Stanislaus County Grand Jury
2004-2005
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
Violation of State and Euthanasia Laws A. Testimony confirmed that euthanasia of some stray and surrendered animals has occurred prior to the mandatory hold time contrary to the provisions of the 1998 Hayden Act and the State Food and Agriculture Code. The Hayden Act that has been incorporated into the State Food and Agriculture Code applies to a specific group of domestic animals. It stipulates that for stray animals the “minimum impound time is four to six business days”, not including the day of impound and depending on shelter business hours. The minimum impound time for surrendered animals is two business days, not including the day of impound. The SCAS’s failure to comply with mandatory hold periods is in violation of the law. Testimony indicated that the standards used by the SCAS shelter to decide which animals are euthanized are subjectively enforced. The reasons3 that were given for destroying stray or surrendered animals are as follows: • The animal was not cute. • There were too many animals of the same color or gender. • The animal was too big. • The animal was old. • The animal did not play with a ball. • The animal was scared. The Director and the DVM testified that euthanasia is performed on demand on surrendered healthy, adoptable animals. They stated that although the staff makes every effort to confirm ownership of the surrendered animals, ownership cannot always be guaranteed. Examples below based on testimony presented to the Grand Jury are two of many cases where the animals had been euthanized prior to the end of the mandatory hold period. In August of 2000, an animal control officer brought in three dogs to the shelter at 3:20 p.m. At 3:52 p.m. the owner reported to claim the animals and one of the dogs had already been euthanized. In October 2003, owner surrendered dogs were taken to the shelter. Shelter documentation indicates that the dogs were euthanized 20 minutes after arriving at the facility “because they were big dogs and the shelter was crowded.”4 The major justification for the violation of California laws is that the facility is no longer large enough to handle the influx of animals and pet owners do not take responsibility for their pets. The Grand Jury heard the following additional reasons for early euthanization of animals: • When animals are extremely scared it is inhumane to retain that animal for the mandatory hold period. • The animal does not meet the criteria for adoption after a behavioral “temperament test." • Upon demand. SCAS shelter witness testimony. Ibid 4
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The 1998 Hayden Act.............................................................................Ap1
F2:
Department Managerial Issues A. The Director, who is the SCAS Department head, reports to the Board of Supervisors. The Director is the head of the shelter and the Stanislaus County Animal Advisory Board (AAB)5. The Director, who is listed as the primary AAB contact on the SCAS website, could not describe the function, purpose, or name the other members of the AAB. The Director could not say what the selection criteria is to serve on the board only saying that it is a “Board of Supervisor’s function”. The Grand Jury asked several questions related to the functions of the AAB and the SCAS that the Director could not answer. The Grand Jury obtained the answers to the questions by browsing the SCAS website. The Director was also unable to answer basic questions such as how he/she obtained the job or how much money the position paid. The salary range for the Director’s position is $54,870 at the entry level, to the top salary of $82,284, plus benefits. B. The Grand Jury interviewed a senior administration shelter employee who had been identified by previous witnesses as the person who would have “all of the answers” to our questions. When interviewed, the employee either could not or would not answer the Grand Jury’s questions. C. When interviewing a second senior administration shelter employee regarding separated employees, the witness recalled separations up to three years in the past. However, until specifically asked, the witness could not remember an employee termination that had occurred only three days prior. D. The testimony of the SCAS shelter witnesses was guarded. The rank and file employees feared that by testifying to the Grand Jury they were jeopardizing their jobs. They also feared that crossing the wrong person would result in retribution and repercussions up to and including job loss. E. Pet owners wait up to two weeks pending spay or neuter procedures since, with very few exceptions, state law prohibits the release of an unaltered animal from the shelter. F. Testimony indicates that county payments due to private facilities for contract services can take up to five months to be paid. Committee fact sheet for the Stanislaus County Animal Advisory Board - Membership consists of 9 members appointed by the Board of Supervisors, 5 members representing each County District, and 4 Members-at-Large. The Purpose of the AAB is to: A) Advise the Board of Supervisors and county staff on issues related to the general provision and delivery of animal care, well-being, and control in Stanislaus County; B) Hold public hearings and workshops to provide the public with information and to address community concerns relating to animal care, well- being, and control. Refer to Appendix for complete document. 5
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
CA Department of Food and Agriculture Code Sections ........................Ap14 a) 17005 b) 31108 c) 31108.5 d) 31752 e) 31752.2 f) 31754
F3:
The DVM A. An expert witness testified to three incidents, the last in October 2004, where, in the opinion of the witness, the DVM’s actions resulted in negligent treatment of shelter animals. The DVM anesthetized multiple cats in preparation for spay and neuter procedures, only to discover there were not enough surgical packs to complete all of the procedures on up to as many as 12 cats. The DVM chose the following course of action: • The unconscious cats were loaded into a vehicle and transferred to an outside spay and neuter clinic. • The DVM expressed an urgent need for the clinic to immediately stop what they were doing to complete the surgical procedures on the anesthetized cats. • The DVM explained to the clinic that some of the cats had been adopted and the owners had been waiting up to two weeks to claim their pets pending completion of the spay or neuter procedure. • The surgical procedures were completed at the outside facility at additional cost to the county. The expert witness stated that the DVM’s actions resulted in the following: • Some of the cats woke up during surgery since it was not known how long the cats had been under anesthesia. • Administering additional anesthesia could result in death to the animal. Testimony further indicated the cats were flea infested and dirty when presented to the outside spay and neuter clinic. B. A veterinary technician testified that an outside spay and neuter clinic cared for animals that were surgically treated at the shelter who were suffering from post- operative complications, including improper suturing. The shelter does not provide post-operative follow-up treatment on the