Gran Jurado del Condado de Tehama
2025-2026
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
6 hallazgos
F2:
The County lacks clearly defined and consistently applied communication protocols.
F3:
Communication is at times delayed, inconsistent, or avoided.
F4:
Conflicting information contributes to confusion and lack ofshared understanding.
F5:
Informal and public communication channels are used in place ofstructured internal processes.
F6:
A lack oftrust negatively impacts communication.
F7:
Communication failures contribute directly to escalation ofconflict.
Recomendaciones adicionales
2
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R2:
The County Board ofSupervisors direct County Personnel Department to update Tehama County Personnel Rule § 1308 NEPOTISM in order to clarify the definition ofa department head so that the definition includes elected officials and removes any ambiguity; and so the rule clearly states that Tehama County Personnel Rule § 1308 NEPOTISM shall be the countywide standard for all departments. Completion date: November 2, 2026
R3:
The Tehama County Sheriff, as Department Head, applies Tehama County Personnel Rule § 1308 NEPOTISM, and/or reviews and revises the TC Sheriffs Office Lexipol Policy 1050 Nepotism and Conflict oflnterest to ensure consistency with Tehama County Personnel Rule §1308 NEPOTISM regarding department-head employment offamily members and direct or indirect supervision offamily members. The Grand Jury intends for the language to apply for any and all future hires, or family relationships that develop between employees. Remedies are outlined in Tehama County Personnel Rule § 1308 NEPOTISM. Completion date: November 2, 2026.
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Recomendaciones adicionales
2
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R3:
The Board ofSupervisors should implement training for leadership on communication standards, interagency coordination, and conflict resolution.
R4:
The Board ofSupervisors should implement structured internal processes designed to resolve issues before they escalate into formal disputes, public conflict, or parallel investigations.
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Recomendaciones adicionales
1
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R3:
The BOS shall adopt and sign the TCGJ's sugpted Code ofConduct, or institute their own versi~ by October 1, 2025. This Code ofConduct shall be reviewed and revised as needed and shall be slped annually by the serving BOS. Couty Counsel hu no authority to direct the Board bat II happy to a111lst In drafting or revising a Cocle ofConduct. Thank you for your hard work on these matters. MAR ARET E. LONG County Counsel MEUst TEHAMA COUNTY GRAND JURY P.O. Box 1061 Red Bluff, CA 96080 Tehama County Citizen Complaints - How to File a Complaint Any Tehama County citizen may address the Grand Jury to express concerns regarding all levels ofmisconduct oflocal officials or employees ofinefficiencies in local government. Complaints can be submitted by completing a Grand Jury Complaint Form. Complaints are treated as confidential. The Grand Jury is NOT REQUIRED to investigate any or all complaints but may choose whether to investigate as part of its watchdog duties. Complaint forms can be obtained as follows: • Via the Superior Court of California County of Tehama website:_ https://www.co.tehama.ca.us/grand-iurv, then click on Complaint Form. • Citizens may also pick up a form at the Superior Court, 1740 Walnut St. Red Bluff, CA 96080. Complaints must be in writing, signed, dated and addressed to: TEHAMA COUNTY GRAND JURY P. 0. Box 1061 Red Blu7ff, CA 57
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
14 hallazgos
F1:
The evidence establishes a clear and consistent pattern ofconduct that undermines the Sheriff's credibility. These facts are corroborated across official reports (DOJ, ARB, POST), documentary evidence (e mails, press releases, policy excerpts), and consistent testimony from current and former law enforcement, current and former county administration, and elected officials. The Sheriff's repeated denials, selective recollection, and attempts to reframe documented events create a clear pattern that undermines his credibility and that ofthe leadership culture within the Tehama County Sheriff's Office.
F2:
The PW managers withholding of information from the County Administrator and administrative staff, then presenting testimony contrary to that presented in the staff report at the April 22, 2025, Board ofSupervisors meeting, clearly undermined the County Administrator and administrative staff and was disingenuous, unprofessional and insubordinate.
F3:
The Grand Jury found no conclusive direct evidence that Public Works managers were coerced to reverse their position at the April 22, 2025, Board ofSupervisors meeting. However, the timing and circumstances are noteworthy. After the managers' sudden change in position, and immediately after the BoS meeting, they were observed meeting with the Sheriff outside the County Administrative Building. In the context ofthe broader pattern ofconduct documented elsewhere in this report, these circumstances raise questions ofpossible involvement or influence.
F4:
The ongoing dispute between the Sheriff and the CA could have been largely avoided had the Tehama County Sheriff's Office worked with County Administration and the Board of 23 Supervisors to discuss budgetary limits and identify solutions to what was a short-term staffing shortage that occurred in 2022 under the direction ofthe prior Sheriff. FS. Poor communications between the CA and the then Sheriff-elect regarding the Board of Supervisor's "Elimination ofDay Patrol" Press Release has contributed to the distrust and animosity between the ChiefAdministrator and the Sheriff.
F6:
The Sheriff often attempts to use his position to intimidate and/or influence County elected officials and staff members.
F7:
The conflicts between the Sheriff and county administration continue to plague Tehama County government. The dysfunction has damaged employee morale, increased turnover, deterred recruitment, and impaired county government operations.
F8:
In the course ofour investigation, we found department heads were generally quite supportive ofthe Chief Administrator.
