periods of time before relocation.
F6:
Special Day Class students were not provided with equitable access to school campus library resources, instead, requiring them to access off-campus public library facilities.
F7:
Siskiyou County Office of Education's Human Resources department did not consistently investigate or act upon employee complaints of workplace hostility and retaliation, creating conditions possibly creating toxic and hostile working conditions.
F8:
Siskiyou County Office of Education did not maintain adequate documentation confirming that classroom supply stipends were distributed to credentialed teachers as required by California Code, Education Code-EDC Section 49011.
F9:
Siskiyou County Office of Education employees were placed in administrative positions without holding required administrative credentials, a practice that had the effect of impacting their prior bargaining unit membership and undermined collective bargaining rights. 12
F10:
Siskiyou County Office of Education voluntarily relinquished its Workability Partnership Program (WA1) slot, a fully federally funded vocational training program serving approximately 400 to 450 students with IEPs, without documented SCBE Board of Trustee authorization or student- impact analysis, thereby eliminating a federally supported transition-to-work program for students with disabilities which is inconsistent with 34 Code of Federal Regulations Section 300.43.
F11:
School District teaching staff are routinely advised that budgets are insufficient for classroom needs.
F12:
The Superintendent at SCOE appointed a SELPA Director who was identified by multiple credible sources as lacking adequate depth of special education expertise and who was selected contrary to the 13
F13:
Special Day Classes (SDC) classrooms are equipped with locking devices on classroom and bathroom doors that enable the confinement of students with disabilities in bathroom spaces, a practice inconsistent with California Education Code Section 49005 et seq. and IDEA provisions governing restraint as well as fire codes.
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Siskiyou County Board of Education should adopt and implement a formal written policy for the evaluation of the County Superintendent’s performance, to be completed prior to any consideration of compensation adjustments. The policy should include measurable criteria and a documented review process. 9
Findings & Recommendations
17 findings
F1:
The City does not have an organizational chart.
F2:
The Mayor/City Council member is also simultaneously holding the office of City Fire Chief, which is a department head position, supervised, controlled, audited and disciplined by the City Council which appears to be a conflict of interest in violation of the doctrine of incompatible offices contrary to California Government Code Section 1099.
F3:
The City Fire Department lacks proper safety and equipment training and does not have a written roster listing the names of all active City firefighters.
F4:
The City has not investigated numerous complaints of a Montague Fire Chief creating a hostile workplace/environment within the City of Montague Fire Department.
F5:
The Montague Fire Chief suspended a mutual aid agreement with another local fire department.
F6:
The City Fire Chief does not appear to be properly licensed or certified to provide certain medical and safety training to the City’s firefighters, and yet, has been doing so contrary to State Agency requirements; and has failed to properly perform equipment safety and maintenance checks on fire equipment.
F7:
At a City Council meeting on December 5, 2024 the Mayor/City Council member who also simultaneously held the office of Acting Fire Chief, sat on City Council and did step down from the City Council or recuse himself as a member of the City Council, when hearing and presiding over an agenda item regarding his position held as the Acting Fire Chief, after hearing a Petition of No Confidence submitted to the City by 16 firefighters asking the Montague City Council to remove him as the Acting Fire Chief. This demonstrates that there is an issue of incompatible offices here, the Mayor/City Council member heard and discussed an issue regarding himself while on the City Council dais, for a performance evaluation for Montague Fire Assistant Fire Chief.
F8:
The City of Montague has received ineffective legal advice from their city attorney concerning conflicts of interest.
F9:
From 2020 to 2024, the Mayor/City Council Member/Fire Chief has contracted between the City and his private pest control business to provide pest control services to the City Fire Department for compensation contrary to the provisions of California Government Code Section 1090.
F10:
City officials and employees have used public taxpayer resources to wash their private vehicles at the City of Montague Fire Department facility.
F11:
The City’s practices relating to Council vacancies, public meetings, records posting and fire department are not in compliance with state and local laws.
F12:
The City Administrator/Public Works Director discharged a personal firearm within the city limits at a private residence in violation of City Municipal Code to dispatch a deer, then removed the horns of the deer without a permit or authorization from the California Department of Fish & Wildlife.
F13:
Code Enforcement/Animal Control Officer failed to carry out her duties.
F14:
The City Clerk disclosed City employee Social Security Numbers in W2 mailings, with no required remedies offered to the victims pursuant to California data breach laws.
F15:
The City has not consistently posted their City meeting agendas or minutes to be made available to the public on their City website as required by law.
F16:
The City of Montague Fire Department firefighters need proper training provided by a certified licensed instructor approved by the correct State Agency (S_SV EMS).
