Trinity County Grand Jury
1998-1999
From the annual report
The consolidated year-end volume. The individual investigations it contains are listed separately below.
📑 Year-End Report
The full consolidated volume; individual reports are listed below.
Individual reports (19)
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
Misuse of Funds The Misuse of Funds complaint itemized four charges: failure to disclose budget records, an inappropriate Project Coordinator's salary, improper reimbursement for attending a conference and possible theft of a fax machine. • The allegations of failure to disclose public records appear to be unfounded. The Committee found the LIG budget/expenditures information to be readily available and accurately documented. Quarterly reports of expenditures are prepared by the Project Coordinator and approved by the Director of H&HS. They are then forwarded to the State Office of AIDS. The records in question are available through Trinity County Office of Education (TCOE) upon request. While the complainant stated `obstruction of public information,' he did not approach the TCOE when he was not satisfied with the information from the Coordinator. Documentation exists of an attempt, by the Coordinator and the State Consultant, to explain the flow and disbursement of State grant money. The State Office of AIDS, the Superintendent of Schools and the Director of H&HS appear satisfied that the grant standards are being met. However, the State Office of AIDS is now exploring the allegations and recommends that the LIG members have more input into budget planning. • The HIV/AIDS E&P Project Coordinator's salary was found to be appropriately determined using the TCOE salary schedule. Her salary also meets the guidelines set forth by the grant. • The complainant alleged that the Coordinator improperly charged attendance at a conference. The Grand Jury investigated and found the allegation was without merit. • The whereabouts of a FAX machine, reportedly purchased with $900.00 allocated from the original grant money in 1995, was questioned by the complainant. After investigating, the Grand Jury was unable to locate this specific Fax machine. The machine was ordered and then no longer needed when the HIV/AIDS Project was moved from H&HS to TCOE. It is "reportedly" in the Hayfork Community Center.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Grand Jury encourages the County to continue to update its accounting and equipment tracking systems.
F2:
Conflict of Interest The Coordinator of the HIV/AIDS E&P Project has served as a member of the Board of Directors for Six Rivers Planned Parenthood for several years. Allegations of conflict of interest were raised because PPH is a subcontractor for the Project. No conflict of interest was found by the Grand Jury, nor by County Counsel. However, the State Office of AIDS saw a possible perception of conflict of interest by the general public. Because of the State's concerns, the Coordinator was requested to remove her name from the PPH letterhead. In order to preserve "appearances" the Coordinator has since resigned her position on the PPH board. The Grand Jury wishes to make it clear, that they found no conflict, either in fact or appearance.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
While it is important for all our public officials to be sensitive to the appearance of conflict of interest, the Grand Jury recommends that County officials not allow themselves to be coerced into taking unjustified actions.
F3:
Failure To Meet The Goals Of HIV Prevention The Grand Jury found that some of the goals of the program, as set forth in the HIV/AIDS Prevention plan, are so broad that a charge such as this could easily be made, i.e., "All people will...". However, the Grand Jury found the Coordinator kept acceptable records indicating that the goals were indeed being met. Quarterly reports submitted to the State show progress toward, or activities to support, stated goals. Activities supporting goals appear appropriate. The Grand Jury found one exception to adequate progress toward goals. One Activity states "continue outreach to all geographic regions of the county through schools, medical care providers, associations, bars and stores by June 30, 1999." Visits to Partners in Prevention sites to replenish condoms and other supplies appear to be occurring only in Hayfork and Weaverville. Furthermore, the current Second Quarter Progress report states that condoms have been placed in most bars, but does not cite specific names, except in Hayfork and Weaverville.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Trinity County HIV/AIDS E&P Project Coordinator and the LIG should revisit their goals, and if they are written to include all of Trinity County, then steps to meet that requirement should be taken. -154-
F4:
Obstruction Of HIV/AIDS/STD Prevention Blocking Access To Condoms: One of the allegations was that condom distribution was not adequate and that the volunteer distributor has been blocked from obtaining condoms purchased with grant money. The Coordinator agrees that condom distribution has not been adequate and is taking steps to remedy that situation. Because of liability concerns, County Counsel feels that until certain protocols are in place, volunteers should not be used to distribute condoms. The Grand Jury concurs with County Counsel.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The Grand Jury believes that the use of volunteers in many capacities is both cost effective and often the source of valuable experience. Therefore, it is recommended that the HIV/AIDS E&P Project Coordinator, in conjunction with the County, develop volunteer protocols that protect both the volunteers and the county.
F5:
Brown Act An allegation that the LIG was violating the Brown Act was made. Upon consulting with County Counsel, it was found that the LIG does not fall under the Brown Act. The Grand Jury concurs and finds this allegation without merit. _RECOMMENDATION #5: None.
F6:
Failure To Intervene A second complaint was filed against the Director of H&HS, alleging that the Director failed to intervene after an allegation of misuse of funds was made against the HIV Coordinator. Because TCOE and not H&HS is the HIV Coordinator's immediate superior, the Grand Jury finds that this complaint is without merit.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
None. CONCLUSION: While the complainant obviously felt that he had legitimate concerns, he had not done his homework well. For example, the complaint against the superior who failed to intervene was filed against the wrong agency. County and State procedures for complaints against personnel were not followed and a general "shotgun" approach was utilized. With the exception of the condom distribution goal not being met, the Grand ; Jury has concluded that overall, the HIV/AIDS E&P Program Coordinator is administering the program well and is meeting grant standards. 30-DAY RESPONSES REQUESTED FROM: TCOE Superintendent of Schools, Project Coordinator and County Counsel. In addition, copies of this report should be sent to the Director of Health and Human Services. Grand Jury Response Sally Aldinger June 21, 1999 RECEIVED JUN 2 8 IFIgq •...)r? CO: Irrr JUCIG DATE: June 21, 1999 TO: John K. Letton, Presiding Judge, Superior Court FROM: Sally Aldinger, HIV Education Coordinator RE: Response to 1998-1999 Trinity County Grand Jury Ad Hoc Committee on Education Final Report Complaint Against Trinity County AIDS Task Force My response to the findings and recommendations of the Grand Jury's Report is as follows:
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
2 findings
F1:
It is apparent that the role of the CAO now and in the past has been dependent, to a great measure, on both the make-up and temperament of the Board of Supervi- sors and the make-up and temperament of the individual in the CAO role. With only two exceptions, those interviewed believed the role of CAO was essential to efficient and effective county decision-making. The position was seen as a fun- nel for the gathering of information to go to and from the Board of Supervisors. A clear majority felt the current CAO was effectively performing the duties of the CAO and gave the current CAO credit for team-building among elected and ap- pointed department heads and opening up the decision making process including access to the Board of Super- visors. There are regular meetings of the administrative staff to deal with issues in general and in setting the agenda for meetings of the Board of Supervisors. This, along with a more congenial Board of Supervisors, has generally made decision-making easier, more coopera- tive and effective. Most acknowledged that the role of the CAO changes depending on who is wearing the hat and that continu- ance of the current decision-making environment is de- pendent on a CAO willing to share decision-making and a Board of Supervisors wishing to work together and with department heads in a collegial manner.
F2:
The 1997-98 Grand Jury made recommendations re- lated to evaluations of elected and appointed depart- ment heads. It appears that evaluation of the CAO is an informal, on-going process based on the individual ob- servations and interactions of each supervisor with the CAO. While the CAO essentially serves at the pleasure of the board, and this informal evaluation may be com- fortable for the parties involved, there are drawbacks. County residents are generally not aware of the roles the CAO plays in government nor how well those roles are performed and thus do not have the necessary in- formation to assess the value of the CAO position. The CAO’s tenure requires pleasing five individual mem- bers rather than meeting the needs of the Board of Su- pervisors as a unit.
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Other than expressing appreciation for what most de- scribed as a positive and clear change in the decision- making process, we have no recommendations other than to continue on the same course.
R2:
On an annual basis the CAO should be outlining goals and objectives for the CAO office for the upcoming year. This should be done at a regular, public meeting of the board. In this way the supervisors, as well as citi- zens, will have a more concrete method of assessing what the CAO should be doing and how well the CAO is performing. CONCLUSION: The Grand Jury was pleasantly surprised at how well the county operates at the administrative level. Both elected and appointed officials and administrators showed a clear understanding of their roles in the administrative structure and decision-making process and presented a fairly positive outlook for continued good will and co- operation in the future. 30-DAY RESPONSE REQUESTED FROM: Board of Supervisors and CAO Response of the County Administrative Officer Date: March 23, 1999 To: Honorable John K. Letton, Superior Court Judge From: Jeannie Nix-Temple, County Administrative Officer RE: Response to 1998-99 Trinity County Grand Jury Finance and Administration Committee Final Report Admin- istrative Structure and Decision Making I appreciate the Grand Jury’s investigation and recom- mendations relating to the County’s administration and decision-making process. I am pleased that the Grand Jury received such positive responses from the Board of Supervisors and the department heads who were in- terviewed.
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
Cost Basis Disputed The claim that the Marshal’s office overhead ran 25% is disputed. The numbers used in this computation are not agreed upon as right by all parties involved.
F2:
Objectives Undefined. Exactly what services the county required of CSB were not spelled out before entering contract negotiations or turning account information over to them. That is to say, CSB become a solution in search of a problem. The cause for this fuzziness is rooted in Finding #3.