adopted animals that are surgically altered at the shelter. When the outside clinic staff questioned the new pet owners, it appeared that the owners had not received the necessary post-operative instructions from the shelter staff. C. A witness testified that microchips that are implanted in animals contain the name and address of the facility that implanted the chip. This includes private facilities and the SCAS shelter. The witness testified that an implanted microchip by the SCAS shelter does not guarantee the return of the animal. When a stray animal is presented to a private veterinary facility, and the facility contacts the SCAS based on the Finch Road microchip information, the ability to locate the pet owner is not always possible because the SCAS shelter records are poorly maintained.6 D. Testimony confirmed that when injured or ill stray animals, including animals with microchips, are taken to private veterinary facilities, the SCAS shelter is contacted for treatment instructions based on jurisdiction. The witness stated that in 90% of the cases, regardless of the nature or degree of the injury or illness, the SCAS instructs the facility to immediately euthanize the animal.7 The witness stated that the opposite is true when the city-managed Turlock and Oakdale shelters are contacted. The witness further stated that the shelter is responsible for collecting the animal’s remains for disposal and it has taken up to two weeks for the shelter staff to retrieve the remains. E. The Grand Jury heard testimony that the DVM’s demeanor creates a work environment of fear and intimidation. This has a negative impact on the day-to-day operations of the SCAS shelter. F. The complainants state that the DVM violated the Stanislaus County Workplace Security and Anti-violence Policy. The incident that occurred in January or February of 2004, involved a pit bull attack on a small dog weighing less than 20 pounds. The complaint alleged that the DVM used excessive force. Witnesses reported that after the dogs were separated the DVM returned to the pit bull and repeatedly beat the dog with a metal catchpole, accidentally striking an employee. The incident was reported to and investigated by the Stanislaus County Sheriff’s Office8 and it was determined that no further action was required. There was no new information presented that would warrant re-opening this issue. This Grand Jury agrees with the sheriff’s report and considers the matter closed. G. The complaint alleges that the DVM does not consistently provide adequate medical care and treatment to the shelter animals as required by law.9 The Grand Jury received in excess of 50 documents from various sources that alleged specific incidents of either inadequate treatment or no treatment at all. The Hayden Act added Section 32003 to the State Food and Agriculture Code that states “All public pounds and private shelters shall keep accurate records on each animal taken up, medically treated, or impounded.” 7 Section 1834.4 (b) of The Hayden Act and State Food and Agriculture Code Section 17005 (b) state “It is the policy of the state that no treatable animal should be euthanized.” 8 Stanislaus County Sheriff’s Department Case # S04-21140. California Civil Code Section 1834 states “A depositary of living animals shall provide the animals with necessary and prompt veterinary care, nutrition, and shelter, and treat them kindly. Any depositary that fails to perform these duties may be liable for civil damages as provided by law. Examples of poor or inadequate shelter animal treatment presented to the Grand Jury are as follows: • A January 2005 document reports that the DVM refused to provide a burned dog with pain medication and hydrating fluids. Shelter staff covertly provided the animal with care and treatment. • Documents reported that the DVM “operated on the cat to spay it…which would mean it is female. She could not find the organs in the animal to spay it. So she closed it up and on the very same day, performed again major surgery on this animal to spay it. She, again, could not find the organs that would be found in a female cat…..At that point she discovered she was working on an intact male with normal testicles outside the body….there is no excuse for her making such a horrific error. Discovering her error, she operated on the cat again several days later to neuter it. Needless to say, she didn’t put the cat up for adoption. That is why it lives at the shelter.”10 Testimony to the Grand Jury verified the information reported on the document as correct. The excuse provided by the shelter staff for the mistake was that the cat was hairy and fluffy. • In May of 2003, a cat six to eight months of age was certified as spayed when adopted from the shelter. The cat and two, two-week old kittens were later picked up as strays and the mother cat was scanned for a microchip that revealed that the cat had been adopted through the SCAS shelter. Although certified as spayed and the owner was charged for the spay procedure, the cat was unaltered when adopted. • In June 2000, a dog was certified by the DVM as spayed when adopted and the customer was charged for the spay procedure. A local veterinarian determined during a routine examination that the dog was pregnant. • A rescue organization document dated April 2005, reports that a female cat and four kittens were held at the shelter in excess of five days pending release to a rescue organization. When the cats were released to the rescue organization it was discovered that one of the kittens was suffering from a respiratory infection. By law, animals must be treated and there was no indication on the shelter paperwork that veterinary care was provided. Because of the nature of the infection and the lack of treatment the ill kitten died that evening and the other three kittens had to be euthanized. Shelter employee testimony. 8 • A rescue organization document dated February 2005, states that a bulldog was retained at the shelter for at least ten days without veterinary care while shelter staff tried unsuccessfully to locate the owner. The dog was released with an existing respiratory problem to a rescue group. The rescue veterinarian treated the dog for pneumonia, a collapsed lung, and other problems. The x-ray revealed that one lung was clearly receiving no air. The animal did not receive mandated veterinary care at the shelter, which may, if true, constitute a violation of law. H. In 1998, the DVM was hired by the county as an at-will employee. The DVM proposed the position and wrote the job description. The open position was not publicly advertised and there were no other applicants. The salary range for the county DVM is from $68,931, at the entry level, to the top salary of $103,417, plus benefits. The DVM, as a member of the AAB, approached the former Stanislaus County Chief Executive Officer regarding the need and financial advantage to hiring a full-time county veterinarian instead of using the existing contract services of veterinarians within the county. I. The shelter staff testified that the DVM is consistently unavailable for after-hour emergencies despite her contractual agreement.11 As a result, the county continues to utilize and pay for contract veterinary services. J. The Grand Jury interviewed an expert witness who is familiar with the SCAS shelter operations. The witness testified that the county DVM does not adequately perform the duties required for shelter management. The witness stated that the county DVM fails to train the shelter staff in the proper procedures required to prevent the spread of disease within the shelter. Examples include improper sanitary procedures such as reuse of equipment and failure to change gloves and boots when changing kennels. The witness further stated the opinion that the DVM does not remain current with new procedures and that the DVM only recently upgraded one outdated surgical spay and neuter technique.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Director of Animal Services Duty Statement and Salary.........................Ap23