F9:
The RBPD, who was the investigating agency on the possible DUI call, stated there was legitimate concern and rejected the claim ofa false police report. The Tehama County District Attorney was ofthe same opinion. Despite those conclusions, the Tehama County Sheriff's Office opted to conduct their own investigation ofthe matter.
F10:
Continuing to investigate the District 3 Supervisor "false" police report matter, even after her resignation waived all criminal and civil complaints, appears to be in retaliation toward County employees and officers.
F11:
Utilizing a Tehama County Sheriff's Office detective and the Undersheriff to investigate the false police report regarding the tumbler incident was a significant waste ofemployee time and public resources. Fl2. The Sheriff has purposefully intimidated, harassed, bullied, or retaliated against multiple elected or appointed County employees.
F13:
The Sheriff has contributed to a toxic work environment in county government and administration through retaliation and intimidation against those who challenge him. This pattern is corroborated across departments and time. f 14. The Sheriff actively befriends, supports and defends those he believes will help accomplish his political objectives. FIS. The Sheriff rejects and opposes those he views as adversaries, including targeting them for retribution, retaliation or termination. F 16. The Sheriff often weighs in on the affairs and actions ofother county administrators and departments. Fl7. Criticism of government is every American's right in accordance with the First Amendment. However, concerted efforts that target or threaten staff or that cross the line of common decency are negatively affecting morale and staff efficiency within county government.
F14:
The Sheriff actively befriends, supports and defends those he believes will help accomplish his political objectives. FIS. The Sheriff rejects and opposes those he views as adversaries, including targeting them for retribution, retaliation or termination.
F16:
The Sheriff often weighs in on the affairs and actions ofother county administrators and departments. Fl7. Criticism of government is every American's right in accordance with the First Amendment. However, concerted efforts that target or threaten staff or that cross the line of common decency are negatively affecting morale and staff efficiency within county government. F18. All members ofthe public should comply with the Public Code ofConduct adopted by the Board ofSupervisors on September 16, 2025. RECOMMENDATIONS Rl. The Grand Jury recommends the Tehama County Board ofSupervisors order structured, mandatory mediation between the Sheriff and the ChiefAdministrator with a neutral external mediator, accountability measures, and follow-up reporting. R2. The Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff and Chief Administrator participate in structured, mandatory mediation with a neutral external mediator, accountability measures, and follow-up reporting by November 2, 2026. R3. The Tehama County Board ofSupervisors mandate annual conflict-resolution and anti retaliation training for both elected and appointed department heads. We further recommend that the BoS monitor compliance with this recommendation by November 2, 2026, R4. The ChiefAdministrator and Personnel Director create, and the Board ofSupervisors adopt an ombudsman, or third-party process, to respond to complaints filed between employees, whether elected or appointed by November 2, 2026, R5. The Sheriff focus less on the actions ofother departments and more on administering the Sheriff's Office; the job for which he was elected. R6. The Public Code ofCode ofConduct adopted by the Board ofSupervisors on September 16, 2025, should be projected on the video screen just prior to and during the public comment period at the commencement ofeach Board ofSupervisors meeting on or before November 2, 2026, REQUIRED RESPONSES Pursuant to Penal Code section 933.05, the following responses are required: Tehama County Board ofSupervisors respond to Rl, R4, R6. Tehama County Sheriff respond to F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F9, Fll, F12, F13, F15, R2 and RS. INVITED RESPONSES The Grand Jury invites the following individuals to respond: The ChiefAdministrator and Personnel Director respond to R3. In accordance with California Penal Code §933.06, one member ofthe Tehama County Grand Jury has recused themselves from participation in the investigation, deliberation, and preparation ofthis section ofthe report due to a potential conflict ofinterest or other qualifying circumstance. NEPOTISM SUMMARY The Tehama County Grand Jury received citizen complaints ofpossible nepotism at the Sheriffs office. The Tehama County Grand Jury was also investigating complaints of intimidation and bullying and the potential link that nepotism could have in the overall investigation. This prompted the decision to conduct this investigation into the inconsistent application ofanti nepotism rules throughout county departments. The concern that nepotism creates the perception ofunfair treatment for employees ofthe Tehama County Sheriffs Office and that it impacts morale, safety, security and public trust, is ofthe utmost concern. During the investigation the Grand Jury found that all county departments apply Tehama County Personnel Rule §1308 NEPOTISM except TC Sheriffs Office when addressing the employment and supervision offamily members within the department. The Grand Jury determined that no other elected or appointed county department head employed immediate family members within their own department at the time ofthe investigation. Only three other departments employed family members, totaling 22 individuals. The TC Sheriffs Office, at the time ofthe investigation, had 26 family members, including 2 members ofthe Sheriffs immediate family. The Grand Jury determined that the TC Sheriffs Office applies Lexipol Policy 1050 Nepotism and Conflict oflnterest rather than Tehama County Personnel Rule §1308 NEPOTISM when addressing the employment and supervision of family members within the department. The Grand Jury learned that Lexipol is a company that, among other things, provides legally vetted policies for public safety agencies that can be used directly as written, or as a basis to create a policy that fits an agency's needs. Within the Tehama County(TC) government, a Lexipol policy manual is posted on the website for each ofthree law enforcement agencies; TC Sheriffs Office, TC Probation Department, and TC District Attorney Bureau of