F3:
Meetings Not Held. No planning meetings were held that included County Counsel, Marshall, Probation and other participants. Due to changes in staffing and funding, some of them connected with implementation of AB233 The Trial Court Funding Act (see Finding #6), CAO and CRA felt the need and saw the opportunity to move quickly. They took the chance when it came and felt they could deal with the consequences later.
F4:
Probation Department Responsibili- ties. Probation Officers were shocked and embarrassed by the August 1 collection notice going out from CSB. Confidentiality was violated in some juvenile cases. Such information should not have been released to CSB. This problem has since been resolved. Confusion was bred in many misdemeanor and felony cases because collections which had regularly been made by the Probation Department were suddenly announced to be the business of CSB in Napa. This problem has since been resolved.
F5:
Legalities A contract between the County and CSB was negoti- ated and signed. CSB has two years to raise collections significantly or the contract will not be renewed. Trinity County can withdraw from the contract at any time for cause (30 days notice) or for any reason at all (60 days notice). CSB knows the laws pertinent to collections, as well as how to collect. Local personnel cannot duplicate these skills. The decision of CAO and CRA violates no laws. Demands of confidentiality are being met.
F6:
ABB233 The Trial Court Funding Act Great changes in the Marshal’s Office responsibilities have been produced by a new law, AB233 The Trial Court Funding Act. AB233 was a new law for 1998 but it applied retroactively to the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1997. As a result, departments found themselves in a scramble to implement AB233 for the old year and plan for the new year at the same time. The Marshal’s salary historically came mostly from County funds, but the new law indicated that the salary should come from Court accounts. Thus many respon- sibilities of the Marshall’s Office had to be redefined, and a Memorandum of Understanding had to be negoti- ated between the County and the Court. Negotiations on that Memorandum of Understanding are nearly complete, and it is expected that the Marshall’s Office responsibilities will be clearly spelled out and agreed upon before fiscal year 2000 begins on July 1, 1999.
Additional Recommendations
6
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Control must be established over amounts owed Trinity County and the costs of collecting them; only then can an accurate rate of overhead be computed.
R2:
It is essential for Department Heads to define objectives before a search for solution is launched.
R3:
Departments charged with responsibilities must be con- sulted in making major decisions. A coordinated attack on major problems is essential.
R4:
Professional standards of behavior must be maintained at all times.
R5:
The County Counsel is to be commended for straight- ening this situation out before it got completely out of control.
R6:
Implementation of AB233 was probably not a direct cause of the change in collection procedures. However, the 1998-99 Grand Jury recommends that the 1999- 2000 Grand Jury follow up on this matter and monitor the progress of AB233 implementation. CONCLUSION: Transfer of collections to the California Service Bureau is smoothing out. We expect collections to be made le- gally and conscientiously, and we expect collections to increase. Participating parties believe the system is go- ing to work. The decision process, however, was fla- grantly dictatorial. 30-DAY RESPONSES REQUESTED FROM: the Board of Supervisors, the Chief Administrative Officer, the Clerk/Recorder/Assessor, the Marshal, the County Counsel, the Chief of the Probation Department. Response of Trinity County Counsel Date: April 20, 1999 To: John K. Letton, Superior Court Judge From: David R. Hammer, Trinity County Counsel Re: Response to 1998/99 Trinity County Grand Jury Judicial Committee Final Report – Collections of Trial Court Accounts Receivable My response to the findings and recommendations of the Grand Jury’s Report is as follows:
Findings & Recommendations
2 findings
F1:
The Grand Jury compliments the Auditor’s office for their willingness to provide timely help and assistance to the Special Districts of Trinity County. However, bud- get information provided to the Special Districts by the Auditor’s office is not always clear and easily understood by people not famil- iar with accounting language.
F2:
The Grand Jury finds that the process the Special Dis- tricts must use to expand their districts can be compli- cated, lengthy and not easily understood. However, the Grand Jury finds that the Auditor’s office, Planning Department and LAFCO all did the best they could to explain the process and help the HFPD determine whether or not they should go ahead with annexation. The amount of money refunded to the HFPD from the annexation fee appears to be proper due to the amount of time expended by LAFCO on the annexation pro- cess. Because of the current method of distributing General Fund revenue, there is no method by which Special Dis- tricts can increase their share of the General Fund rev- enue through annexation. The only way for the HFPD to obtain a reliable, consistent and permanent increase in revenue at this time would be to hold an election in the affected areas to gain voter approval for a special tax district.
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Auditor’s office prepare a manual for all the Special Districts that out- lines the process and sources of funding to the Special Districts. This manual should include definitions of terms and a timeline of the annual budgetary process. The Grand Jury requests that a draft of the manual be prepared as soon as possible and submitted to the Grand Jury for review and comments. A final manual would then be forwarded by the Auditor to all Special Districts in Trinity County.
R2:
We recommend that if the Hayfork Fire Protection Dis- trict still wishes to serve their “Sphere of Influence”, but requires additional revenue to do so, the district go directly to the affected voters to seek approval for a special tax to pay for those services. DAY RESPONSE REQUESTED FROM: County Auditor and LAFCO. Response of the County Auditor-Controller To: Trinity County Board of Supervisors From: Brian Muir, Auditor - Controller Date: May 14, 1999 Subject:1988/99 Grand Jury Finance & Administration Committee Final Report -Complaint on Hayfork Fire Protection District The Grand Jury found that information provided to the Special Districts by the Auditor’s office is not always clear and easily understood by people not familiar with accounting language and recommended that the Auditor’s office prepare a manual describing the process and sources of funding for Special Districts. Unfortunately, property tax apportionment and special district accounting is not easily understood by people without an accounting background. As an example, the State Board of Equalization’s property tax manual con- sists of three complicated volumes. I don’t believe the citizens of the County would be well served to have the Auditor’s staff devote time in an attempt to make an manual for non-accountants. There is an accounting manual for Special Districts already available from the State Controller’s office. The Auditor’s office will prepare a timeline of the budgetary and apportionment process, and, as always, the staff will be available to assist with problems. Response of Executive Officer of LAFCO June 9, 1999 To: Board of Supervisors FROM: John Jelicich, Planning Director SUBJECT: 1998/1999 Grand Jury Finance & Ad- ministration Committee Final Report re: “Complaint on Hayfork Fire Protection District”.
Findings & Recommendations
15 findings
F1:
Information The 1997-98 Grand Jury found that the level of foster child information provided initially to foster parents was frequently inadequate, and it recommended that CPS provide the foster parent(s) with the background infor- mation necessary to effectively aid in meeting the needs of foster children. Foster parents interviewed indicated that they are now getting available information. A form is now being used that documents the information provided to the foster family, and a system for ascertaining compliance is now in place.
F2:
Complaint Processing The 1997-98 Grand Jury found that some citizen com- plaints were not acted upon in a timely manner. It was recommended that CPS develop a procedure for pro- cessing all complaints in an expeditious manner and that complainants be notified whether or not any actions have been taken with regards to the complaint and if not why no actions were taken. Procedures have been devel- oped and, reportedly, are being followed.
F3:
Licensing The 1997-98 Grand Jury determined that CPS had not been following procedures mandated be law in the re- licensing of foster homes. The Grand Jury strongly rec- ommended compliance in this matter. CPS has employed a Social Worker who has completed extensive training in the licensing of foster homes and in the administration of the foster care program. This So- cial Worker has met individually with all parents in the county foster care program. He has also conducted a group meeting with the majority of the foster families. Re-licensing of current foster homes has been completed. Foster families interviewed have expressed positive com- ments about the changes that have been implemented in this area.
F4:
Telephone The 1997-98 Grand Jury found that phone calls to CPS were either not always being answered or were not be- ing returned in a timely manner. It was recommend that procedures for handling and responding to incoming tele- phone calls be implemented and adhered to. New telephone procedures are now in place and re- sponse time has been markedly improved. CPS now has a paging system in place through which they can contact case workers, in an emergency, and a 24-hour response time for all messages is policy. However, fos- ter families continued to register some complaints in this area as late as January, 1999.
F5:
Clothing Allowance The 1997-98 Grand Jury determined that the clothing allowance for foster children in Trinity County was sub- stantially below that provided by nearby counties, and that payment of the clothing allowance was not being provided in a consistent or timely manner. It was rec- ommended that the clothing allowance be reviewed im- mediately and that the allowance be brought closer to nearby county levels. A revised clothing allowance for the foster children has been presented to and passed by the Trinity County Board of Supervisors. Foster families have begun to receive the new amounts.
F6:
Activity Documentation An Oversight Report on child welfare services prepared by the California Department of Social Services, in May- June 1997, found that CPS was below the 90% compli- ance level in documenting its activities. The state re- quired a Corrective Action Plan to bring CPS into com- pliance with state law in regards to this matter. At the time that the 1998-99 Grand Jury commenced its ten- ure, no Corrective Action plan had been submitted to the state. The Corrective Action plan was completed by CPS and sent to the state in September 1998. It should be noted, however, that many elements outlined in the plan had already been implemented or were in the process of being corrected. Quarterly reviews by the CPS supervi- sor are being done to insure documentation is both timely and completed. Training to familiarize staff with the mandates of division and state rules and law is also be- ing undertaken.