F17:
The Mayor/City Council/Fire Chief testified under Oath to the Civil Grand Jury that he is properly certified, licensed and trained to provide medical and safety training to the City of Montague Firefighters in contradiction to the testimony of the State Agency in charge of such licensing and certification. The Mayor/City Council Member/Fire Chief appears to have perjured himself to the Civil Grand Jury multiple times regarding his qualifications to provide medical and safety training.
Additional Recommendations
17
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
(Montague City Council): Adopt and publish a current organizational chart, together with written descriptions of reporting relationships, supervisory authority, and departmental responsibilities. Within 90 days.
R2:
(Montague City Council): Conduct a formal review of all current appointed and elected City positions to determine whether any incompatible offices, supervisory conflicts, or overlapping authorities exist, and eliminate any impermissible or imprudent role combinations. Within 90 days.
R3:
(Montague City Council, the City Fire Department and City Administration) Establish written policies for Fire Department officer and management appointments, personnel status tracking, official roster maintenance, disciplinary procedures, and administrative leave or review processes. Within 90 days.
R4:
(Montague City Council and City Administration): Create a Human Resources office, position or path. Provide ongoing training for city officers and employees on personnel management, provide for conflict resolution policy, harassment prevention and training, and management training for supervisors. Within 90 days.
R5:
(Montague City Council): Restore and honor all mutual aid agreements other local and State agencies. Immediately.
R6:
(Montague City Council) Establish procedures to ensure the City Fire Department leadership and its firefighters and staff receive properly licensed and certified training. Within 90 days.
R7:
(Montague City Council) With the vast issues discovered in the Civil Grand Jury investigation, receive conflict of interest training, receive competent legal counsel and consider removal of the Fire Chief. Immediately.
R8:
(Montague City Council) Obtain competent legal counsel. City Council needs to ensure they are making informed decisions that are legally sound and that exposures to litigation are reduced or avoided. Within 30 days.
R9:
(Montague City Council): Adopt or strengthen written conflict-of-interest and public-resource-use policies requiring disclosure, required recusals where appropriate, and legal review of all contracts, transactions or business arrangements to avoid having the City do business or provide compensation to City officials' involving their private business interests. Within 90 days.
R10:
(Montague City Council/City Administration/City Fire Department) Cease and desist of the private use of city/fire department resources. Immediately.
R11:
(Montague City Council/Administration): Review, update and correct policies and training procedures related to Brown Act compliance, council vacancy procedures, records retention, posting agendas and minutes, employee privacy protections, and incident reporting. Within 90 days.
R12:
(Montague City Council) Provide Firearms safety training for City Administrator and Code Enforcement officer, if carrying and using firearm is part of their job duties. Within 90 days.
R13:
(Montague City Council) Provide training on the Montague Municipal Code and State Regulations. Within 90 days.
R14:
(Montague City Council): Establish a process to ensure data breach victims of are properly notified and aware of the civil remedies available to them as required by law. Immediately.
R15:
(Montague City Council) Comply with state laws regarding posting of meetings, agendas and minutes on the City website. Within 30 days.
R16:
(Montague City Council/Fire Department) Recommend the Fire Chief and all fire personnel be trained by licensed, certified and qualified instructors where certification is required. Immediately
R17:
(Montague City Council/Fire Department) Recommend the Fire Chief and all fire personnel be trained IMMEDIATELY by licensed, certified and qualified instructor where certification is required.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
The Yreka City Council is a city body that meets, pursuant to its ordinances and 196 regular practice, twice per month. The 60-day absence threshold of California Government 197 Code § 36513(a) therefore applies. The City of Yreka has no written policy governing the 198 granting of excused absences. This absence of policy contributed materially to the dispute 199 over the status of the Councilmember and to inconsistent treatment of councilmember 200 absences. 201
F2:
The Councilmember in Question last attended a regular City Council meeting on 203 October 1, 2024. He was absent without prior formal permission recorded in the minutes, 204 from the October 15, 2024 and November 19, 2024 regular meetings. He returned to a regular 205 meeting on December 3, 2024 — a span of 62 consecutive days. At no time before or during 206 the relevant absence period did the City Council vote to or record in the minutes any grant of 207 an excused absence for the Councilmember in Question from the October 15, 2024 or the 208 November 19, 2024 regular meetings.
F3:
The conditions of California Government Code § 36513(a) having been met, the 210 seat on the Yreka City Council became vacant by operation of law no later than December 3, 211 2024. The cancellation of the November 5, 2024 regular meeting does not alter Yreka’s 212 established twice-monthly meeting frequency for purposes of code 36513 and does not 213 trigger the 70-day threshold of code 36153(b). The April 1, 2025 Council vote to retroactively 214 excuse the October 15, 2024 absence was of uncertain legal effect and does not clearly cure 215 a vacancy that had already occurred by operation of law.