Investigation. In regard to nepotism, TC Probation Department and TC District Attorney Bureau oflnvestigation both apply Tehama County Personnel Rule § 1308 NEPOTISM. Only the TC Sheriffs Office applies the Lexip ol Policy 1050 Nepotism and Conflict ofInterest. The nature ofnepotism makes it difficult to measure the impact as employees are often concerned about a negative response ifthey report issues related to family members in the same department. Sev.eral interviewees expressed concerns regarding perceived conflicts ofinterest associated with the employment offamily members within the TC Sheriff's Office. Such a perception is the main ethical concern a nepotism policy is meant to address and prevent. The Grand Jury recommends that all county departments apply Tehama County Personnel Rule §1308 NEPOTISM as the countywide standard governing the employment and supervision of family members while allowing supplemental operational procedures that do not conflict with the Personnel Rule. Tehama County Personnel Rule § 1308 NEPOTISM explicitly states, "Department Heads shall not employ, or recommend for employment, any family members to a position in their department." Therefore, the Grand Jury further recommends that Tehama County Personnel Rule §1308 NEPOTISM be updated in order to clarify the definition ofa department head so that the definition includes elected officials and removes any ambiguity, and the rule should clearly state that Tehama County Personnel Rule §1308 NEPOTISM shall be applied by all departments. BACKGROUND The TC Sheriffs Office has 26 family members amongst its employees. Two are immediate family members ofthe Sheriff. The Tehama County Grand Jury interviewed executive level employees at TC Sheriffs Office, the Personnel Department and other departments, as well as reviewed all of the Tehama County Personnel Rules and Lexipol policies known to be in place regarding nepotism and conflict ofinterest. In addition, the Grand Jury reviewed county hiring and promotional forms for individuals. The Grand Jury confirmed that the TC Sheriffs Office applies Lexipol Policy 1050 Nepotism and Conflict ofInterest rather than Tehama County Personnel Rule §1308 NEPOTISM in regard to the employment and supervision offamily members within a department. The Grand Jury compared the Lexipol Policy 1050 Nepotism and Conflict ofInterest to Tehama County Personnel Rule §1308 NEPOTISM including the stated purpose, the stated impact ofnot having such a policy and the stated impact ofnot adhering to the policy, particularly in the most concerning instance ofa department's employment ofthe department head's family member. After this review, the Grand Jury decided to include the aspect of nepotism in the full investigation in order to make a recommendation that would improve the county work environment by strengthening and supporting a fair, merit-based system that has the potential to increase safety, security and the public trust. Tehama County has a long history ofprohibiting nepotism in the workplace. In June of 1992, the Board ofSupervisors(BoS) requested a Personnel Committee ofthe Board to adopt a "nepotism policy which prohibits the employment ofa person who is an "immediate family member" ofan employee in a position of supervisory responsibility over said person and who is employed within the same department, office, or division." The final policy was vetted through the bargaining units in place at the time and approved by BoS on September 15, 1992. This policy stood in practice until personnel rules were updated and combined in an easy access handbook 28 for all departments and the public, with Tehama County Personnel Rule §1308 NEPOTISM, approved by BoS on July 17, 2018. The TC Sheriffs Office implemented the Lexipol Policy 1050 Nepotism and Conflict ofInterest sometime after 1992 and prior to 2018. METHODOLOGY Documents The Tehama County Grand Jury reviewed the following documents: • Lexipol policy manual • Tehama County Personnel Rule §1308 NEPOTISM • Prior County Nepotism policy approved 9-15-1992 • Various other Tehama County Personnel Rules • County Charter • New hire, promotional and discipline records Other We also reviewed: • County and city law enforcement websites for posted policy manuals Interviews During this investigation Tehama County Grand Jury conducted interviews with 36 individuals. Some individuals were interviewed multiple times. Interviewees included Tehama County residents, several administrators, past administrators, managers, employees and past employees ofvarious Tehama County Departments, including some specific to TC Sheriffs Office. DISCUSSION Relatives in the workplace As ofMarch 24, 2026, Tehama County has 890.6 allocated employee positions. There are 21 department heads, which includes 6 elected and 15 appointed. Within the county departments, excluding TC Sheriffs Office, there are six family members employed at TC Probation Department, 10 family members employed at the TC Department of Social Services, and there are six family members employed at the TC Public Works Department. The TC Sheriffs Office has 26 family members working within a department of 123 positions. Employing family members that are not supervised by other family members or are not a member ofthe department head's family, does not violate either nepotism policy discussed in this report. None ofthe elected or appointed department heads employ their own family members, except the Sheriff, who employs two ofhis immediate family members. "Family members" is defined in the Tehama County Personnel Rules as "spouse or significant other; natural, step or legal: child; grandchild; parent; grandparent; sibling; niece; nephew; aunt; uncle; father-in-law; mother-in-law; son-in-law; daughter-in-law; or individual living in the employee's immediate household." Purpose ofNepotism Policy Nepotism as defined by County policy: The practice ofan employee using his or her influence or power in the employment setting because of a personal relationship. Nepotism as defined by Lexipol policy: The practice of showing favoritism to relatives over others in appointment, employment, promotion or advancement by any public official in a position to influence these personnel decisions. Tehama County Personnel Rule §1308 NEPOTISM states: • "Due to the potential for perceived or actual conflicts ofinterest that may impact daily working relationships, such as favoritism or personal conflicts from outside the work environment, Tehama County employees are prohibited from having any supervisory authority over a family member." • "Tehama