F7:
Timely Payment The 1997-98 Grand Jury determined that payment for foster care was not being received in a timely manner. It was recommended that procedures be implemented to ensure that payment would be made in a timely manner. CPS has assigned a case worker to interface with the eligibility division to make certain that all steps are taken to comply with this requirement.
F8:
Payment Amount The 1997-98 Grand Jury found that inequities existed in the level of support payments for foster care when Trin- ity County is compared to other nearby counties. It was recommended that a review of foster care payments be made and, if allowed by law, adjustments be made. Foster care payments have been adjusted and are now more closely aligned with those of surrounding coun- ties. Foster families are expressing their appreciation and approval of this change.
F9:
Counseling The 1997-98 Grand Jury found that requested profes- sional counseling for foster families was not scheduled in a timely manner or in some cases was denied. Rec- ommendations were made for procedures, in this re- gard, to be reviewed and, where necessary, upgraded. CPS has developed a manual that details procedures to be followed when counseling is requested. Regular staff meetings are now held to resolve any problems that ex- ist in this matter.
F10:
Placement Procedures It was reported to the 1997-98 Grand Jury that juvenile offenders had been placed in foster homes where there were small children. This is against state regulations. It was strongly recommended the CPS, the Sheriff’s de- partment, and the Probation Department review and upgrade the placement procedures with regard to this matter. It was found that this complaint was an isolated case and that procedures to prevent such occurrences were already in place. Better adherence to established poli- cies is a focus of all departments involved.
F11:
Cross Training The 1997-98 Grand Jury found that there was a lack of qualified cross-trained personnel to assume duties dur- ing employee absences. A cross training program and other procedures were recommended to ensure that the daily operations of the division continue in a timely and efficient manner. Staff changes and low staff level have made this a diffi- cult goal to achieve. Recruitment of a new division su- pervisor and additional staff members has been under- taken and is ongoing.
F12:
Feedback System The 1997-98 Grand Jury found that there was no mecha- nism built into the county foster care system that would allow foster families to provide feedback as to the qual- ity and quantity of the services provided them by CPS. It was recommended that a formal written instrument be developed and disseminated to each foster family at least on an annual basis. Such an instrument has been developed and will be pro- vided to the foster families by the time this report is published.
F13:
List of Homes Last year’s Grand Jury found that the list of Licensed Homes for Trinity County, published by CPS, was con- stantly out of date. It was recommended that the list be maintained in a current condition at all times. It was also recommended that in-home visits to foster homes be scheduled in a timely manner to ensure appropriate re- licensing of the homes (see Finding #3). The list of licensed foster care homes has been updated and is now being maintained in a current condition. Timely in-home visits, as required by law, are now being made and proper re-licensing is being accomplished.
F14:
Management Meetings The 1997-98 Grand Jury reported that administrative personnel at all levels of the CPS foster care program have been lax in ensuring that the program operates in the best interest of the children. It was recommended that a meeting or meetings of representatives from all cognizant departments be convened to initiate correc- tions of the operating problems of the foster care pro- gram. The present Grand Jury has been advised that such meetings have been, and are being, held and that the meetings include representatives of all cognizant de- partments.
F15:
Security During the course of the present Grand Jury’s investiga- tions, it was determined that potentially serious security issues were present in the CPS offices; i.e. , files were being left on desk tops, there was no lock-up system to secure the files, files were misplaced, there was no sign- out system for files and the alarm system was ineffec- tive. The following changes have been made to rectify these concerns: locks on the CPS building have been changed; there is only one designated janitor; no outside groups meet in the building at night; case files are now entered into the computer system, so less paperwork is required, and confidentiality issues have been cleared with the state and Board of Supervisors. CPS is to be commended for their swift and thorough action on this matter.
Additional Recommendations
15
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
No further action is required other than to continue with present practices.
R2:
Continue present practice.
R3:
I concur with the Grand Jury’s recommendation.
R4:
Management should make certain that established policy is adhered to.
R5:
The Grand Jury recommends that the clothing allow- ance continue to be reviewed on an annual basis and that adjustment be made accordingly.
R6:
I agree with the recommendation. Ongoing training will occur to ensure that new staff as well as “seasoned” social workers keep abreast of case documentation re- quirements.
R7:
I concur with the Grand Jury’s recommendation.
R8:
Periodic reviews of the level of support payments should be made to ensure that those provided by Trinity County are in line with those provided by nearby counties.
R9:
I concur with this recommendation. Ongoing efforts to through Trinity County’s Children’s Systems of Care grant will support and enhance the procedures that are presently in place.
R10:
I agree and reference my response in #9 above.
R11:
It is recommended that the recruitment of a new super- visor for the division be continued with the greatest dili- gence. Filling of the additional staff positions should also be given high priority.
R12:
I concur. The survey instrument is currently in place. There will be ongoing evaluations of the effectiveness of this tool and modifications will be made as feedback from the foster parents dictates.
R13:
It is recommended that present practices be continued and that they be monitored to ensure that they are main- tained.
R14:
I agree. Bi-monthly meetings are being conducted with representation from Health and Human Services, Be- havioral Health, Probation, the Office of Education, Human Response Network, as well as our County Ad- ministrative Officer and Superior Court Judge.
R15:
A sign-out / sign-in system should be established to en- sure the security of confidential files. And a paper trail for tracking files should be created and implemented. CONCLUSION: The Grand Jury finds vast improvements over condi- tions relating to the Trinity County foster care program as they were reported in the 1997-98 Grand Jury Re- port. For the most part, those deficiencies that were reported have been addressed, and if not fully satisfied are on their way to being satisfied. New personnel and management involvement have infused the CPS Divi- sion with a new outlook which greatly benefits its cli- ents, children at risk. Continuing the policies and pro- grams which have been newly implemented will improve the division even more. However, future Grand Juries are hereby alerted to past problems of the Child Protec- tive Services Division and should be aware of these prob- lems when performing future reviews of the division. DAY RESPONSE REQUESTED FROM: Director of Health and Human Services Department. Response of the Director of Health and Human Services Department Date: July 1, 1999 To: Trinity County Grand Jury Health and Human Services Commit tee From: Linda Wright, Director Trinity County Health and Human Services Re: Evaluation of Compliance with Recommendation of the 1997-98 Grand Jury by Child Protective Services in Administration of the Trinity County Foster Care Program The following is my response to the 1998-99 Grand Jury Health and Human Services Committee’s Final Report regarding Trinity County’s Health and Human Services administration of the Trinity County foster care program. Recommendation #l: I concur with the Grand Jury’s recommendation. We will continue with the present practices.
Findings & Recommendations
2 findings
F1:
130 of the 148 respondents indicated they had been evaluated for their last rating period which means 18 were not evaluated. 105 felt the evaluation was constructive and useful. Con- versely, 31, including 6 who said they had not been evaluated, did not think so. Twelve chose not to answer this question. Only 42 indicated there was any follow-up to the evalu- ation during the rating period. 96 say there was no fol- low-up during that period. 75 responded that they felt the evaluation system was adequate and 23 said they did not think it was. In the comment section of the questionnaire, there were some concerns raised about the evaluation process that indi- cated a wide range of problems, although no particular problem appeared to be universal. This year’s questionnaire results appear to confirm those of last year where some departments are doing quite well in terms of evaluations and a couple are not. If one extrapolates the numbers from our sample of 148 re- turned questionnaires, over 12% or at least 50 county workers have not been evaluated as they should have been and this might leave the county vulnerable in terms of employee disciplinary or termination actions.
F2:
Almost 70% of respondents said there was no follow- up to the formal evaluation they received. This raises a concern that employees rated as not meeting minimum requirements are not being provided a remediation plan, and those meeting or exceeding those requirements may not be receiving appropriate kudos when deserved.
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
We concur with the recommendations made last year by the 97-98 Grand Jury and would ask all readers of this report to re-read that report and take action to com- ply with it.
R2:
• Where remediation is required, the Personnel Officer should ensure that a plan is developed and followed until an employee meets the requirements or is termi- nated. • Where employees are performing above the minimum standards, some form of recognition program should be established to reward such performance. The county should also consider establishing a formal system whereby citizens, as “customers” having contact with county employees, can report positive or negative con- tacts based on their perception of the service provided or not provided. This would allow superiors to identify those who might need additional training in dealing with their public, or those who are doing a superior job when dealing with the public. DAY RESPONSE REQUESTED FROM: Board of Supervisors, the Chief Administrative Officer and County Personnel Officer. Response of the Board of Supervisors August 17, 1999 Jerry Boosinger Trinity County Grand Jury P.O. Box 1258 Weaverville, CA 96093 RE: Finance and Administration Committee Final Report Evaluation of Trinity County Personnel Dear Foreperson: The Trinity County Board of Supervisors acknowledges receipt of the above referenced report and thanks the Grand Jury for its work. The Board’s response is as follows: Recommendations # 1 and #2: The Board concurs with the Grand Jury’s findings and recommendations. Sincerely, TRINITY COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS S/S Robert Reiss, Chairman Response of Trinity County County Administrative Officer To: Pat Hamilton, Foreperson Trinity County Grand Jury Date: September 20, 1999 RE: Evaluation of Trinity County Personnel I was just notified that I failed to provide a response to this grand jury report. l apologize. I guess that what I remembered was my response from the previous year on this subject. Recommendation # 1: • As suggested, I have reread the 97/98 report on this subject. I feel that in the past year the issue of performance evaluations has risen to a much higher level due to the recommendation of the 97/98 grand jury. Each department head either elected or appointed is now required to report to the Board of Supervisors every other month on the progress in their department. One of the questions each must answer is how many evalua- tions are due, overdue or completed within the report- ing period. This information is useful when it comes time for evaluations, and budget approvals. I cannot say that we have achieved perfection but we are moving in that direction.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
1 findings
F1:
Software and Staff. SACSS was a disaster. It could never be made to work, and the State abandoned it. Workers continually had to do by hand what the software originally claimed it could do automatically. Error rates were high. Excess resources were committed to corrections. Collections suffered. Morale declined. The Head of Family Support went in search of better software, learned of a new system originating out of San Francisco County called CASES, compared it with other available products and determined that it was best. They installed it and it works as well as they hoped it would. Collections soared. The new software brought them in compliance with fed- eral requirements for incentive moneys. Incentive in- come of 13.6¢ per dollar now funds the Family Support Department entirely. The Head of Family Support reports that staff levels are adequate and morale is much improved.
