Trinity County 2000-2001 - California Grand Jury Reports

June 12, 2001 — Committee Roster Judicial Committee Education Committee Jacqueline Rogers Dwight Glass

220 páginas 1 hallazgos 18 recomendaciones

Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 1 hallazgos

F1: TheReport ofStation Information for the Hayfork Transfer Station and Title 14 ofthe California Code ofRegulations, plus the SolidWaste Operation Permit require the following: Title 14 - Article 6.2 Section 17409.5 requires load checking uponentering the facility. Title 14 -Article 6.35 Section 17418.1 Site Security, statesthatthe County must discourage access to the site after operational hours. Title 14 -Article 6.35 Section 17418.2 Site Security, statesthatthe facility shall have an attendant present during operational hours.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

R1: Citizen Complaint. "Rules and regulations asstatedin finding numberone shouldbe adhered to eliminating preferential treatment." Response: We agree in part. The part we agree to is that the Grand Jury has correctly stated the regulations regarding the operation of the facility. The Grand Jury's narrow interpretation of the rules does not account for contracted services and the right of entry for the services.

Recomendaciones adicionales 17

No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.

R2: Citizen Complaint. "Allow all septic service businesses equal access to transfer sites in order to provide equal business opportunity." Response: We disagree wholly with the recommendation; it will not be implemented because it is not warranted noradhere to the California Code of Regulation sections quoted above. Plus the committee misleads the reader. They clearly state the applicable codes, however the issue of access is misstated. The disposal site is open six days aweek, for 9 hours each day. The complainant has access during those hours. The current key holder provides and has provided contracted service to that site for many years. The code allows for contracted service providers access after hours. For the past seven years the keyholder's septage disposal logs and their customer logs for the amount septage removed have matched, and payments for disposal have been made on time. With the complainant, this is not the case. His disposal logs and his customer logs do not match. This matter has been turned over to the Environmental Health Department who has jurisdiction. The committee's conclusion is also flawed; there is no equal opportunity question here and no preferential treatment. If a health and safety emergency existed, County would accommodate disposal. The fact that the complainant says there is one does not constitute any health and safety risk or equal opportunity issue. He, like the key holder, should at all times schedule his disposal needs around the site hours of operation. We request that this response be published. (cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9) rr~-I`;i -I-f ,T TT r~ I': ~T ire /fj11 OFFICE OF THE COUNTYADMINISTRATOR Administration - HumanResources-Risk Management GrantManagement -Information &Technology P. O. Box1613 Weaverville, CA 96093-1613 County AdministratorPhone: (530)623-1382 Human ResourcesPhone(530) 623-1325 FAX(530) 623-4222 JEANNIENIX-TEMPLE, County Administrative Officer TO: The Honorable John K. Letton, RECEIVED Presiding Judge ofthe Superior Court FROM: eannie Nix-TempCounty Administrative Officer SUPrERIOR COURT JUDGE'S CHAMBERS SUBJEC Response to Recommendations of2000-01 GrandJury Development and Environment Committee Final Report Citizen Complaint - Department ofGeneral Services DATE: September 14, 2001 The Grand Jury Development and Environment Committee has requested a written response to their final report on the Citizen Complaint concerning the Hayfork Transfer Station. In my capacity as County Administrative Officer my response is a follows:

R3: "General Services shoulddetermine what steps are necessary to acquire a minimum oftwo orthree bids. This might include advertising in additional locations outside ofTrinity County. Hopefully actions such as notification ofthe Shasta Builders Exchange and additional advertising will achieve the need foradditional bids." Response: We disagree. There is no requirement to get a minimum of two or three bids. General Services has made every effort to extend our search for bidders; we use the Shasta -153- Builders Exchange, advertise in the Trinity Journal and in the Record Searchlight when the project warrants it. The recommendation to require 2 or 3 bids before accepting a proposal is not consistentwith current contracting requirements and will not be implemented. The size of a project, its' complexity, location, markets, and the availability of contractors determines how many bids will be received. Because only one bid was received is an indication of the market.