County is committed to a policy ofemployment and advancement strictly based on qualifications and merit. It is found by the County that a business purpose exists relating to supervision, safety, security, and morale, and the public's trust in the agency's qualifications and merit-based employment practice and dictates that a prohibition on supervision offamily members within county departments is essential to the equal and fair treatment ofemployees and applicants." • "Department Heads shall not employ, or recommend for employment, any family members to a position in their department. Other appointing authorities and/or supervisors shall not employ, or recommend for employment, any family members to a position ofemployment in which they would have any direct or indirect supervisory authority over said family member. Lexipol Chapter 10 Personnel Policy 1050 Nepotism and Conflict ofInterest states: • "The purpose ofthis policy is to ensure equal opportunity and effective employment practices by avoiding actual or perceived favoritism, discrimination or actual or potential conflicts by or between members ofthis department. These employment practices include: recruiting, testing, hiring, compensation, assignment, use offacilities, access to 30 training opportunities, supervision, performance appraisal, discipline and workplace safety and security." • "Employees are prohibited from directly supervising, occupying a position in the line of supervision or being directly supervised by any other employee who is a relative or with whom they are involved in a personal or business relationship." Analysis ofpolicies Both policies include the stated purpose ofavoiding actual or perceived conflicts ofinterest, or favoritism. Both policies include a prohibition on the supervision offamily members. Both policies cite "safety and security" as a potential concern ifthe policy is not followed. In addition, Tehama County Personnel Rule §1308 NEPOTISM also includes "morale" and the "public's trust" as something to be upheld by the adherence to the policy. Morale and public trust are not mentioned in Lexipol Policy 1050 Nepotism and Conflict ofInterest. Observations ofcitizens' public responses to County business are a clear indication that public trust is a highly valued motivation for creating and following policies that remove any perception ofimpropriety and requires voluntary adherence to ethical standards. A notable difference between the two policies: 1. Tehama County Personnel Rule §1308 NEPOTISM prohibits "direct or indirect supervision" offamily members. Lexipol Policy 1050 Nepotism and Conflict oflnterest only prohibits "direct" supervision and states "the department will not prohibit all personal or business relationships between employees". 2. Tehama County Personnel Rule §1308 NEPOTISM contains the explicit directive that "Department Heads shall not employ, or recommend for employment, any family members to a position in their department." A statement such as this is absent from the Lexipol policy. A reasonable person would consider that the stated purpose of"avoiding perceived favoritism" would require that a department head would not employ his/her own family member and employees would not be directly or indirectly supervised by a family member. A voiding a perceived conflict ofinterest may seem to be a subjective pursuit, and at times becomes an ethical question as to how this can be done. Lexipol Policy 1050 Nepotism and Conflict ofInterest does not include the specific directive prohibiting a department head (elected official) from hiring a family member. The omission oflanguage specifically addressing department-head employment offamily members results in operational differences between the 31 two policies; also, the omission ofthat statement does not remove the ethical consideration and responsibility to the public and employees ofavoiding the appearance offavoritism. Consistency reflects fair practices Lexipol policies are available for all public safety agencies. Within the TC government, the Lexipol manual was found posted to the websites for TC Probation Department, TC District Attorney Bureau ofInvestigation, and TC Sheriffs Office. The Grand Jury verified that the TC Probation Department and the TC District Attorney Bureau oflnvestigation applies Tehama County Personnel Rule § 1308 NEPOTISM regarding nepotism-related matters, while the TC Sheriffs Office applies Lexipol Policy 1050 Nepotism and Conflict ofInterest. Each ofthese agencies may apply Lexipol policies for other areas. The Grand Jury's inquiry focused on operational differences in the application ofnepotism-related policies among county departments. When only one department determines to use a different policy than all ofthe other departments, it increases the perception ofconflict ofinterest for that one department. Impact ofperceived conflict ofinterest The Tehama County Grand Jury strongly believes in the importance ofdepartment heads not employing family members, and that there should not be exceptions within the County departments. It is important to note that while the perception offavoritism is a subjective matter, it was clearly expressed as a perception and concern throughout the investigation. The cumulative list, from both policies, ofthe consequences for not upholding ethical principles in the area ofnepotism and conflict ofinterest includes: the potential negative impact on daily working relationships; safety; security; morale; and public trust. FINDINGS Fl. The Tehama County Sheriff applies Lexipol Policy 1050 Nepotism and Conflict oflnterest in place ofTehama County Personnel Rule §1308 NEPOTISM when addressing the employment and supervision offamily members within the department. F2. The Sheriff has determined that the Lexipol Policy 1050 Nepotism and Conflict ofInterest allows him to employ his own family members. TC Sheriffs Office has a history ofallowing indirect supervision offamily members. This has resulted in the perception ofnepotism, favoritism and conflict ofinterest existing in TC Sheriffs Office and has eroded a sense of fairness and trust and is a contradiction ofTehama County Personnel Rule §1308 NEPOTISM. 32
F18:
All members ofthe public should comply with the Public Code ofConduct adopted by the Board ofSupervisors on September 16, 2025.
Recomendaciones adicionales
5
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff and Chief Administrator participate in structured, mandatory mediation with a neutral external mediator, accountability measures, and follow-up reporting by November 2, 2026.