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The entire Family Support Department is to be com- mended for its success. CONCLUSION: The Family Support Department has gone from near the bottom in statewide rankings to very near the top in five years. The evidence indicates they are highly moti- vated people doing an outstanding job. The Department Head advised the Judicial Committee, however, that the state still pursues a centralized soft- ware system. If Family Support should have to convert all file data, major disruption could result. 30-DAY RESPONSES REQUESTED FROM: the Family Support Department Head, the District Attor- ney. Response of the District Attorney To: John K. Letton, Superior Court Judge From: David L. Cross Date: March 19, 1999 Subject: Response to 1998/99 Grand Jury Judi cial Committee Final Report Family Support We certainly agree with the Grand Jury Report. The Family Support Unit has worked hard to make the im- provements necessary to create a successful program. They do indeed need to be commended for a job well done. David L. Cross Response of the Board of Supervisors April 16, 1999 Gerald L. Boosinger Trinity County Grand Jury P.O. Box 2455 Weaverville, CA 96093 RE: 1998-99 Grand Jury Judicial Committee Final Report Family Support Department Dear Foreperson: The Trinity County Board of Supervisors concurs with the Judicial Committee’s findings and is in total agree- ment on the recommendations due the department for their successfulness. I have personally relayed these find- ings to the California State Association of Counties Ju- dicial Committee in Sacramento on April 8, 1999. Conclusion: The Grand Jury conclusion regarding pos- sible major disruption due to a state centralized soft- ware system is so noted and we believe this should be monitored to prevent a breakdown of collection dollars. The Board of Supervisors appreciates the Grand Jury’s efforts in the preparation of this report. Sincerely, TRINITY COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Robert Reiss, Chairman _________________________________________________________________________________________________
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
2 findings
F1:
The Grand Jury investigated public complaints that CPS did not respond to allegations of child endangerment in a timely and proper manner. In interviewing the com- plainants, CPS management, the acting supervisor and case workers, the Grand Jury found that the CPS per- sonnel named in the complaints were either no longer employed by the department or had been transferred.
F2:
As a result of the reorganization of the CPS Division, the morale and personnel problems which had been re- ported by the 1997-98 Grand Jury have been greatly ameliorated. A number of former staff members have either been reassigned to non-CPS positions or have been otherwise replaced. Since the reorganization of the division, there have been no new complaints submitted by members of the public regarding the actions or pro- cedures of the division or of its personnel as it relates to child health and safety.
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends that, in spite of the emo- tionally laden nature of the work, CPS must continue to follow and abide by established laws and mandated pro- cedures in responding to allegations of child endanger- ment.
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends that continued recruiting efforts be undertaken in order to bring the division up to full staff. This will enable the work load to be distrib- uted over a broader base, insuring that the improved and improving morale will be sustained to the benefit of the children who make up the division’s clientele. CONCLUSION: The Grand Jury commends the management, supervi- sion and staff of the CPS Division for the efforts that have been made to improve difficult situations. They have made great progress in meeting the needs of the public and mandates of State and Federal regulations that are in a state of flux. DAY RESPONSE REQUESTED FROM: Director of Health and Human Services Department. Response of the Board of Supervisors July 20, 1999 Jerry Boosinger Trinity County Grand Jury P.O. Box 1258 Weaverville, CA 96093 RE: Health and Human Services Committee Final Report Investigation of Trinity County Health and Human Services Department Child Protective Services Division Dear Foreperson: The following is the Board of Supervisors response to the 1998-99 Grand Jury Health and Human Services Committee Final Report regarding Trinity County Health and Human Services Child Protective Services Division: Recommendation # 1 We agree with the Grand Jury.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
1 findings
F1:
An investigation was made into the operation of the In- come Maintenance Program of the Health and Human Services Department. Interviews were conducted with the Supervisor of the Eligibility Division and staff mem- bers. The supervisor answered questions concerning the impact of welfare reform on the division’s programs. She also advised us as to her interface with CPS, Cal- Works, Health and Human Services Administration and other interdepartmental units. The eligibility staff is ex- perienced and rather stable in its work force. The only complaint by both the supervisor and by members of her staff is that they feel that their compensation is not on a level with that of surrounding counties.
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends that a survey of similar positions and salary structures of Eligibility workers in surrounding counties be made and, if appropriate, that the pay rates of the Trinity County employees be ad- justed accordingly. CONCLUSION: The Grand Jury commends the management, supervi- sion and staff of the Eligibility Division for the efforts that have been made to improve difficult situations. DAY RESPONSE REQUESTED FROM: Director of Health and Human Services Department. Response of the Director of Trinity County Health and Human Services Date: June 9, 1999 To: Trinity County Grand Jury Health and Human Services From: Linda Wright, Director Trinity County Health and Human Services Re: Investigation of Trinity County Health and Human Services Department Eligibility Division The following is my response to the 1998-99 Grand Jury Health and Human Services Committee’s Final Report regarding Trinity County’s Health and Human Services Eligibility Division: Recommendation #l: I concur with the Grand Jury’s recommendation. Rec- ognizing that our eligibility workers were under com- pensated, I requested a 10% increase for them in De- cember of 1998. As a result of the Board approving this request, salaries for our eligibility workers are compa- rable, if not higher than counties of similar size in north- ern California. Conclusion: I would like to express my appreciation for the thorough and conscientious review performed by the Grand Jury Health and Human Services Committee, as well as their commitment to ensuring that services to the citizens of Trinity County are not compromised by a lack dedi- cated, capable eligibility staff. Response of the Board of Supervisors July 20, 1999 Jerry Boosinger Trinity County Grand Jury Weaverville, CA 96093 RE: Health and Human Services Committee Final Report Investigation of Trinity County Health and Human Services Department Eligibility Division Dear Foreperson: The Trinity County Board of Supervisors have reviewed the above referenced report and offer the following re- sponse: Recommendation # 1 We concur with the Grand Jury’s recommendation and are pleased with Director Linda Wright’s prompt re- sponse and action. Conclusion: We would like to express our appreciation for the thor- ough and conscientious review by the Grand Jury and Health and Human Services Department. We appreci- ate your efforts. Sincerely, TRINITY COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ROBERT REISS, Chairman ________________________________________________________________________________________________ -1999 FINAL REPORT JUDICIAL COMMITTEE
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
When a juvenile just arrested and booked is detained at the Center, a staff member of the Probation Depart- ment must be on duty at all times because the Center is non-secure. Such staff people are called away from their regular duties or called in after hours. Occasionally offenders on weekend community service duties prove intractable and have to be incarcerated; in every such case Probation Officers have to send young people to secure facilities outside the county, far from family and friends.
F2:
By contract, weekend meals are prepared in kitchens at the Jail and Hospital. A Duty Officer must go for the meals and bring them back. The arrangement works fine, according to staff. It is reasonable to believe, however, that the arrange- ment will not work well for full-time residents in need of meals every day of the year.
F3:
Before joining the weekend work team, probationary juveniles are prescreened for lack of respect, for vio- lence and for tobacco, drug and alcohol use. Youngsters who show such destructive tendencies are started into treatment programs right away, and week- end work assignments are integrated with such treat- ment. All probationers’ performance is evaluated. Staff can reduce their sentences for good behavior or send them to secure facilities outside the county for bad.
F4:
Probationary juveniles are also diagnosed for educational deficits. These and other educational problems can be addressed in the Community School run in conjunction with the Juvenile Assessment Center. The School was commended by the 1997-98 Grand Jury. We agree with their action. Students at the school who are not juvenile offenders are children who have been expelled from county schools. In and around the classroom, while they con- tinue their education, they can be diagnosed and treated for those same patterns of lack of respect, violence and substance abuse that got them into trouble in the first place. The Community School teacher and aide do a great deal of good with barely adequate resources.
Additional Recommendations
4
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Trinity County needs a secure Juvenile Detention Facil- ity. In the context of a comprehensive care program, lockdown represents the ultimate sanction. The Grand Jury recommends that this project be pushed forward with all reasonable speed.