F4:
Rexelle Cat Case12 A. In August of 2000, the Stanislaus County Sheriff’s Department raided a home and rescued in excess of 200 cats and kittens that existed under inhumane conditions. This incident became national news and donations, both monetary and in-kind, arrived to assist the county in caring for the rescued cats. The complainants allege that the county received approximately $100,000. The County Veterinarian duty statement reads “The incumbent, as a management employee may be required to work overtime, weekends, holidays, and may be subject to call-back assignments without additional direct compensation.” Refer to the appendix for the entire County Veterinarian job description. Stanislaus County Sheriff’s Department Report # S00-26279. The Grand Jury interviewed the Director, the DVM, four shelter staff members, and a representative from the Stanislaus County Auditor’s Office. None of the persons interviewed could provide an exact amount of the monies received and the estimates ranged from $5,000 to $27,000. Receipts provided by the shelter totaled $13,000 and the senior administrative staff member could not be certain that all of the receipts were included in the evidence presented. This is a lack of control in accounting and bookkeeping practices. B. The county leased an outside facility since the SCAS shelter could not accommodate the cats that had to be retained pending legal action. The complaint alleges that county funds and donations were inappropriately used for property improvements to the leased facility. The Grand Jury visited the leased property and information indicates that the county provided additional ventilation and fencing to secure the cats within existing kennels. There was no evidence that excessive monies were used for property improvements. C. The Grand Jury determined that the owner of the leased property is a member of the AAB. The Director stated that the AAB member was the only contact the Director made regarding the need to lease additional space. The county paid $17,000 for use of the facility for five months. The county made the aforementioned necessary improvements and county employees provided all of the care needed for the rescued cats. Since the Director is the head of the AAB, the fact that the Director did not contact anyone but the AAB member in regards to leasing additional property, creates an appearance of impropriety. The Grand Jury did not find evidence that there was any impropriety on the part of the shelter owner or any other member of the AAB.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Committee Fact Sheet – Stanislaus Co. Animal Advisory Board............Ap26
F5:
Spay and Neuter Fund A. The SCAS Department maintains two checking accounts. One account is through the Stanislaus County Auditor’s Office and is comprised of monies from the annual budget, fees that are received for services performed at the shelter, and donations. The second account is maintained through a local credit union. This account is a separate fund comprised of donations and fees. A senior administration shelter staff employee stated the funds are to be used exclusively for low-cost spay and neuter procedures and educational expenses associated with the spay and neuter program. The Grand Jury has information that the account has been in existence for more than a year. Testimony indicates that there was approximately $10,000 in this fund and only one signature is required on checks paid from this account. The representative of the County Auditor’s Office was not aware of the spay and neuter account. The auditor testified that county departments are not allowed to have accounts that do not contain the signature of the County Auditor. B. Information was provided to the Grand Jury, and corroborated through sworn testimony, that a check in the amount of $150 was used from the spay and neuter fund for the purpose of paying professional membership association dues for the DVM. The association dues are not spay and neuter fund-related, it is not a job- required association. This clearly indicates there is a lack of financial accountability that exists in the SCAS that leaves them vulnerable to misappropriation of funds.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
County Veterinarian Duty Statement and Salary....................................Ap28
F6:
Quarantine Facility A. The Grand Jury received information that animals in need of quarantine are being housed in an inappropriate and inhumane facility. On January 21, 2005, the Grand Jury made an unannounced visit to the former Memorial Hospital South in Ceres used since at least July of 2000. A groundskeeper directed the Grand Jury to the security staff and the holding area for quarantined dogs. The security staff did not have access to the locked room that was the former hospital emergency room. Access is only available by a visiting animal control officer who reports to the facility twice each day to provide care for the animals. The Grand Jury called the SCAS shelter requesting immediate access to the facility and while waiting for an animal control officer to arrive, the following observations were noted: • The blinds were drawn and the stench was apparent while standing outside the closed, locked facility. • Heavy condensation was seeping outside from the inside of the windows and black mold was visible on the inside, floor to ceiling. The animal control officer unlocked the door, explaining that the room had been cleaned that morning. The Grand Jury found the following: (cid:57) The room had no light or ventilation. (cid:57) The room was clean but the stench inside was unbearable. (cid:57) The quarantine facility contained ten dogs and one puppy labeled as “biters”. (cid:57) Quarantined dogs are held up to ten days. Selection of this property for this purpose is inhumane, unacceptable, and it further supports the fact that the Director is lacking the skills needed to adequately manage the SCAS. It is unconscionable that anyone in the business of protecting animals from abuse would consider this an acceptable alternative. Furthermore, the condensation, black mold, and the horrible stench that has permeated the structure makes it unfit for human and animal occupation. The Grand Jury is concerned for the health and welfare of the county employees responsible for maintaining this facility. These conditions may not meet California Occupational Safety and Health Association (Cal-OSHA) workplace standards.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
CA Department of Food and Agriculture Code Section 32003...............Ap32
Additional Recommendations
3
Not linked to specific findings.