R3:
The Tehama County Board ofSupervisors mandate annual conflict-resolution and anti retaliation training for both elected and appointed department heads. We further recommend that the BoS monitor compliance with this recommendation by November 2, 2026,
R4:
The ChiefAdministrator and Personnel Director create, and the Board ofSupervisors adopt an ombudsman, or third-party process, to respond to complaints filed between employees, whether elected or appointed by November 2, 2026,
R5:
The Sheriff focus less on the actions ofother departments and more on administering the Sheriff's Office; the job for which he was elected.
R6:
The Public Code ofCode ofConduct adopted by the Board ofSupervisors on September 16, 2025, should be projected on the video screen just prior to and during the public comment period at the commencement ofeach Board ofSupervisors meeting on or before November 2, 2026,
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
10 hallazgos
F1:
The BOS meetings are a cauee for concern due to the lnablllty ofthe Board to operate u a coh•lve team. Agree; The five members of the Soard wlU not agree with each other 100% of the time.. Disagreements 1hould be respectful and civil. . I
F2:
No county offlclal has provided a clear plan for how staffing at the Re-Entry Center wlll be funded. DlsaqM a,rtially: •When completed, the Re-Entry Center will be staffed by the currentJell staff and occupied by the currant Inmate population. The Board has given raises to correctional staff, In the last round. ofemployment negotlaUons, In order to improve recruitment and retention, however, neighboring Jurisdictions have been able to provide more and have nullified any forward progress the amatl Increases In pay and benefits may have made. Faced with a looming budget deficit In the next fiscal year, a public safety sales tax initiative wlU be presented to voters In November of 2028. The largest portion ofthe funds, which are all earmarked for public safety. will be directed to Sheriff's Department tot thll purpoae. 1J1 OakStnet, R•dBl~Cf 96080 • (SJ0) sa1-46SS • Fox(SJI) sa1-3114
F3:
Due to the City of Red Bluff'• untimely repair and maintenance of roads, costs are Increasing. The City agrees with Finding F3: Deferred maintenance has resulted In roads falHng below the threshold for preventative treatment, requiring more expensive reconstruction. The City's current 5-year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) alms to address this trajectory as fundfng ts made avaffable.
F4:
Like many countlee In Callfomla, TCSO Is strugglfng to recruit new correctlonal officers due to competition from more attractive employment opportunltlt1, contributing to ongoing Jall underatafflng. aa'llt Butte County has recently passed a large general sales tax Initiative. Butte County h88 provided significant raises to correctional staff and Is offering large 11afgn-on11 bonuses for new employees. Tehama County does not have the economy to keep up with the 'feeding franzy" of salary and benefit Increases offered by otherJurisdictions within an hour commute of Tehama County. This situation Is not new and has always been astruggle for Tehama County public safety agencies and directly affects the Tehama County Sheriff's ability to recruit and retain correctional staff. Fl. Without raolvlng the atafflng ahortage, the new Re-Entry Center will be unable to fulfill Its Intended purpoae. DJIIA'I• partlally:. The Re-Entry Center is going to be an extension ~fthe Jail and wlll serve to locally houae the Inmate population. Increasing the number of staff will directly-mcreaee the number of Inmates being housed under Title 15 and 24. Without sufficient staffing the R&-Entry Center will not be fully utilized. The Day Reporting Center wlll serve as the local re-entry program.
F5:
The roadways In the Clty ofRed Bluff create hazardous and unsafe driving conditions, presenting a significant llablllty risk to the city. The City agrHS-wlth Finding f 5: Roadway conditions do present Increased safety risks. The City is prioritizing risk mitigation through targeted repairs, ADA compllence improvements, and visibility upgrades. The City has Increased Its localized repairs as part of a scheduled maintenance program. Further, when specific emergent hazards are Identified, streets crews are responsive In correcting the Issue from potholes to tree obstructions. RE§PONS§I JO RECOMMENDATIONS
F6:
Agree. This has been an ongoing issue for the Tehama County Jail, which has lacked adequate space for safety and sobering cells for inmates confined within the facility. The problem is expected to be further exacerbated by the anticipated increase in inmate population following the jail expansion
F7:
All ofthe current BOS agreed that • Code of Conduct for the BOS would be blneficlal. Implementing a·code ofConduct could enhance publlc trust, Improve working relatlonahlpa within the BOS, and •et conalatent expectation• Chat support a rNpectful and effective governing environment. 121OoltStn.t, JudBllfl/. C4 96080 • (JJO) Sl1-16JS • Fa,c (SJfJ) Sl1-J1H ..
F8:
Partially Disagree. Volunteer-led community programs were significantly reduced during the C0VID-19 era; however, over the past year they have resumed and continue to operate within the jail, particularly in the areas of substance abuse recovery and religious services. In addition, educational opportunities are available to inmates through the use of jail-issued tablets, which provide access to a variety oflearning resources.