R2:
Full time, year round meal service will need to be pro- vided in the near future. A portion of the proposed Ju- venile Detention Facility might be designed for and funded to serve as a kitchen of this kind. Or the Facility could be sited in close proximity to an existing kitchen sufficient to satisfy these new needs.
R3:
The Probation Department should be commended for its strenuous efforts to intervene early and forcefully in young offenders’ lives, to break the patterns of losing control and acting criminally before they become ha- bitual. Moreover, a portion of the proposed Juvenile Detention Facility should be designed for diagnosis and treatment of such social pathologies. Likewise, additional funding as necessary should be provided to intervene in the lives of Trinity County’s at-risk young people before they have a chance of becoming career criminals.
R4:
A portion of the proposed Juvenile Detention Facility should be designed, equipped and funded for the educa- tional component of an integrated and comprehensive treatment program for Trinity County’s young offend- ers. CONCLUSION: The Probation Department and Juvenile Counselors are doing an outstanding job administering a comprehen- sive program of diagnosis and treatment, overseeing these juveniles and fighting recidivism. The County can make no better investment than in its at-risk children: turning them around before they can become career criminals not only saves us the tremendous costs of con- victing them and jailing them repeatedly; we also ben- efit from the contributions to be made by good citizens such as these young people can become. The progress that has been made towards a new Juvenile Detention Facility is laudable, and we encourage everyone involved to continue with all deliberate speed. 30-DAY RESPONSES REQUESTED FROM: Board of Supervisors, Trial Court Judges, Chief Probation Of- ficer. Response of the Chief Probation Officer To: Board of Supervisors From: Terry Lee, Chief Probation Officer March 29, 1999 Re: 1998/99 Grand Jury Final Report – Ju venile Assessment Center I have reviewed and considered the findings of the Grand Jury in their final report. I find that they are thoughtful and insightful in regards to the Juvenile Assessment Cen- ter. This Department continues to make every effort to ensure the safety of the community in association with the rehabilitation and punishment of juvenile criminal offenders. I concur with the findings of the Grand Jury and it is my intention to try and co-locate our facility with a department that can and will contract food and medical services to our Juvenile Hall. Every effort has been and will continue to be made to consolidate ser- vices in collaborating agencies. This department is actively seeking federal and state grant monies to build a full-time, fullJuvenile Hall. The Board of Supervisors has endorsed this project by unani- mously passing a resolution in support of building and maintaining a Juvenile Hall. You are correct in your as- sessment that present services to juveniles in Trinity County are limited by secure detention options for mi- nors. To date my department has expended in excess of $85,000.00 for secure detention beds outside Trinity County. With your continued support and a successful grant application we hope to open a full-service Juvenile Hall in Trinity County in the fall of 2001. Thank you again for your continued commitment to quality gov- ernment and support for Juvenile programs in Trinity County. Response of the Board of Supervisors Mr. Jerry Boosinger, Foreperson 1998/99 Trinity County Grand Jury P.O. Box 2455 Weaverville, CA 96093 Re: Judicial Committee Final Report Juvenile Assessment Center The Trinity County Board of Supervisors acknowledges receipt of the above referenced report and thanks the Grand Jury for its work. The Board’s response is as follows:
Findings & Recommendations
1 findings
F1:
Misunderstandings between the 1997-98 Grand Jury and responsible County officials resulted in the delayed print- ing and publishing of the 1997-98 Grand Jury report until March of 1999, over 8 months after the end of the Grand Jury year and at least 5 months after the latest expected publication date. This resulted in some citi- zens, who had issues before the 1997-98 Grand Jury, resenting the fact that the jury apparently did not ad- dress their issue. It also resulted in some confusion among citizens about which year was being discussed in the report.
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Continue to publish reports in a local newspaper I concur with the recommendation and have received direction from the Board of Supervisors to make sure that the complete report with all the responses are pub- lished timely each year. In addition the necessary equip- ment and software have been acquired so as to publish the reports and responses on the Trinity County Web site. Dero Forslund, Clerk Recorder Assessor _________________________________________________________________________________________________
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
Lack of Service The Southern Trinity area and its citizens are not being served: there is, in effect, no law enforcement in the Southern Trinity area.
F2:
Deputy Positions In 1993 the Sheriff’s Department had seven deputy po- sitions funded (down from a high of 21 in 1990/91). Consequently the Resident Deputy in Southern Trinity relocated to Weaverville for duty there. Twelve posi- tions are currently funded, and the Sheriff estimates a full cadre would comprise fourteen county-funded posi- tions. Additional positions are funded out of special (es- pecially federal) projects.
F3:
Recruiting The Sheriff reports ongoing difficulties recruiting and retaining quality deputies because of the County’s non- competitive pay rates. New recruits are typically young males fresh out of academy who complete their field training with the Trinity County Sheriff’s Department. When they complete their training, in about a year’s time, they look to move out and up to better paying positions with other counties. Recruits of this type have no interest in becoming Resi- dent Deputy for Southern Trinity and therefore do not seek to move there. Older, more experienced officers could find life and duty in Southern Trinity attractive, but the huge cut in pay they would have to take is distinctly unattractive.
F4:
Coordination The Ruth Lake CSD expressed dissatisfaction that let- ters to the Sheriff were unanswered and meetings with the Sheriff were unproductive. They hadn’t seen any progress towards meeting their needs. Meetings in the spring of 1999, however, have resulted in a coordinated plan for law enforcement at Ruth Lake over the Memorial Day weekend, a major local con- cern. Ruth Lake CSD feels it can also contribute to the re- cruiting effort — for example, they say they can pro- vide a free mobile home pad with hookups — and they wish to participate in the search. The Personnel Department has primary responsibility for describing available positions, advertising them and receiving responses from applicants. The Southern Trin- ity Resident Deputy position, however, is unique and requires a special effort. The Sheriff is clearly an interested party, and so is the Supervisor for the district. There may be others not mentioned here.
F5:
Reserve Deputies The reserve Deputy corps is moribund, in part because the State of California has increased training require- ments and thereby increased the number of hurdles vol- unteers must clear before they can take places on the law enforcement team. All the same, we do have a small number of enthusiastic volunteers completing the train- ing requirements and filling useful roles with the Sheriff’s Department. The reserve Deputy corps seems to be an under-utilized resource, and there is some evidence suggesting that reserve Deputies are not always welcomed and encour- aged by the Sheriff’s Department.
Additional Recommendations
5
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
To carry out its mandate the County needs to provide law enforcement services to the Southern Trinity area without delay. The Grand Jury recommends as an ideal solution a resi- dent Deputy in the area plus two level one reserve Depu- ties who can provide quicker backup than Hayfork can. A resident Deputy who can be visibly on patrol during daytime hours and available at all times is necessary, but unless backup is available more quickly than Hayfork can provide it, such a solitary law enforcement pres- ence will not always be sufficient. Until a resident Deputy can be found for Southern Trin- ity, a reserve Deputy level one might be a solution to the problem. The Grand Jury recommends, as an absolute minimum law enforcement service to southern Trinity, a daily pa- trol out of Hayfork. Starting April 1, 1999, the Sheriff’s Department has re- sumed daily patrol, out of Hayfork, in the South County area: they are to be commended for their appropriate response.
R2:
The County needs to fund the full fourteen deputy posi- tions.
R3:
To improve its chances of recruiting and retaining qual- ity deputies the County needs to offer more competitive pay rates. Additionally the county may need to fund a special bonus for a qualified officer who accepts the Southern Trinity Resident Deputy position. Separately, the Personnel Department should concen- trate on finding a more experienced officer, with family, to relocate to Southern Trinity.
R4:
The Grand Jury recommends that a special team be assembled for the purpose of defining unmet law en- forcement needs for the Southern Trinity area, devising a plan to meet those needs and implementing it. The 1998-99 Grand Jury recommends that the 1999- 2000 Grand Jury return to this issue next year and monitor progress towards a solution that satisfies everyone in- volved.
R5:
Creative and energetic recruitment is required. High School seniors and other career seekers can benefit from information on jobs in law enforcement, including the part-time position of reserve Deputy. Educational op- portunities can be increased, financial assistance can be found. Enthusiastic volunteers can boost morale in an organization like the Sheriff’s Department. They can also be very effective good will ambassadors for an or- ganization like the Sheriff’s Department. The 1998-99 Grand Jury recommends that the 1999- 2000 Grand Jury return to this question for a progress report. CONCLUSION: This situation was allowed to drift perilously close to a serious incident, but steps are being taken and responses are taking effect. Trinity County citizens can continue to expect what they deserve: timely, targeted and effec- tive action to protect their lives, property and fortunes. DAY RESPONSES REQUESTED FROM: Ruth Lake CSD, Sheriff, Personnel Department, CAO, Board of Supervisors. Response of Ruth Lake Community Services District June 10, 1999 Trinity County Board of Supervisors PO Drawer 1613 Weaverville Ca. 96093 re: 1998-1999 Grand Jury Judicial Committee Final Re- port - Southern Trinity Law Enforcement Gentlemen: The Board of Directors of the Ruth Lake Community Services District offer the following comments in re- sponse to the report of the Grand Jury: General: The Sheriffs Department is to be commended for their planning, communication and service provided over the 1999 Memorial Day weekend. The Sheriff and his team attended several of our Board Meetings, re- mained in contact with the District and presented a co- ordinated plan which addressed our concerns. Law en- forcement was visible for the entire weekend with the result that there were no major incidents, and a good time was had by all visitors and local residents. It was one the most peaceful holiday weekends in memory. We sincerely hope this kind of cooperation can con- tinue. Recommendation # 1: The Sheriff has commenced a five day a week (Thursday through Monday) patrol out of the Hayfork office. This has been noticed and appre- ciated by the community members we have been in contact with. Hopefully, this will remain a priority and not continue to be the first to be sacrificed for vacations and other needs.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
11 findings
F1:
Violations It appears that the Thunder Rock mine operated at times without the proper permits. Even when there was a per- mit in effect, the operation violated the conditions of the permit in terms of hours and days of operation. The mine created a health hazard to neighborhood residents through dispersal of dust containing asbestos and be- came a nuisance in terms of noise. No county office or employee monitored the mine operation for permit com- pliance even after residents complained.