R7:
CA Civil Code Sections ..........................................................................Ap33 a) 1834 b) 1834.4
R8:
Stanislaus County Employee Conduct/Behavior ...................................Ap34 Expectations November 2, 1998, Harassment Policy
R9:
Modesto Bee Article, November 25, 2004..............................................Ap38 14
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
Formation of a special district • County places blame elsewhere for special district failures. The Grand Jury witnesses testified that if there was a problem with a special district it had to be a “LAFCO problem” or a “local problem” or concern solely of that district’s taxpayers and board members. The Local Agency Formation Committee (LAFCO) is an agency established by state law under the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 as California Government Code §56000 (2005). The county taxpayers pay for its operations. Its board of directors are approved by the BOS. LAFCO has exclusive authority to respond to and approve of citizens' petitions to establish, annex, consolidate or disestablish the boundaries of a special district including fire, water, police, sewer, and so on. It also sets boundaries for city jurisdictions with future expansion boundaries know as “spheres of influence” for future growth as delineated by a twenty-year projection of need. LAFCO does not have the expertise, resources or authority to provide any special district with the means to manage itself. In one special district case, there was a LAFCO-sponsored consolidation of several special fire districts, including the assets, liabilities and personnel overhead. Personnel overhead included retirement benefits, workmen’s compensation and medical expenses. That district failed both financially and operationally. No testimony was given that the county administration ever attempted to create a governmental entity for providing support services to the special districts in their formation or operation phases, as is commonly found in other California counties. These services could include: (cid:131) management training (cid:131) auditing (cid:131) administrative services (purchasing and payroll)
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The County Board of Supervisors shall immediately take the lead in publicly acknowledging the current shortcomings of the special district establishment and oversight processes. They shall establish permanently funded teams with “expert” participation (local citizens with relevant credentials, state university urban development and public policy participants, and area experts such as the County Fire Warden) to prepare and promulgate solutions to support special districts.
F2:
Board of Director Selection Process • The County BOS is involved in all special district board appointments. Many, but not all, special districts require a Board of Directors. Depending upon the special district, individual city governments may recommend a member and taxpayers may have an “at large” member. There is no official written standard or area expertise required of the candidates for these offices other than residence in Stanislaus County and the special service district. The Grand Jury was told that throwing a fund-raiser barbecue for a Board of Supervisor candidate was probably enough to be seriously considered by the Board of Supervisors. The taxpayers and County Board of Supervisors expect direction for the special district management to come from the special district board of directors. The establishment of management practice is left up to the districts' incoming board and senior manager. Management policies and procedures are generated internally to the special district. This provides the spectacle of a new special district not having a complete written job description to hire a competent manager. A competent manager is necessary to create relevant policies and procedures with his appropriate accounting skills and audit knowledge. A major issue mentioned by the one board member questioned during the depositions was the issue of board member liability and the lack of an insurance policy to cover the members. There is none.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The County Board of Supervisors shall publicly advocate their role in the consolidation of special districts within ninety days. This can be done by: • The full consolidation of like special districts. • The consolidation of special districts' support services should include but not be limited to the following: (cid:131) Management training (cid:131) Auditing (cid:131) Purchasing (cid:131) Payroll In many jurisdictions police and fire come under a single legal entity called Public Safety with its financial and labor efficiencies. Any consolidation plan should require that consolidated administrations have the necessary policies, procedures, and expert management necessary to successfully guide their efforts. The Grand Jury sees at least three ways to establish consolidated special district administrations utilizing: • The tax revenue distribution audit power of the Auditor’s office 10 It was reported that the policy makers and senior administrative staff raised their own salaries by as much as fifty percent in the same time frame. Witness testimony: They admitted that they had not attempted to pursue any legal remedies in the last ten years to recover this money from the state government, which is their right. They did state that they were thinking about doing so now. 9 • The State of California fire vehicle maintenance dollars coming through the hands of the County Fire Warden • The County’s lending capability
F3:
Responsibility • The BOS takes no responsibility for special district's failures. A widespread policy of neglect and a lack of personal responsibility by county policy- makers and board appointees were uncovered by the Grand Jury during its investigation. The county’s use of short-term loans based on future tax assessments to bail out financially distressed special districts makes that district a county responsibility. The inability of county policy makers to see their part in the district’s problem produced a mode of inaction on their part (some would call it a reaction). This lack of county involvement has help sustain an expensive burden on county taxpayers. There are sixty redundant special district administrations, many boards of directors, and professional sources of expertise and investments stretched far too thin to be effective. The county does not see the need to change, or even to seek change, despite being made officially aware two years ago that many special districts are in financial trouble. The actions of past special district board of directors members walking away from a district when it is in trouble shows a lack of responsibility to the welfare of that district’s taxpayers.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Implement a better selection process for special district board membership to include: • Proper job descriptions • Minimum qualifications in accounting and budgeting processes • Provision of liability insurance Under the current process, board members are placeholders and not leaders. The appointer is responsible for the poor performance of their special district appointee.