F9:
Partially Agree. The facility was originally designated a "re-entry center" as part of the original funding source. Over time, however, it was determined that the building would instead be utilized for mainline jail inmates rather than as a traditional" re-entry facility. Thepurposeofthis expansion is to provide additional housing capacity for individuals who are chronic or habitual offenders. The new facility will also include a modem kitchen, laundry facility, and medical wing, replacing critical infrastructure that has significantly aged since the original jail was built in 1974. The Sheriffs Office will deploy a combination of staffing strategies to operate these facilities and to transfer inmates from the existing jail into the new housing units, thereby expanding capacity and improving overall efficiency. R-ta. The Tehama County Sheriffs Office has been working in conjunction with the Board ofSupernsors for many years to establish staffing plans and cost estimates, allowing the county to evaluate potential funding sources. Currently, the TCSO and BOS are jointly committed to proposing a public safety sales tax measure, which would provide ongoing funding to support the jail expansion. It should be noted that over the past seven years, the Sheriffs Office has surrendered approximately $7.5 million in salary savings back to the County. Based on current staffing cost estim_ates, this amount wou~d have funded the staffing ofthe new facility for approximately nine years. The Sheriffs Office remains committed to working with the Board ofSupervisors to identify sustainable funding sources. This includes exploring alternatives outside ofa potential sales tax mea~~e, in the event s~c~ • an initiative does not pass. TCSO considers the successful staffing ofthe new reentry fac1ltty and expanded Jail capacity to be vital to ensuring the safety and security ofthe community. I - R-lc. The recommendation has been implemented in part and will continue to be implemented. The Tehama County Sheriff's Office has already been working in conjunction with the Public Safety Tax Ad Hoc Group to move this initiative forward as a potential ballot measure for the November 2026 election. The Sheriff's Office acknowledges the ongoing need for sustainable funding to support jail housing and operations, and to ensure adequate staffing through recruitment and retention efforts. The Sheriff's Office hopes the Board ofSupervisors also recognizes the priority and necessity ofj ail expansion and public safety and remains committed to identifying alternative funding sources in addition to a sales tax initiative to ensure long-tenn stability.
F10:
Prevloua attempts to aecure funding for Re-Entry Center staffing through county tax m11aunta have been unaucceNful due to 1neufflclent community support. Am•; 83% ofvoters did not auppo,:t Measure G in 2020. Unofficial polling reflects adistrustthat the County would utilize the proposed 1% aalee tax revenue for tho intonded purpoae. Rtctrnro•ndatlona;
Recomendaciones adicionales
8
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R1:
The BOS shall hire an outside mediator to raolve dlfferenC88 between the Shtrtff and the CA by October 1, 202&. • Ib• [icpmmandatigp b•• notbf•o lmpl•m•nt,d w111 be; but The BOS recognizes the importance of a cooperative relatlonshlp between tha Sheriff and the CA. Mediation wlll be offered In the future pending the outcome of a formal Investigation and within abc (6) months ofthe outcome ofthe currant/pending Investigation. •
R1a:
The BOS and the TCSO shall work together to provide a plan ta secure the money needed to fully staff the Re-Entry Canter and the Jill. Thi• plan should be preaented at• BOS meeting by January 1, 2028. IblIIPWDmtodlJleO r,auJga turtb•f'anliv,11: The BOS, TCSO and other publlc safety departments are working cooperatively to draft a publlc safety tax initiative to secure funding for jail staffing and other publlc safety needs. A coat analysis and plan to achieve full correctional staffing along with an analysls of anticipated revenue from·a aalea tax Initiative, and/or other sources, ahall be reported by December 31, 2025. 717Oak Strul, R.dBllflf, CA 96IJ80 • (SJfJ) Jl7-46JJ • Fa{JJO) Sl'l-376' ...._ Tehama County In rurmoH Board of Supervieora ofthe County ofTehama shall respond tot • Findings: F1, F2, F4, F6, F7, F10 ~ • Recommendations: R1, R3, R4, R5 ,flgdlnp1;
R1b:
The BOS ahall reinstate the Ad Hoc Public Safety Tax Initiative Working Group by August 30, 2025. This group 1hall presenta plan for securing addltfonal tax revenue without unduly burdening the Gltlzen1 of tht county. All revenue lhaB go to a dedicated publlc eafaty fund forJall and Re-entry center atafflng. The plan • shill be presented at a BOS meeting by December 31,202&. Ib• 1JCPmmandat1an bu bean •mJJlamentect, The Ad Hoc Public 8af8ty Tax Initiative Committee is currently active after taking a pause for approximately 8 months. Recommendation R1 b suggests all revenue generated by the tax Initiative be directed towards Jail and Re-entry staffing. The Convnlttee'a current recommendation la to earmark the money generated by the sales ta>e to Improve and support all public aafefy departments (Sheriff, District Attorney, Probation and Fire). The Sheriffs Office would receive the largest percentage of funds using adistribution formula.
R1c:
The BOS and the TCSO shall work together to pruent a plan to educate the community on the nece■alty ofth•• funds and gain community truat that the funds Will be used ••Intended. Efforts could Include but lhOUld not be limited to: town hall meetings, public preaantatlona, 1-clllty tours, PSAs, 1tc. Thia plan should be preaented at a BOS meeting by December 31, 2025. Thi• recommandation.b•• not blfp 1mplem9ntad byt itwllh• The proposed sales tax Initiative Is a cooperative effort ofall public aafety departments Which Includes the Board of Supervlaora, Sheriff, District Attorney, Probation and Fire. The BOS and TCSO will provide the legally acceptable, necessary Information to support the sales tax Initiative, but will lean heavily on labor organizations and cftfZens to market the measure to the public.