F2:
Tracking The building and use permit, which was issued for an “approximate” one-year period, was allowed to linger for twenty years with no review to ensure code compli- ance. (This failure to “final” the permit also deprived the county of tax revenue for property improvements.)
F3:
Agencies According to July 31, 1996 Planning Commission Min- utes, the Planning Director presented the Planning Com- mission with the following information: The mine operator is obligated to comply with various local, state and federal agency regulations and permit requirements when conducting surface mining opera- tions. These agencies include, but are not limited to: California Department of Conservation-Office of Mine Reclamation, State Mining and Geology Bd., Federal Mine Safety and health Administration, Cal-OSHA Min- ing Unit, North Coast Unified Air Quality Management District, North Coast Region Water Quality Control Board, and the Calif Dept of Transportation. Full com- pliance with each agency’s requirements is critical to address and mitigate undesirable effects from mining and to ensure that public safety’ health, and general welfare objectives are met. The Planning Department and/or Commission neglected to ensure that the Thunder Rock Shale Mine was in compliance with the requirements of the several agen- cies mentioned.
F4:
The Planning Commission’s decision on Dec. 14, 1995 to validate the original Use Permit was based partially on a letter from the Director of the Roads Department that indicated this shale mine had been supplying mate- rial to the county on a yearly basis since 1982. To date the Road Department has failed to provide docu- mentation that would satisfactorily verify the accuracy of that statement. What has been provided to date indi- cates that there have been years in which the mine did not provide material to the county.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
If the letter referred to in Finding #4 is inaccurate, there should be no fees charged to the homeowners for ap- pealing a decision based on inaccurate information. If the information is accurate, the Planning Commission should hold one hearing on all the issues reducing appel- late fees to a one time $280.00. However, given what has gone on with this issue, we strongly recommend that the Board of Supervisors ap- points a mediator to review appropriate documents and meet with complainants and appropriate county officers to clarify and resolve this long standing dispute. We fur- ther recommend that this takes place as soon as pos- sible, and that the 1999-2000 Grand Jury review this matter.
F5:
Fee The Road Department’s policy is to charge a fee for document searches that involve significant staff time, and to have requesting parties sign a contract acknowl- edging that they will be charged a fee for the search. The purpose of the fee is to offset the costs of staff time pulling documents that takes them away from their regu- lar duties. The Tucker Hill residents requested backup documents from the Road Department that would verify the accu- racy of the letter referred to above and the Road De- partment charged them a $210. 00 fee for the search and reproduction of the documents. The homeowners had not signed a contract and protested the charge. The Road department has not turned those documents over to the homeowners.
F6:
Coordination The Director of Transportation/Road Department claimed to have been unaware of any restrictions that would preclude the department from purchasing mate- rial from this mine before Nov. 1995. It appears that the Planning Director may not have informed him that the Thunder Rock Mine was not in compliance with the original use permit.
F7:
The homeowners report that several of them have sold their homes in order to escape the extreme noise and to protect their health. These residents attempted to allevi- ate the noise and health problems by presenting a peti- tion, signed by all 27 Tucker Hill residents, to the Plan- ning Commission against further mine operations, even though they say they were advised in advance, by a member of that body, that “Petitions don’t carry much weight in Trinity County.”
F8:
Complaint Processing There appears to be no enforcement arm that will re- spond to residents’ complaints about violations of per- mit conditions. The District Attorney, Sheriff and Plan- ning Department apparently have no system for moni- toring and enforcing use permit conditions.
F9a:
Hearing The homeowners allege that the Planning Director told them they cannot appeal the Planning Commission’s 1995 validation of the Use Permit until the Reclamation Plan is approved, thus opening the door to the possible restart of the mining activities. It has been three years since the Reclamation Plan requirement was imposed, so homeowners are being forced to sit and wait.
F9b:
The Planning Director has apparently told the homeowners that the Planning Commission would hold three separate hearings on noise mitigation, zoning and the Use Permit after the Reclamation Plan was finished, which would cost the homeowners $280.00 per hear- ing.
F10:
Contamination The Thunder Rock Mine sells shale that contains asbes- tos, a known carcinogen. When Trinity County buys this shale and spreads it on roads and parking areas, the County is contributing to the poor health of its citizens. Between 1982 and 1996, 20,050 cubic yards of this shale was purchased by Trinity County. Fifteen streets and areas are listed where this shale was used.
Additional Recommendations
9
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Planning Department staff should be directed by the Board of Supervisors to monitor mining operations on an on-going basis to ensure they have been, and con- tinue to be, in compliance with the proper permits.
R2:
The Planning Director should track limited term Use Permits in a manner, which reflects the intent of the permitting process. The Building Department should “fi- nal” each stage of construction and complete the pro- cess in a timely manner in order to ensure code compli- ance. (Permit’s should also be tracked to ensure appro- priate tax revenue is received by the county.)
R3:
The County Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors need to be more diligent in monitoring and managing compliance with the complete permitting pro- cess.
R4:
It would be desirable if the Director of the Road De- partment could provide documentation that the Depart- ment indeed used the mine each and every year be- tween 1982 and 1995. If this documentation cannot be supplied, the Planning Commission should be notified that their December 1995 decision was based on inac- curate information and that this should be taken into consideration during future deliberations involving the shale mine. Additionally we recommend that the 1000-2000 Grand Jury review this matter and taken appropriate action.
R5:
In this case, since no contract was signed, the docu- ments were never provided and in the name of good will, we recommend the $210.00 charge be dropped.
R6:
There should be a county process that ensures commu- nication of important health and safety information be- tween departments with a need to know, including those responsible for enforcing use permit conditions.
R7:
When an area is zoned Rural Residential this zoning should be upheld unless well publicized public hearings are held to make a change. Also, legitimate petitions signed by a large number of involved citizens, to protect their rights, should be taken seriously by county staff and commissions.
R8:
When a complaint is received by the Planning Depart- ment regarding noncompliance with conditions of a per- mit, there should be a process in place for acting on that complaint and informing the complainant of the results of that action. In the case of health and safety these complaints should have the highest priority.
R10:
Areas where this shale was used should be tested for asbestos. If asbestos is found in excess of state stan- dards (California Health and Safety Code District Regu- lation 3 -Section 6 Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Asbestos-Containing Serpentine Rock) in these surfaces, the areas should be properly capped. SUMMARY: The citizens of Trinity County depend upon their county officials to protect their health, safety, and welfare. When local agencies compromise, or appear to compromise, this process they jeopardize the citizens that they are employed to protect. Citizen complaints about violations of use permits should be responded to in a professional manner and, regardless of result, explanations of ac- tions or non-actions should be provided to the com- plainants. In addition, county departments should only purchase goods and services from businesses that com- ply with federal, state and county permits. 30-DAY RESPONSE REQUESTED FROM: Road Department, Planning Commission and Department, Chief Administrative Officer and Board of Supervisors. Response of the Trinity County Road Department RE: 1998-99 TRINITY COUNTY GRANT JURY FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE FINAL REPORT –THUNDER ROCK SHALE MINE
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
The county is in the process of establishing a purchas- ing department that would handle most purchases of equipment and supplies for the various county depart- ments.
F2:
Almost all county departments are on a intra-govern- mental network and work is continuing to connect the others. In addition, efforts are being made to establish a county Internet connection that would allow the public to access certain public records by PC.
F3:
The to-be-established purchasing department can serve as the Office of Technology if persons with the appro- priate background and training staff the department. While funds were allocated this year to perform the net- working and other tasks related to the computer envi- ronment, no technology fund was established for future replacement of PCs and software.
Additional Recommendations
3
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
County decision-makers should be commended for start- ing this purchasing consolidation process and hopefully it will become a reality soon.
R2:
Commendations to county staff and hopefully the tasks will be completed soon.
R3:
This year’s budget process was, according to all ac- counts, an easier and more cooperative one than in past years. Thus the allocation of funds to the necessary computer networking of intra-government departments is laudable. A concern remains when a lean budget and the need to make large expenditures for software and equipment occur simultaneously. The 1998-99 Grand Jury concurs with the previous Grand Jury in believing the establishment of a technol- ogy replacement contingency fund would be a judicious act on the part or the Board of Supervisors. CONCLUSION: Great progress has been made to bring the county gov- ernment up to date in the computer world but our con- cern for future technology acquisition remains. 30-DAY RESPONSES REQUESTED FROM: Board of Supervisors and County Data Processing Personnel. Response of County Data Processing Personnel In the 1997-98 Grand Jury Report Trinity County Data Processing, three finding and recommendations are dis- cussed. The following is a response and status report of those findings and recommendations.