F4:
Planning • The current planning process is deficient. The following areas were identified: (cid:131) County General Plan updating process is faulty (cid:131) Collected demographic data is inaccurate (cid:131) The use of collected data is considered optional by both providers and users (cid:131) There is no universal sharing of planning data (cid:131) There is no county plan to efficiently manage and distribute the data. The County General Plan covers the subjects of land use, recreation, circulation or transportation, conservation, safety, housing, and agricultural use.6 The Grand Jury heard testimony that there are serious shortcomings in the County General Plan updating process. The county policy has allowed multi-year planning, along with all General Plans updating, lapse. One aspect of the County General Plan has not been updated since 1983 although major evaluations and rewrites have to occur at least every five to ten years according to the State code.7 The last evaluation and rewrite under the California Code was in 1998 with a “rubber-stamping” of the Board of Supervisor's policies from those of five to ten years before. The Director of Planning and Community Development for Stanislaus County also doubles as the Executive Director of the Stanislaus Redevelopment Agency. Correct demographic data is vital to the credibility of his agency's efforts. He stated to the Grand Jury that his agency drew its demographic and other vital statistical data inputs to do general planning from the “various county agencies including the cities, special districts, municipal advisory councils in unincorporated areas, residents of the county, the County Board of Supervisors, and even the Association of Bay Area Governments or ABAG.” He identified his primary source as being the Stanislaus County Council of Governments (StanCOG), whose board is made up of members of the Board of 6 See Section 65300 of the California Government Code, which regulates and mandates Stanislaus County general planning efforts. Ibid. Supervisors, three or four members of the City of Modesto, and then one member each from the rest of the remaining cities. The demographic information from housing starts drawn from the cities and the county is passed to StanCOG. StanCOG consolidates the demographic information and passes it onto the State of California, Department of Finance, for their online statewide reporting. The Grand Jury heard testimony that the current State of California, Department of Finance, demographic information relating to Stanislaus County, cities and counties, drawn from StanCOG, demographic input is “misleading”. Not all demographic counts have been collected or verified for accuracy. The Grand Jury checked a sample population count for one city within Stanislaus County to test this idea. The Grand Jury compared the city’s latest demographic count as reported to StanCOG and the State of California, Department of Finance. There were significant discrepancies between the two. According to witnesses StanCOG is in a state of “disarray”, and there is a new StanCOG manager “taking charge.” External to the question on whether the available information is accurate or not, its required use is often considered “optional” by the providers and users. As one county staff member told the Grand Jury when asked what he did with the demographics he collected from the county, “If they want it, they can ask for it.” When asked whether a certain special district ever used his data, a second provider answered, “Once, a year or two ago." The bigger problem is that Stanislaus County’s accelerated growth process has been underway for ten years. No new process of mandatory data integration has been put in place to deal with it. This is a policy shortcoming of the highest order. None of the witnesses including the responsible parties could tell the Grand Jury how or when this would be solved.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Require all special districts to complete and publish an annual financial audit for the district’s taxpayers. The independent auditors to the special districts should be treated as contractors in order to do business in Stanislaus County and should be certified by the Stanislaus County Auditor's office as to their professional credentials. This should put the county in a position to establish minimum standards of performance of the independent auditors when they do business with special districts.
F5:
Budgeting • The budgeting processes in Stanislaus County are inadequate. The BOS dropped their process of “three-year budgeting.” The current practice is to have all budgeting restricted to one-year or current year “fill-in” basis. The BOS policy has an adverse effect on special districts, which tend to follow the county’s lead by also working with a year-to-year budget. This ignores budgeting for expensive capital assets that require multi-year payments and return analysis. See www. dof.ca.gov 7 The Grand Jury concluded that most taxpayers in Stanislaus County would not believe their tax dollars are being spent wisely or for correctly identifiable needs without comprehensive budgeting plans.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
Immediately direct the Planning Department to contract with a state-of-art data collection service bureau to provide data collection and distribution services for special district, county, and state reporting needs. This is one area where experts are necessary; volunteers and in-house data processing are things of the past. Modern organizations take advantage of expensing a service rather than investing in capital equipment and additional labor. 10
F6:
Accounting • County policy makers lack efficient accounting skills. Special service districts receive tax dollars levied within their district from parcel taxes. They also receive government funds to help purchase and maintain equipment and facilities.9 The Stanislaus County Auditor acts in its capacity as banker to the special district in the collection and dispersal of district tax revenue dollars. It pays special attention to dollars allocated to capital funding versus monies for operational expenditures. There are significant differences in how they are to be treated under the tax laws. This process gives the county insight into the financial affairs of each district. The county reviews cash flow and balances between the district records and the county transaction records. None of the policy-makers questioned were found to have formal hands-on education or practice in accounting or audit skills, whether financial or operational. One policy-maker was proud of that fact, “I make policy and leave the rest to the staff.” The Grand Jury asked him whether he was able to question his staff on a technical level to know if they were reporting correct information or not. His answer was “I have to believe them.”
F7:
Auditing • Auditing resources are in short supply. Specific audit and accounting experience is found at the county staff level and it is in short supply. Only one CPA is currently a full-time employee of the County Auditor’s office serving a county of five hundred thousand residents. Special districts contract directly for independent certified public auditors. In the Grand Jury review of a failing special district, it was this annual audit that prompted the special district head to doubt the independent auditor’s results, and ask the County Auditor to review the audit. There was no accounting or auditing expertise employed by the district. So, while the district head had a “good audit” in his hands, even though it reflected the misuse of capital funds, he did not personally understand it nor did he have anyone on his staff that did. The county conducts a thorough annual outside audit of county operations. There is no formal audit follow-up by any oversight agency for special districts that may have been in trouble in the past. The Grand Jury was informed that tax revenues are levied on parcel identification but the county has not verified all parcels. The Grand Jury found this information, if true, to be unconscionable in an era where every dollars counts. The policy-makers reported to the Grand Jury that they had to lay-off 256 county employees in 1998.10 Many of the discharged employees were from agencies having government oversight tasks such as Planning, Auditor, and LAFCO. This has had a direct impact on county accounting and audit resources. Policy-makers and staff blamed outside causes including the Proposition 13 in the late 1970s. Currently their complaint is that the state has appropriated too many county tax dollars from the county to allow the county to retain the necessary oversight personnel.11
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
On-site visits: • Administrative Offices, 800 Scenic Dr., Modesto. • Detoxification Center, 800 Scenic Dr., Modesto. • Stanislaus Behavioral Health Center, 1501 Claus Rd., Modesto.