R2:
Tha BOS and the TCSO work together to make a plan to addre. .retention and poulble bonuaN for attracting and retaining correctional officers. Thia plan shall be preaented at • B~S meeting by January 1, 2028. • 'Tblf mnDVDtodatJcid baa·.aot'.tiito-•fniiJ•ro•atfd but 11 wm: Aa part ofthe cost analyals requested for the R1 a; proposed salary, benefits and •bonuaes• should be considered as a necessary component for recruitment and retention, 121 Oak Str••t, R•dBllf!T, Cf 96080 • (S30) S11-46SS • Fax (nl) SJ?-316' 6Dn■;. The County will adopt the code of conduct for the BOS.
R3:
The BOS ah■II adopt and algn the TCGJ'a euggHted Code of Conduct, or lnatltute their own v•rafon, by October 1, 202&. Thia Code ofConduct shall ba reviewed and revised aa needed and shall be al"ned annually by the urvlng BOS. b!t:!:r!T62l"'on hg ·not bgn (mplfmtnt,d.but·wJll'be,lmplementedrbv -. - .
R4:
The BOS shall adopt the Public Code ofConduct auggesteil by the TCGJ, or write one oftheir own, by October 1, 2021. The Code ehall be placed on th• front page ofthe BOS agenda that la available to the publlc. TCGJ also augg•ta Itbe projected on th• screen prior to the offlclal start ofthe BOS meeting. lbt recommendation b•• oo(IMd linv!l-'oi♦Uil5' butwm bei The Code ofConduct will be distributed aa link that is poeted on the website and displayed In the Board chambers. RI. TCGJ recommend• the Publlc Comment period be moved tram the beginning ofthe BOS maetlnga to the end ofthe mtttlnga by October 1, 2021. Ib• l!iPQJrotndation will not be lmplem,ntad2 The BOS must balance Its responsibility to get County business accomplished efficiently with the desire of the public to be involved in the procesa. Public comments can set a negative tone and delay the start of offlclal business. Some commenters use their time to talk about things that don't even pertain to County buslnesa. '{a1 Oak Slr•t1t, R•dBluff, C4 96080 • (SJO) 5Z1-46SS • Fax (S30) 521-J'/6' •• The meeting is a public forum where the constitutional right offree speech la protected. In considering the recommendation, the BOS wlll limftthe open pubUc comment time to 30 minutes at the beginning of the meeting. ffthe comment period fa dosed by the chair after 30 minutes, an additional public comment period wlll be opened at the end of the meeting. This will be brought back·to the Board after January 1, 2026 to evaluate the change. • Sincerely, '1,--l+--· District4 SuperviaOr Matt Hanaan, Chairman Tehama County Board of Supervieor 'IJ1 Or,kSlr#I, Bid•1lfll, C4 96/JIIJ • (SJO) SJ146SS • Ftut (SJO) SJ1J'IU crnr OF RED BLUFF 555 Washington Street. Red Bluff, Callfomla 96080 (530) 527-2605; Fax(530) 529-6878 www.cityofredbluff.org August 6, 2025 Honorable Jonathan W. Skillman Presiding Judge of the Tehama County Superior Court 1740 Walnut Street Red Bluff, CA 98080 RE: City of Red BluffResponse to the 2024-2025 Tehama County Grand Jury Report: Red Bluff Roads Dear Judge Skillman The City of Red Bluff, having received and reviowed the Findings of Tehama County Grand Jury dated June 24, 2025, hereby submits the following responses: RESPONSES TO FINDINGS
R7:
The Grand Jury recommends that the City ofRed Bluffpropose a spacial use sales tax dedicatedto citystreetImprovementsand enhance public awarenessthrough social media advertising to promote the proposed tax. The R7 recommendation requires further analysis: While Measure R (special sales tax measure for streets) was not approved by voters In 2024, the City will evaluate future tax measure strategies and public outreach approaches. This analysis will be conducted over the next 12 months In conjunction with convnunity engagement efforts. "'The QtyofRed Blufflsan Equal Opportunity Provider CLOSING STATEMENT The City ofRed Bluff acknowledges the findings ofthe Tehama County Grand Jury and appreciates the thorough evafuatlon ofour city's roadway Infrastructure. We remain committed to making data-driven and community-supported investments In street maintenance, safety, and sustainability. Respectfully submitted, ~'"D±- sOieters, Mayor City of Red Bluff CC: Red Bluff, CA 98080 "'The CityofRed BluffIs an Equal Opportunity Provider TEHAMA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE ~ . . Dave Kain. Sheriff-Coroner ~J/\~Y. /;5. Mailmg A<ldr~ss: P.O. [fox i.::9, Red Blun: CA %OMO ~ ytJf Main Otlke: :!1S40 Anteklpe 131n.l., Rl!d Blutl: CA 96080 ,sJoi s,::9.7940 '1sJ015:!lJ-7l)JJ FAX Juil,Dispatch: SO~ O.ik St., Red Blull CA %080 (5.30) 529-7lJ(J(); (530) 5:?8-761-1 FAX September 9, 2025 /2025 P.O. Box 1061 Red Bluff, CA 96080 The Honorable Jonathan W. Skillman Judge of the Superior Court 1740 Walnut Street Red Bluff, CA 96080 Re: Tehama County Sheriffs response to 2024/2025 final report Dear Honorable Judge Skillman: As always, let me start by thanking the members ofthe Grand Jury for their arduous work and dedication this past year; I have received and have thoroughly reviewed the 2024/2025 Tehama County Grand Jury Final Report. I am pleased to respond to the following items as requested by the Grand Jury. F-2. Response: Partially Agree. The Sheriff's Office, under both the prior and current administrations, has multiple times provided informational presentations to the current and former Boards of Supervisors in accordance with the Board of State and Community Corrections (BSCC) guidelines. These presentations included clear plans outlining the staffing requirements for the re-entry center, including the number of positions needed and the associated costs. Each time, the Board approved these staffing plans. However, no county official has developed or implemented a plan identifying how the staffing costs will be funded. F-4. Response: Agree. The Tehama County Sheriff's Office (TCSO) is experiencing significant chaUenges i~ remaining competitiv.e in the labor marke~ for correctional deputies. Comparator counties consistently provide higher pay, benefits, and hiring incentives, placing TCSO near the bottom of the salary / benefits scale which causes on going difficulty attracting and retaining qualified candidates. Furthermore, between 2022 and 2024, California's Consumer Price Index (CPI) increased by approximately 15%. During that same period, correctional deputies in Tehama County received cumulative: wage increases of only obout 5.5%, further widening the gap between market conditions and compensation levels for this critical classification. Serving Our Cotnmunity with P.R.I.D.E. o.... ,.