R4: "This GrandJurybelieves it is unacceptable forthe BOS to have to declare an "emergency"on a somewhat routine project because of expected winter rains. In this case, better coordination between the Hospital and General Services could have averted this "emergency". Since bids were neverreceived itis impossible to determine ifthe cost exceeded what could have incurred by competitive bidding. The County shouldimprove the planning and foresight regarding public improvement projects to avoid routine projects becoming "emergency"situations." Response: We disagree with the finding; the recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or reasonable. The Grand Jury's belief that this project was routine is inaccurate when one considers that it also includes the design and construction of the new clinic building at the hospital. Weather is a major factor; it can delay a project and drive up costs. The statement that "Since bids were never received it is impossible to determine if the cost exceeded what could have incurred by competitive bidding" is inaccurate. The cost could be determined, Hoy & Son Construction were doing similar work on the Juvenile Detention Facility, and the cost estimates done by Lawrence and Associates were in line with costs associated with this competitively bid project. The break down by bidders are: J.F. Shea $638,213, Herk's Backhoe $627,523, and Hoy & Son $534,490. When one takes the cost for each task described in the Juvenile Detention Facility bid and compares them with the parking lot tasks, it can be determined whether or not the costs are competitive. I would suggestthat the Grand Jury check the

R5: "Planning for future use ofthe existing Weaverville Airport site (after a new airport is constructed) was called for by the 1999-2000 GrandJury. Based on the lack ofany visible progress this GrandJurystrongly recommends that the BoardofSupervisors intensify thiseffort and include more specific due dates for apreliminary report." Response: We disagree with the finding. The General Services Director was neverasked questions about ourstrategic plans forthe airport property, however staff provided the committee with the binder that contains all the minutes and background information of the Strategic Planning Committee. Had the committee asked specific questions, they would have better understood the information provided on the airport relocation, hospital relocation and construction planning, discussion forthe site ofthe newjuvenile hall facility, property purchasesfrom the BLM of lands surrounding the old airport, solid waste transfer facility, office/maintenance building and the newly remodeled alcohol and -173- (cid:9)(cid:9) other drug services facility. The Strategic Planning Committee meets monthly and is comprised of department heads and supervisors, who review and discuss all the plans prior to implementation.

R6: "The GrandJury believes that the portion ofthe Solid Waste expenditures for the sewer line should not exceed the costs had the sewerlinebeen extended from the Five-Cent gulch trailer Park with the minimum sized line. Those expenses in excess ofthat cost should be borne by the County GeneralFund or otherappropriate users. In other words all other costs for upsized lines, easements, etc., would be from funds other than Solid Waste." Response: We disagree with the committee's findings. Once again, this was addressed in my response to the committee's draft report. Repayment over time will come from users hooking up to the line, in the form of a line charge through the Sanitary District hookup fees. All capital investment takes time to be repaid. Why the committee has such a narrow view on this issue leaves me to wonder what their real motives are.

R7: "This GrandJury believes that the BOS and CountyAdministrative Officer(CAO) need to takesteps to guarantee that County employees follow the State and County laws regarding contracting andcontractingauthority. Creating a County contracting office should be considered in theinterest ofimproving theadministration ofcounty contracts and complying with California State contracting laws. Summary: 1. The Grand Jury has found that Public Projectcontracts have been awarded without competitive bids requiredby California law. 2. The Grand Jury hadfoundthat Trinity County has used Solid Waste funds derivedfrom Solid Waste disposal Fees and Tipping Fees forpurposes other than Solid Waste. The Solid Waste Fund needs to be reimbursed forthe improper use ofthose fees." Response: We disagree with the recommendations and the summarization. The creation of another department to deal will contracts is not necessary and will add to the overhead costs for projects. Contracting guidelines and tracking protocol were set in place by the CAO, and reiterated in a memo dated 7/31/00. The committee's recommendations have been in place since then, and to suggest otherwise is misleading. As we have stated elsewhere, protocols are in place to reimburse the County's capital investment. Summary: The grandjury's summation is narrow in focus and prejudicial. It does not take into account the circumstances surrounding the implementation of work for these projects or the value gained. The uses of Solid Waste funds have not been misdirected and capital investment assurances have been made through other funding mechanisms. We request that this response be published. (cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9) rif rim 0 31TT,16111,117 `t'I w OFFICE OF THE COUNTYADMINISTRATOR Administration -Human Resources-Risk Management GrantManagement-Information & Technology P. O. Box 1613 Weaverville, CA 96093-1613 County AdministratorPhone: (530) 623-1382 HumanResourcesPhone (530) 623-1325 FAX (530) 623-4222 JEANNIENIX-TEMPLE, CountyAdministrative Officer RECEIVED TO: The Honorable John K. Letton, v:.IPERIOR COURT residing Judge ofthe Superior Court j L)G'S CHAMBERS FROM: Jeannie Nix-Temple, County Administrative Officer SUBJEC Response to Recommendations of2000-01 Grand Jury Special Investigation Committee-Landfill Closure/Sewer Line Construction DATE: September 14, 2001 The Grand Jury Special Investigation Committee has requested a written response to their final report on the Landfill Closure/Sewer Line Construction. In my capacity as County Administrative Officer, my response is a follows:

R8: The Grand Jury commends the Auditor/Controller for improving the cashiering procedures but recommends that the new procedure, ifnot yet adopted, be required ofall the county departments that receive cash payments, effective immediately. SUMMARY: The Grand Jury recommends thatthe accounting records ofthe county be improved to obtain future Independent Auditor's Reportsthat donot contain qualifications. The GrandJury recommends that action be takentoobtain Independent Auditor Reports on a moretimely basis. The GrandJury recommends that immediate attention be given tothe completeness and accuracy ofthe financial statements for the Enterprise Fund accounts. TheGrandJury recommends thatthe estimated landfill closure and post- closure maintenance costsbe reviewed. The GrandJury commends the Auditor/Controller and the Auditor/Controller Departmentfor improvements inthe recording and classification offunds. The GrandJury commends the Auditor/Controller for his efforts to reduce the interest costs ofequipment leases. RESPONSE REQUESTED FROM: Trinity County Board ofSupervisors, Trinity County Administrative Officer, Trinity County Auditor/Controller. (cid:9) (cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9) IV( Wwli3 X A lkaiokloil)xzl_7 Lar X BRIAN E. MUIR, COUNTY AUDITOR-CONTROLLER P.O. BOX 1230, WEAVERVILLE, CALIFORNIA 96093-1230 PHONE(530)623-1317 FAX(530) 623-1323

R9: TheGrandJury recommends thatthe BOS eliminate longevity based increases for elected officials inTrinity County. TheGrandJury recommends thatsalaries ofelected officials be based solely onthe duties and responsibilitiesofthe office. When determining salaries, due consideration should be given tothe salaries ofthe elected and appointed officials inTrinity County, the salaries ofofficials in the sameoffice in similar counties, and prevailing local wages. This recommendation should not be construed as a recommendation for a salary decrease for any elected Trinity County official thatmay have received a longevity based salary increase.

R10: TheGrand Jury enthusiastically endorses the Job Classification and Compensation Study as a means ofcorrecting any compensation inequities that may be identified.

R11: The Grand Jury believes that a spirit ofcooperation between various offices within the County government is in the best interest ofthe citizens ofthiscounty. To this end it is recommended thatall Department Heads actively pursue respectful and cooperative relationships with other departments and departmentheads. It is understood thatmany personalities are involved, however, relationships should beconducted professionally. The citizens ofthe County should expect no less. TheGrand Jury further recommendsthat individual members ofthe BOS that are concerned aboutthe performance ofany department or departmenthead personallyvisit thatdepartmentfor a first hand review. SUMMARY: D The citizens ofTrinity County have been and are being well served bythe Treasurer/Tax Collector Dept. D The Treasurer/Tax CollectorDepartment operations werehampered byhigh rateofemployee turnover, but essential services were not adversely affected. D TheTreasurer/Tax Collector Department employee morale is good and the workforce appears to have stabilized. D The Treasurer/Tax Collector has anongoing interest in improving efficiency and integrity oftreasury and tax collection operations. Numerous improvements have been made and others are underconsideration bythe Treasurer/Tax Collector and other related departments. D The Treasurer/Tax Collector is severely underpaid and the GrandJury recommends immediate increases. -69- D The Grand Jury recommends abandonment of longevity based salary increases for elected officials and thatitbe replaced with a reasonableprocess to keep the salary ofelected officials in paritywith similar positions. RESPONSE REQUESTED FROM: Trinity County Board ofSupervisors, Trinity County Administrative Officer, Trinity CountyAuditor/Controller, Trinity County Treasurer/Tax Collector, Trinity County Superintendent of Schools (cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9) n - [~\ TT rm rf T ~PfT" T BRIANE. MUIR, COUNTYAUDITOR-CONTROLLER P.O.BOX 1230,WEAVERVILLE, CALIFORNIA 96093-1230 PHONE(530)623-1317 FAX (530) 623-1323 RECEIVED JUN 1 8 2001 SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE'S MEMORANDUM CHAMBERS DATE: June 14, 2001 TO: John K. Letton, Presiding Judge ofthe Superior Court FROM: Brian Muir, Auditor /Controller SUBJECT: 2000-2001 Trinity County Grand Jury Report Trinity County Treasurer/ Tax Collector DepartmentandRelated County Operations The following response is provided as requested inthe above report:

R12: Does Hospital Management create an atmosphere which encourages and provides opportunity for GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT? Virtually Always 0 © 0 ® 33 0 0 Virtually Never (Thegrowth and (Employee growthand developmental needsof developmental needs all employees are areeitherignored or recognizedandacted acteduponina upontothegreatest haphazard orbiased extentpossible.) manner.) Comments: (cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9) (cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9) (cid:9) (cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9) AttachmentA