F2:
Interviews with administrative staff at on-site visits.
F3:
Review of agency manuals and informational pamphlets. 1 "The Grand Jury may investigate and report upon the operations, accounts, and records of the officers, departments, and methods or systems of performing the duties of any city or joint agency and make recommendations as it may deem proper and fit." 1 FINDINGS As a result of the site visits, discussions with administrative and program staff, and review of the literature, the Grand Jury is confident that the twenty-one service programs under the direction of the department are well-managed and serve an important role in the community. It is also evident that there is a need for expanded programs and attended funding. Problems related to neglect of treatment for mental illness, and drug and alcohol abuse impact many aspects of personal and community life beyond that of the patient.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
10 findings
F1:
The Honor Farm’s proximity to the San Joaquin River makes land erosion an on-going concern and necessitates continuous repair.
F2:
Reductions in the budget have limited the offerings for vocational training.
F3:
The minimum- security feature of the facility and the direct contact between inmate and visitor make the control of contraband difficult. The staff’s ability to effectively address such issues was apparent to the Grand Jury. Staff members are experienced and dedicated. The Grand Jury considers the program well managed. Public Safety Center Opened in 1992, the Public Safety Center is a state-of-the-art detention facility for approximately 500 male and female inmates. Inmates are assigned to a resident unit based on the intake evaluation of their need for security and services. Each unit functions semi- independently and is designed for a specific focus, i.e., mental health services and maximum-security lockdown. The units for male inmate are comprised of two tiers of cells encircling a common area with an adjacent command center. Women’s housing units are referred to as “pods” and are located in a separate building. A central control system monitors all the common areas in all facilities and opens and closes all doors. The CFMG provides full-time health services. A variety of self-help and support group programs are provided. A law library is available to all inmates. Two Public Safety Center programs service the four detention facilities.
F4:
Nutritional Services 3 A central kitchen supplies three meals daily for the county detention facilities. A nutritionist plans and supervises the preparation of the food insuring that each inmate/ward receives 2600 calories daily at a cost of $2.18 per inmate per meal. Overhead is factored into the cost. The service also caters numerous county sponsored events, for which the sponsoring department reimburses it. The work force includes county employee supervisors and a crew of approximately 30 inmates with security clearance.
F5:
Laundry Services A central laundry facility processes all the laundry needs for the four detention facilities. Twelve inmates from the Honor Farm work in this service. The Grand Jury concluded that the Public Safety Center, guided by capable staff, functions at a high level of efficiency. Exemplary areas are:
F6:
A prompt intake procedure determines the appropriate resident and program placement for the new inmate based on their legal status and personality/medical profile.
F7:
The Central Control Center utilizes multiple audio/visual screens to monitor the common areas and to operate all the doors of the facility.
F8:
The central kitchen is a logistic wonder feeding all county detention facilities and catering several county sponsored events a month. Men’s Jail This is a maximum- security facility with a bed capacity of 342. There are three floors of cells with an exercise yard on the roof. The cells are designed to house from one to twelve inmates. The majority of inmates are placed in the twelve- inmate units. The basement includes intake holding cells and a tunnel to the adjacent courthouse allowing the secure transport of inmates to their court hearings. Administrative offices are located on the first floor, as are the visitor reception area and the non-contact visiting spaces. Health services are provided on-site by CFMG. Doctor’s Medical Center is utilized when needs can‘t be met on-site. Friends Outside and other community groups offer support services. There were concerns that emerged in this Grand Jury investigation regarding the Men’s Jail.
F9:
Security of the exercise yard on the roof will be in jeopardy with the presence of the parking structure currently under construction at the corner of “H” and 12th Streets. The structure is three stores taller than the Men’s Jail. The extra height may allow a way for inmates to have unauthorized contact with the outside, including the delivery of contraband. The administration of the Men’s Jail has recognized this issue and 4 estimates the cost of securing the roof at approximately $50,000.00.2 The questions that must be asked here are: a) Was this issue addressed in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prior to construction? b) If the issue was considered, what was the resolution or conclusion? Was the financial responsibility related to securing the roof established? prior to construction?
F10:
The California Board of Corrections 2005 Biennial Inspection Report for the Men’s Jail noted a noncompliance per regulation Section 1062, Visiting.3 The facility lacks an adequate number of non-contact visiting spaces with which to satisfy the allotment of visits per inmate as stipulated in the regulations. This is a long- standing problem with no apparent plan for correction. The Grand Jury questions why the visitation area has not been expanded into the conference space at the corner of “H” and 12th Streets. Could the area be redesigned to accommodate both the visitation area and the need for a staff meeting/training area? The Grand Jury is impressed with the dedication, resourcefulness and resilience of the administration and staff of the Men’s Jail. As described in the Department of Corrections report, this facility is staff intensive.