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
Instructions to the observation panel, as to their respon- sibilities as observers of the election process, were inad- equate. No advance instructions or directions were pro- vided. A quick summary of duties was provided at the doorway of the room where the counting process be- gan. However, questions asked were promptly and com- pletely answered or investigated by elections workers.
F2:
The Grand Jury also noted that during the counting of ballots some members of the various observation groups did not stay until the counting process was completed.
F3:
As recommended by the 1997-98 Grand Jury, the Elec- tion Office has added additional security for the han- dling of absentee ballots. For example, two designated members of the election Office now pick up absentee ballots at the Post Office. As added security, the mail bag containing the ballots is padlocked before leaving the Post Office.
Additional Recommendations
3
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Election Office should prepare a publication which states what is expected of election observers. This pub- lication should be made available to observers in ad- vance. This would help in reducing the number of ques- tions during the actual observation of the election pro- cess.
R2:
If observers are required to observe the process until formally released by the Election Office, this fact should be emphasized. Perhaps all observers should be required to sign an “Observers Registration” list before being re- leased.
R3:
The Election Office is commended for strengthening the security measures for collecting and handling absen- tee ballots. CONCLUSION: The Grand Jury commends the election Office for the efficient manner in which the ballot counting process was handled. Ballots from outlying precincts were de- livered to the Court House in a timely manner. The results of the election were available to interested par- ties early in the evening. DAY RESPONSE REQUESTED FROM: County Clerk (Election Office) Response of the County Clerk Trinity County Board of Supervisors May 24, 1999 Re: Response to General Election Final Report dated May 3, 1999
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
2 findings
F1:
Position Announcements The perception is that Trinity County makes little effort to announce certain employment opportunities through- out the county, with the result that in those with ties to the power structure obtain positions that others may have been qualified to perform if they had known of the openings.
F2:
Perceived Impropriety It is the perception created by the two instances above that County government should be concerned about. It is perceived that these jobs were created or advertised specifically with the in- tention of hiring two particular individuals.
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The County should make a good faith effort to ensure that county residents are aware of all employment op- portunities, whether permanent, part-time or consult- ing, by announcing open positions county-wide using all available media and outlets, including post offices, gen- eral stores, clubs and other known community gather- ing places. There are few county jobs that are so urgent that a hardship would be created by taking a week or two to ensure that qualified Trinity County residents know about the position and have an opportunity to submit an application.
R2:
All job descriptions must be written in such a manner that every knowledge and skill requirement can be di- rectly and convincingly related to performing the spe- cific job being advertised, and not designed to ensure the employment of a desired person. Because the 98-99 Grand Jury does not have adequate time to investigate county hiring processes in-depth, it is recommended that the 99-00 Grand Jury undertake a thorough investigation of the process. CONCLUSION: By following Grand Jury recommendations Trinity County can avoid the appearance of nepotism and other improper hiring practices. DAY RESPONSE REQUESTED FROM: County Chief Administrative Officer, County Personnel Officer and Board of Supervisors. Response of the County Administrative Officer June 28, 1999 To: John K. Letton, Superior Court Judge From: Jeannie Nix-Temple, County Administrative Officer Re: Response to 1998/99 Trinity County Grand Jury Finance and Administration Committee Final Report-Trinity County Hiring Practices My response to the findings and recommendations of the Grand Jury’s Report is as follows: Recommendation # 1: I am not sure exactly which County positions have been identified as potentially having the appearance of im- propriety. There are actually several ways of recruiting that may seem improper to the outside viewer. They are however perfectly legal. One of these is the “in depart- ment” promotional exam and another is the “in county” recruitment. Either one of these situations affords cur- rent employees an opportunity that the general public does not have. Either of these situations does provide for a competitive process. These positions are usually set up this way because the required experience could most likely be attained working for Trinity County gov- ernment and being familiar with the department and the system. Recommendation # 2: Trinity County has upwards of 470 employees at any one time. We recruit for and hire on average 140 em- ployees in a year. I regret that anyone would think that we employ any kind of biased recruiting practices. How- ever, I am relieved that there are only two examples of perceived impropriety. I will welcome the 99/2000 Grand Jury’s investigation into our department. I feel confi- dent that a full investigation will assuage any suspicions of unfair practices. I have enclosed a copy of our General Hiring Practices for your review. The only exceptions to this rule would be the above. Thank you for the opportunity to provide a response. Enclosure TRINITY COUNTY - HIRING PRACTICES Trinity County advertises all of its position openings in the local newspaper, the Trinity Journal, for two weeks. Copies of job flyers are given to all departments to post and also sent to various agencies including TOT and EDD. EDD places all flyers on the internet. Depending on the position, it may be listed in other publications as well. ELIGIBILITY REGISTERS - Various positions that have frequent openings are offered as eligibility list openings. This means that if you see an eligibility list advertised in the Trinity Journal for which you are qualified, you should file an application at that time. The County will then follow appropriate procedures to compile the eligibility register. Normally, the register is good for one year. - EXTRA-HELP - This term means a position is tempo- rary. It can be a part-time or full-time schedule. APPLICATION DEADLINE - Check the flyer or news- paper listing for the deadline, the last date applications will be accepted for a position. In some cases an appli- cation that is mailed on the deadline date and postmarked on that date will be accepted, but you should check with the Personnel Office if you are unable to meet the appli- cation deadline. JOB INTEREST CARD - If there are no current open- ings in the job you are interested in applying for, you may submit a job interest card. In this event we will notify you if there is recruitment conducted in your area of interest. Please consult the directory of county posi- tions for the correct position title. INTEREVIEW EXPENSES - Candidates invited for an interview must provide their own lodging, food and transportation. If you are selected for County employment you must first pass a medical examination and a drug and alcohol screening. This is a regular part of the selection process and is paid for by the County. If you have any questions regarding any of the above, they should be directed to: Trinity County Administration & Personnel P.O. Box 1613 Weaverville, CA 96093-1613 (530) 623-1325 Trinity County is an equal opportunity/affirmative action employer. Response of the Board of Supervisors July 15, 1999 Jerry Boosinger Trinity County Grand Jury P.O. Box 1258 Weaverville, CA 96093 RE: -99 Finance and Administration Committee Final Report Trinity County Hiring Practices Dear Foreperson: The Trinity County Board of Supervisors acknowledges receipt of the above-referenced report and thanks the Grand Jury for its work. The Board’s response is as follows: Recommendation # 1: The County should make a good faith effort to ensure that County residents are aware of all employment op- portunities, whether permanent, part-time or consult- ing, by announcing open positions county-wide using all available media and outlets, including post offices, gen- eral stores, clubs and other known community gather- ing places. The Board of Supervisors agree with the comments of the County Administrative Officer. Be assured, that the Board considers it to be extremely important that the best person for each job is the one hired. Government isn’t composed of buildings and roads, but is composed of people. It is the Board’s goal that the best qualified applicant be selected for each job. Department heads are evaluated on many things, including their ability to attract and maintain quality employees who have an at- titude of service to the public. Recommendation # 2: All job descriptions must be written in such a manner that every knowledge and skill requirement can be di- rectly and convincingly related to performing the spe- cific job being advertised and not designed to ensure the employment of a desired person. The Board of Supervisors agree. We are proud of our employees and recognize that if County standards are going to continue to improve, we must be diligent in seeking the best qualified applicant for each position. The Board of Supervisors acknowledges the fine work of the Grand Jury and appreciates that many positive outcomes are encouraged by the Jury’s attention to County procedures. We thank you for your collective efforts. Sincerely, TRINITY COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Robert Reiss, Chairman _________________________________________________________________________________________________
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
911 System The Sheriff dispatch room at the front of the jail wing is the hub of the 911 alert network for the county. The absence of uniform county wide addressing has ham- pered prompt and accurate response to emergency calls for law enforcement, fire and medical assistance. The current county wide addressing project using the Global Positioning system (GPS) will resolve many ex- isting problems. The project is very nearly ready for implementation.
F2:
Staffing Because one position continues unfunded, operations during the graveyard shift sometimes violate Sheriff’s Department policy and risk compromising officer safe- guards. Two officers are on duty but one handles 911/ dispatch: if a situation arises within the cell area, the second officer may have to respond alone.
F3:
Use and Space Some spaces inside the jail are not used in ways they were designed for: a rear oversight station (described by the Sheriff as “redundant”) is used for storage, an exer- cise yard is unused and a dining room is not used for dining (though it is used for other activities) At the same time booking, oversight and the 911/dis- patch communications center are all clotted together in the confined front space of the jail wing, raising stress levels for all personnel.
F4:
In-House Operations The jail continues to efficiently handle food service, laun- dry and health care in-house. The whole facility is at- tractively clean, neat and squared away. Moreover, the Sheriff’s Department has been innova- tive in generating income from the jail facility by such means as inmate crews working for Cal Trans and County Buildings and Grounds, reimbursement from the state for costs of housing state parolees, and reimburse- ment of jail costs by inmates who can afford it.
Additional Recommendations
4
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends that the addressing sys- tem be implemented as quickly as possible.