R13: Doesthe Hospital Management Team provide OBJECTIVE, FAIR, AND ACCURATE EVALUATIONS ofRank-and-File performance? Virtually Always 70 © 50 ® 30 22 Ol Virtually Never (Rank-and-File employee (Rank-and-File performance evaluations employeeperformance arealwaysthorough, evaluations areall too accurate andobjective.) oftenweak,biasedand unsubstantiated.) Comments:

R14: To what degree is the Hospital Management Team COMMITTED TO SERVING THE NEEDS OF PATIENTS? Maximally 0 © 0 ® 30 0 Minimally (Thepersonalactionsof (Thepersonal actionsof all members ofthe theManagementTeam ManagementTeam members reflect aclear reflect anunwavering absence ofaservice service orientation.) orientation.) Comments: (cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9) (cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9) Attachment A

R15: To what degree are Rank-and-File employees COMMITTED TO SERVING THE NEEDS OF PATIENTS? Maximally 0 © 0 ® 0 0 0 Minimally (Thepersonalactions of (Thepersonal actionsof all Rank-and-File manyRank-and-File employees reflect an employees reflect aclear unwaveringservice absence ofaservice orientation.) orientation.) Comments:

R16: What is the overall LEVEL OF TEAMWORK between the Hospital Management Team and the Rank-and-File employees? Very United © L] ® 0 n 10 Very Divided (TheManagementTeam (Few,ifany, ofthe and theRank-and-File ManagementTeam employees consistently members andtheRank- worktogethertosolve and-Fileemployees are mutual problems and committed toworking achieve commongoals togethertosolvemutual andobjectives.) problemsandmeet common goals.) Comments: (cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9) Attachment A

R17: What is the QUALITY OF LEADERSHIP displayed by the Hospital Management Team? Very Effective 70 © OS ® 30 2 10 Very Ineffective (The Management (The Management Team consistently Team frequently triesto assumes personal blame others for their responsibility for their actions, failsto consider actions, considers the the needsofthe needsofthe Hospital Hospital and their andtheir subordinates subordinates before beforetaking action, takingaction, and allto and provides positive, often, provides negative, fair and effective biased and ineffective leadership.) leadership.) Comments:

R18: Overall, I would ratethe HOSPITAL OPERATION as: Outstanding 0ENN©MBE©E©E0 Very Poor Comments: (cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9) COMBINED RESPONSES P1 Q2--F3 Q4 Q5 6 Q7 Q8 Q9 410 Q11 Q12 Q13 14 15 Q16 Q17 18 Management 1 4.91 5.415.331 4]3.441 3.9 3.1 3.2 4 4.6 4.5 3.8 4.2 6 6.413.89F-3757-4.5 Medical Staff 12.73 13.13 4.48 2.87 2.06 2.31 1.58 1.77 2.67 3.06 2.66 2.43 3.19 4.14 5.71 2.43 2.32 3.26 uupportStaff 1 2.513.061 4.5_L2.3911.72 2....12858221118111 2 2.29 1.94 2.44 4.28 5.89 1.94 2.18 3 (cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9) COMBINED RESPONSE AVERAGES --~ '--~--~-T----~---~----~----~---~--.-.. --'- -- T . . . . . . . . . . .` . . __ __ .............. ;------ . . . . . . . . . __ __~ -- ------ ------ ------ --- -~ . . . . ~ -- - ' ' ~- ~ ----- / . ' ~ _ '~---~~-----------'W--' F-A !------ - . . . . . 1 ~ «» Management - + - Medical Staff * Support Staff (cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9) TRINITY HOSPI BOARD OF DIRECTORS AServiceofTrinityCounty RECEIVED July20,2001 HonorableJohn K.Letton, PresidingJudge JUL 2 5 2001 TrinityCounty Superior Court SUPERIOR COURT P.O.Box 1258 JUDGE'S CHAMBERS Weaverville, CA 96093 Re: 2000-2001 TrinityCounty GrandJury Report HealthCommittee-Hospital Survey DearJudgeLetton: The purposeofthis correspondence is to comply withCalifornia Penal Code Sections 933and933.050,that in pertinent part require written response to the findings and recommendations of the 2000-2001 Trinity CountyGrandJury Report. This response is on behalfoftheTrinityHospital BoardofDirectors. GENERALOVERVIEW: The Hospital Administrator, in a joint replywith the hospital board of directors, challenged the Grandjury