Additional Recommendations
3
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Jail Medical Services Contract to Begin 20th Year in Stanislaus Co................Ap 1 Dan Hustedt, CFMG The Star: Stanislaus County Sheriff’s Department Newsletter May/June 2005 issue
R2:
1115 “H” Street by Lt. Douglas J. Leo............................................................Ap 2 The Star: Stanislaus County Sheriff’s Department Newsletter May/June 2005 issue
R3:
California Board of Corrections Biennial Inspection Report...........................Ap 3 Stanislaus County Sheriff’s Department Detention Facilities Gary Wion, Field Representative, May 2005 6
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F1:
All witnesses, including the DA, confirmed the accuracy of their prior sworn testimony. The 2004/2005 Grand Jury determined that there were significant differences in the original testimony of the DA and members of his staff.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
CA Penal Code Section 919 (c)..............................................................Ap1
F2:
The 2003/2004 and 2004/2005 Grand Juries found that staff members felt intimidated and feared retribution from the DA if they reported any violations made by the DA. Testimony indicated that the DA repeatedly undermined the credibility of staff members.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
CA Government Code Section 3060......................................................Ap3
F3:
According to the 2003/2004 testimony and by the DA’s own admission he failed to comply with the County Counsel’s admonishment not to contact the witnesses.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
DA Response to 2003/2004 Civil Grand Jury Report.............................Ap4
F4:
The 2003/2004 Grand Jury, based on sworn testimony, determined that the DA did make threatening comments and he did simulate the act of drawing, pointing, and firing a weapon while making comments regarding local members of the media in front of his staff. The DA’s response to that report was that he denied “brandishing” a weapon in his office. The 2003/2004 Grand Jury report did not state that he brandished a weapon and this grand jury agrees that his actions did not meet the legal definition of brandishing.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Stanislaus County Workplace Security and Anti-....................................Ap12 Violence Policy
F5:
This grand jury believes that the DA’s intentions, comments and the act of simulating the drawing of a weapon, actual or not, is inappropriate and in direct violation of the Stanislaus County Workplace Security and Anti-violence Policy. This grand jury concurs with the law that under no circumstances is it appropriate for the chief law enforcement officer of the county to engage in this type of conduct. The DA admitted in his response to the 2003/2004 Civil Grand Jury Final Report that he did display a weapon in the palm of his hand in the office while discussing different types of weapons. The grand jury determined that this display is in violation of the following: • Section VI.A (DISPLAY OF FIREARMS) and Section X.A (SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS) of the County Firearms Policy. • The State of California Department of Justice Standard Application for License to Carry a Concealed Weapon. 3
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
Stanislaus County Employee Conduct/Behavior....................................Ap18 Expectations November 2, 1998, Harassment Policy
F6:
The 2003/2004 Grand Jury reported that the DA carried a concealed weapon after his license had expired. The DA violated the Stanislaus County Firearms Policy that he himself signed one month prior to the incident based on his own response to that report. It was determined by both Grand Juries that the DA violated the Stanislaus County Workplace Security and Anti-violence Policy, Stanislaus County Firearms Policy, and the California Department of Justice Standard Application For A License to Carry a Concealed Weapon Policy. As a department head, the DA has a higher responsibility for following and enforcing the above policies that he violated. Violation of these policies by any employee of the county would be subject to disciplinary action, up to and including immediate termination.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
Stanislaus County Policy for Permits to Carry Concealed......................Ap22 Weapons
F7:
The 2003/2004 Grand Jury panel testimony regarding internet email incidents involving derogatory and/or inflammatory remarks that were made by the DA was confirmed by the 2004/2005 Grand Jury panel. The incidents were in direct violation of the Stanislaus County Internet and E-mail Policy. The county internet policy states that use of county computers is only intended for county business. It also states that the county network access or individual computer usage may not be used for transmitting, retrieving, receiving or storing of any communication with derogatory or inflammatory remarks. The policy does not differentiate between work time, lunchtime, break time, or after hours. The Modesto Bee reported on August 1, 2004, that the DA used his county computer and logon identification to send a joke that contained questionable political humor. Since the DA selected the “reply to all” button the e-mail message was sent to a group of people that included a Modesto Bee editor. As a department head, the DA has the greater responsibility for following and enforcing county policy.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
CA Department of Justice Standard Application for ...............................Ap25 License to Carry a Concealed Weapon (CCW)
F8:
The DA's comments about the media and its employees are inappropriate and unacceptable. Neither is it acceptable to joke about violence toward people or property. The fact that the DA chooses to make comments of this nature has a negative impact on those around him, specifically the staff in his office. Therefore, this behavior must stop now.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
Stanislaus County Employee Conduct/Behavior ...................................Ap46 Expectations February 2, 2000, Internet and E-Mail Policy 6
F9:
The complainants requested this grand jury to consider an accusation proceeding under Penal Code Section 919(c) and Government Code Section 3060. The Grand Jury established that the DA is guilty of inappropriate behavior in violation of multiple county policies. However, it was determined that the criteria for beginning an accusation proceeding have not been met with the evidence. As an elected official he is ultimately accountable to the voters. The DA stated in last year’s response that he is a county “employee” as well as an elected official, and he is responsible to the State of California Attorney General’s Office for his actions. The DA stated in last year’s response that the Board of Supervisors controls his salary. This grand jury verified that the Board of Supervisors does have the authority to take action against him for his misdeeds in the form of a salary reduction. 4
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