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Super- visors fund the fifteenth jail position before an incident occurs.
R3:
The 911/dispatch communications center has outgrown its space at the front of the jail wing and needs to move. Then jail booking and oversight can expand into the space.
R4:
See Conclusion. CONCLUSION: The jail staff should be commended for maintaining pro- fessional standards in the Trinity County Detention Fa- cility against considerable odds. These people deserve support and relief from a task that stresses them all to the limits of human endurance. DAY RESPONSE REQUESTED FROM: Trinity County Sheriff, Board Of Supervisors. Response from the Trinity County Sheriff April 6, 1999 To: The Trinity County Grand Jury From: Sheriff Paul Schmidt Re: Grand Jury report Sheriff’s Detention Facility I would first like to thank the members of the Judicial Committee for their hard work and dedication. Consid- erable time and effort went into their review of the op- erations at the Detention Facility and preparation of this report. RECOMMENDATION NUMBER 1 : The Grand Jury recommends that the addressing sys- tem be implemented as quickly as possible. RESPONSE: I concur. Addressing will be integrated into our system as quickly as possible, when completed. RECOMMENDATION NUMBER 2 : The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Super- visors fund the fifteenth jail position before an incident occurs. RESPONSE: I concur. Over the last two (2) years, we have been able to fund two (2) of the three (3) positions that were cut by the Board, three (3) years ago, with innovative jail programs such as Sheriffs Work Alternative Programs, Cal Trans; and housing state parolees. We are also charg- ing inmates for a portion of the cost of their incarcera- tion. I would hope that next year the Board could see it’s way clear to fund the last of the three (3) positions, that had been cut. RECOMMENDATION NUMBER 3: The 911/dispatch communications center has outgrown its space at the front of the jail wing and needs to move. Then jail and booking can expand into the space. RESPONSE: I concur. I had planned to move the 911 center and dispatch into the redundant jail dispatch facility. How- ever, we are in the process of researching the separation of correctional duties and dispatch and moving the dis- patch center to a different location. If the plan is not feasible we will again look into the inhouse move. Concerning jail spaces not being used for the purpose which they are designed for. The excercise yard not being used. The area in question was never intended to be used as an exercise area. It was designed for pickup and deliv- ery of items to the kitchen and is used by inmates on trustee status working in the kitchen, for their break area. The dining area is primarily used for meetings and train- ing. We have found delivery of meals to individual cell blocks to be a more secure method of serving inmates and does not require feeding in shifts and movement of large groups of inmates. If the jail dining area were to be used for maximum security or non sentenced inmates, the doors would need to be locked and a sprinkler sys- tem installed. At this time, the doors have crash bars for emergency exits in case of fire. CONCLUSION: I would like to thank the Grand Jury for their in-depth report and recognition of the challenges faced by our employees and commend our staff for the tremendous job that they do. Response of the Board of Supervisors May 4, 1999 Jerry Boosinger Trinity County Grand Jury P.O. Box 1258 Weaverville, CA 96093 RE: Jury Judicial Committee Final Report Trinity County Sheriff’s Detention Facility Dear Foreperson: The Trinity County Board of Supervisors acknowledges receipt of the above referenced report and finds the fol- lowing:
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
It appears that good faith efforts were made to commu- nicate the project need, costs, sources, etc., to the im- pacted property owners through special and regular meet- ings of the Water District Board and written communi- cations from the Water District Executive Director to impacted owners.
F2:
The Water District contracted with the Trinity County Planning Department to perform a review of potential environmental impacts. Planning Department staff de- termined that there would not be any significant disrup- tion to the environment and a Negative Declaration was filed. It appears the Negative Declaration was appropri- ate.
F3:
There was a difference in the number of Effective Dwell- ing Units (EDU’s) projected in the Feasibility Study and the actual number of ballots cast. This was due to the necessity to negotiate with school districts and others on the number of EDU’s assigned to them. The negotia- tions are a requirement, not an option. According to Water District officials, this will not change the assess- ment amount contained in the Feasibility Study. It will remain at $13.52 per EDU. However, due to limited grant money to assist lower income owners, some will have to bear the cost of fill- ing their septic tanks and the cost of pumping sewage to the sewer connection. The Water District has discussed this with several local-lending institutions who, accord- ing to the Water District, will be willing to loan the needed funds without requiring collateral.
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R3:
The Grand Jury would hope that the Water District make every effort to keep the assessment at the projected level as a means of keeping faith with those who cast supportive ballots for the project based on that assess- ment. The Grand Jury would recommend that the Water Dis- trict attempt to obtain additional grant money targeted to lower income persons, such as additional CDBG funds, to assist in septic tank and pumping issues. CONCLUSION: Officials have a serious obligation to provide citizens with as much information as needed to make informed decisions about projects the size of the Hayfork sewer system. It appears that Water District Officials and oth- ers took many steps to ensure that affected property owners knew what was taking place. This effort seems sufficient in our opinion although there may still be some citizens dissatisfied. 30-DAY RESPONSE REQUESTED: None Response of the Board of Supervisors May 4, 1999 Jerry Boosinger Trinity County Grand Jury P.O. Box 1258 Weaverville, CA 96093 RE: Finance and Administration Committee Complaint on Hayfork Sewer Project - Trinity County Waterworks District #1 Dear Foreperson: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Grand Jury Finance and Administration Committee’s report on the Hayfork Sewer Project complaint. The Board of Supervisors agrees with the findings and recommendations of the report. The Board agrees that the economic development in Trinity County will be enhanced by infrastructure im- provements and that those improvements should be made with ample involvement of the public. The Board of Supervisors thanks the Grand Jury for its time and efforts in preparing this report. Sincerely, TRINITY COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Robert Reiss, Chairman
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
Search for Replacement Parts Power outages in June burnt out a receiver, so neither the arraignment nor the court security system were work- ing. The company that originally supplied the system was no longer in business, so a search for replacement parts was conducted. A source was located and replacement cost was quoted as in the neighborhood of $4000. Insurance coverage is $500 deductible. Trial Court and Sheriff agreed to pay $250 each. Claims forms are being submitted to the insurers. Judge and Sheriff are consulting on paying the full price if insurance does not cover.
F2:
Surge Protection. Electronic components get “fried” in power outages or surges because they are unprotected. Surge protectors cheaply and effectively prevent such problems. It is rea- sonable to suppose that a surge protector could have prevented this problem.
F3:
System Obsolescence. If the system is repaired this time, the next time it goes down it will likely be unrepairable. There is no way to predict how soon this will happen, but it inevitably will. As suggested in Recommendation #1, upgrade will be- come necessary. The cost of an all-new, full-function system is estimated to be $25,000, and it is in the inter- ests of both Court and County to negotiate that up- grade.
Additional Recommendations
3
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Video Arraignment System should be repaired as soon as possible. If insurance does not cover, interested parties should include in their discussions a cost-benefit analysis of upgrading to a new system.
R2:
Install protection with new components.
R3:
Now that the video arraignment system has proven its value, Court and County should commence early plan- ning towards expeditious replacement of the system when next it fails. CONCLUSION: Judges, Marshal, Sheriff’s staff, Public Defenders and District Attorney’s staffs are to be commended again for integrating a novel element into their procedures. What is next in importance is that the system be kept operational. 30-DAY RESPONSES REQUESTED FROM: Supe- rior Court Judges, the Marshal, the Chief of General Services, the County Auditor, the Deputy in Charge of the Jail. Response of Deputy in Charge of the Jail To: The Trinity County Grand Jury From: Sgt. Bob Angulo Re: Grand Jury report Video Arraigment I would like to thank the Grand Jury for their time and effort in putting this report together. RECOMMENDATION NUMBER 1: The video arraignment system should be repaired as soon as possible. If insurance does not cover, interested parties should include in their discussions a cost-benefit anaylsis of upgrading new system. RESPONSE: The video arraignment system has been repaired and is now in service. RECOMMENDATION NUMBER 2: Install electrical protection with new video arraignment components. RESPONSE: A surge protecter has been installed at the jail facility. RECOMMENDATION NUMBER 3: Now that the video arraignment system has proven its value, Court and County should commence early plan- ning towards expeditious replacement of the system when next it fails. RESPONSE: This will be initiated in future budget packages to the board for their consideration. CONCLUSION: I would like to thank the Grand Jury for their in-depth report and recognition of the challenges faced by our employees and commend the staff for the tremendous job that they do. Response of the Superior Court Judge To: Trinity County Board of Supervisors 1998-99 Trinity County Grand Jury From: John K. Letton, Judge of the Superior Court Date: April 5, 1999 Re: 1998-99 Grand Jury Judicial Committee Final Report Video Arraignment System I agree with the Judicial Committee Final Re- port on the video arraignment system. I propose that future maintenance/replacement costs of the video arraignment/security camera system be born 50% by the county and 50% by the courts. Response of the Trinity County Auditor To: Trinity County Board of Supervisors From: Brian Muir, Auditor – Controller Date: September 22, 1999 Subject: 1998/99 Grand Jury Judicial Commit tee Final Report- Video Arraignment System
* This report's PDF did not contain easily extractable text and required Optical Character Recognition (OCR) for analysis. There may be minor errors in the extracted findings and recommendations due to OCR limitations with scanned documents.