·~-.. :-.--1! •.•• n -- , • - • • -· I. F-6. Agree. This has been an ongoing issue for the Tehama County Jail, which has lacked adequate space for safety and sobering cells for inmates confined within the facility. The problem is expected to be further exacerbated by the anticipated increase in inmate population following the jail expansion F-8. Partially Disagree. Volunteer-led community programs were significantly reduced during the C0VID-19 era; however, over the past year they have resumed and continue to operate within the jail, particularly in the areas of substance abuse recovery and religious services. In addition, educational opportunities are available to inmates through the use of jail-issued tablets, which provide access to a variety oflearning resources. F-9. Partially Agree. The facility was originally designated a "re-entry center" as part of the original funding source. Over time, however, it was determined that the building would instead be utilized for mainline jail inmates rather than as a traditional" re-entry facility. Thepurposeofthis expansion is to provide additional housing capacity for individuals who are chronic or habitual offenders. The new facility will also include a modem kitchen, laundry facility, and medical wing, replacing critical infrastructure that has significantly aged since the original jail was built in 1974. The Sheriffs Office will deploy a combination of staffing strategies to operate these facilities and to transfer inmates from the existing jail into the new housing units, thereby expanding capacity and improving overall efficiency. R-ta. The Tehama County Sheriffs Office has been working in conjunction with the Board ofSupernsors for many years to establish staffing plans and cost estimates, allowing the county to evaluate potential funding sources. Currently, the TCSO and BOS are jointly committed to proposing a public safety sales tax measure, which would provide ongoing funding to support the jail expansion. It should be noted that over the past seven years, the Sheriffs Office has surrendered approximately $7.5 million in salary savings back to the County. Based on current staffing cost estim_ates, this amount wou~d have funded the staffing ofthe new facility for approximately nine years. The Sheriffs Office remains committed to working with the Board ofSupervisors to identify sustainable funding sources. This includes exploring alternatives outside ofa potential sales tax mea~~e, in the event s~c~ • an initiative does not pass. TCSO considers the successful staffing ofthe new reentry fac1ltty and expanded Jail capacity to be vital to ensuring the safety and security ofthe community. I - R-lc. The recommendation has been implemented in part and will continue to be implemented. The Tehama County Sheriff's Office has already been working in conjunction with the Public Safety Tax Ad Hoc Group to move this initiative forward as a potential ballot measure for the November 2026 election. The Sheriff's Office acknowledges the ongoing need for sustainable funding to support jail housing and operations, and to ensure adequate staffing through recruitment and retention efforts. The Sheriff's Office hopes the Board ofSupervisors also recognizes the priority and necessity ofj ail expansion and public safety and remains committed to identifying alternative funding sources in addition to a sales tax initiative to ensure long-tenn stability. R-2. The recommendation will be implemented. The Tehama County Sherifrs Office is committed to increasing salaries and benefits for all staff, including correctional deputies, as a means ofretaining qualified and well-trained employees and attracting new applicants. By doing so, the Sheriff's Office will be positioned to recruit local talent and ensure that this talent is retained in service ofpublic safety for years to come. The Sheriffs Office further supports the use ofretention bonuses to reward employees who have dedicated themselves to serving their community, rather than relying solely on hiring incentives. Additionally, the County should regularly review comparator counties for the samejob classifications and conduct compensation and classification studies to ensure that salaries remain consistent with surrounding agencies. These comparator counties are already utilized during collective bargaining negotiations and should serve as the benchmark for competitiveness. The Sheriff's Office also encourages the County to enter negotiations earlier with bargaining units in order to resolve disputes before contracts expire. This proactive approach would help build trust and morale among employees while reducing the risks associated with prolonged negotiations. R-3. The recommendation will be implemented. The Tehama County Sheriff's Office will produce a written plan prior to December 31, 2025, outlining steps to expand safety and sobering cell capacity within the jail. A preliminary plan was previously identified during the jail expansion projec~ which envisioned repurposing the areas currently occupied by the laundry and kitchen facilities in the main jail as potential sobering and safety cell space once those operations are relocated. The Sheriff's Office will formalize this into a written plan once the new facilities are operational and the designated spaces in the main jail become available, allowing the County to move forward with this critical project.
Additional documents
Documents found alongside this year's reports, not grand jury reports or responses.