“The Office of Emergency Services (OES), Criminal Justice Programs Division (CJPD) administers the Federal Edward Byrne Memorial Block Grant Program, which provides funds to state, regional and local units of government. These funds are designated to assist state agencies and local jurisdictions to improve the functioning of the criminal justice system, with emphasis on convicting violent and serious offenders and enforcing drug control laws. In California these programs fall under the Anti-Drug Abuse (ADA) Enforcement Program.” 2
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Questionnaire for Interviewees..............................................................Ap1
F2:
The Stanislaus Enforcement Agency's Governing Committee, which is a Multijurisdictional Task Force or Steering Committee for the Byrnes Grant Fund, is comprised of the following agencies: • The Sheriff’s Department • The District Attorney’s Office • Senior representatives of each City Police Department in the County • A Stanislaus Behavioral Health and Recovery Resource Agent • The Probation Department 1 See Appendix 2 The entire Byrnes Fund budget is applied to the salaries of personnel of these agencies listed above. These employees are assigned to the law enforcement activities of the Governing Committee. 3 a) Stanislaus County has elected to expend these funds on personnel rather than any specific area of drug enforcement. b) In accordance with the terms of the Grant the extra personnel benefits all areas of drug enforcement. c) Neighboring counties also spend their Grant funds in this manner.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Governor's Office of Emergency Services Letter (OES)........................Ap2
F3:
The Grant application was first initiated in May 2003. As per the application – the Sheriff, the official who is authorized to sign the grant award, certified that: “The County of Stanislaus will accept the Byrne funds for the period of July 1, 2003, to June 30, 2004, and comply with federal, state, and local environmental, health and safety laws and regulations applicable to the seizure of clandestine Methamphetamine laboratories.” 4
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Stanislaus Anti Drug Task Force Operational Agreement.....................Ap3 A. Law Enforcement
F4:
The section of the Grant that relates to this issue is as follows: “Grantee will enter into a written agreement with the local Social Services Department to notify the local Social Services Department whenever a minor is found at a clandestine Methamphetamine laboratory site, if determined to be necessary, require that qualified personnel be dispatched to the site and, if determined to be necessary: 4 i) Respond to the minor’s health needs that relate to Methamphetamine toxicity; ii) Take the minor into protective custody unless the minor is criminally involved in the clandestine Methamphetamine laboratory activities or is subject to arrest/detention for other criminal violations; iii) Arrange for medical testing for Methamphetamine toxicity; and iv) Arrange for any follow-up medical tests, examinations, or health care made necessary as a result of Methamphetamine toxicity.”
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Certificate of Compliance ......................................................................Ap6
F5:
On 12-14-2000 the following agencies entered into an agreement concerning children found at meth lab operations: SDEA, CSA-CPS, HAS and the SCDA. The purpose for the agreement states that these four agencies “will work cooperatively to facilitate a coordinated response to families involved in drug manufacturing when children are expected to be present and found in the home.” Also listed is the procedure to accomplish the protection of Drug Endangered Children (DEC). 5 3 See Appendix 4 See Appendix 3 When the County applied for the Byrnes Grant in 2003, this MOU for the Operational Agreement had been in place since 2000. The Grant did not specifically designate funding for this program. The Memo of Understanding (MOU) regarding Drug Endangered Children (DEC) does not preclude that Byrnes Funds are specifically designed for DEC as referred to in the "INTRODUCTION." Why money from the Grant does not go to DEC: • This is confirmed by the Grant itself. • The MOU. • Interviewees. • None of the above three items implies or dictates specific direction of funds. Our interviews confirmed what the documents stated: • A task force (governing committee) does exist. • This task force actively oversees Byrnes Grant Funds as evidenced by the monthly meeting minutes and the budget. • The authority for the task force is specified in the Grant. • The task force, as required by the Grant, has been in place for 25 years. • The existing structure is SDEA. • Project Title is Stanislaus Anti Drug Task Force. • The Grant gives the authority for the funds to be administered by the Stanislaus Drug Enforcement Agency's Governing Committee, which is under the umbrella of SDEA. • While the Grant refers to a Stanislaus Anti-Drug Task Force, the authority is ADA Enforcement Program. • Stanislaus County received Byrnes Funds of approximately $500,000.00 in each fiscal year of 2004 and 2005 ($521,936.00 in 04-05.) • The Task Force administers all of the funds received for the SDEA, which includes the Byrnes Grant Fund, California Multi Jurisdictional Methamphetamine Enforcement (CAL-MMET) and High Intensity Drug Traffic Area (HIDTA). • The SDEA Commander is the Operational Administrator of the SDEA funds. This is confirmed in the budget and the minutes of the monthly meetings. • Funds are properly administered. Money is distributed as per terms of the Grant with no discrepancies. • The needs of the DEC are being met through the networking of various county agencies. • Nothing improper was found between the conditions of the Grant and its implementation. According to the SDEA Commander, there were 9 cases of children present during 42 meth lab operation raids in the previous year. The SDEA Governing Committee should continue its work in narcotic suppression. It should also continue to pursue grants and other assistance in the fight against drug trafficking. The Governing Committee and supporting county agencies should be applauded for their early recognition of the needs of children when found at drug houses. It is important to continue to assist children found as innocent victims in these drug raids.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
Memo of Understanding/DEC Program...............................................Ap10 6 QUESTIONS TO ASK INTERVIEWEES
Additional Recommendations
14
Not linked to specific findings.
R6:
Are you aware of the Byrnes Grant Fund?
R7:
Are you involved with the Byrnes Grant Fund?
R8:
Is there a copy of the Grant?
R9:
Is there a multi-jurisdictional task force or steering committee in place?
R10:
Who is on the committee?
R11:
Have you ever attended one of these meetings?
R12:
How often are meetings scheduled?
R13:
When was the most recent meeting held? Who is the chair? Are minutes taken?
R14:
How is the Grant funded?
R15:
Who administers the Grant from state to state?
R18:
How is money distributed?
R19:
Is County Auditor Haugh involved?
R20:
Is there anyone else you think we should speak to?
R21:
Do you have any questions for us? 7