Trinity County 2000-2001 - California Grand Jury Reports

July 01, 2001 — Committee Roster Judicial Committee Education Committee Jacqueline Rogers Dwight Glass*

220 páginas 18 hallazgos 18 recomendaciones

Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 18 hallazgos

F1: The Report of Station Information for the Hayfork Transfer Station and Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, plus the Solid Waste Operation Permit require the following: ➤ Title 14 – Article 6.2 Section 17409.5 requires load checking upon entering the facility. ➤ Title 14 – Article 6.35 Section 17418.1 Site Security, states that the County must discourage access to the site after operational hours. ➤ Title 14 – Article 6.35 Section 17418.2 Site Security, states that the facility shall have an attendant present during operational hours.

F2: Citizen Complaint: A letter of August 18, 2001 signed by the Director of General Services states that the complainant's competitor has been given a key and "grand-fathered in", giving the competitor unlimited access. Response: We agree in part and disagree in part. Grand Jury takes a phrase from a letter, and misconstrues the meaning and content of that letter. The letter was written to the complainant, and quotes the regulations for site security and site permitting. The letter states that the key-holder was "grand-fathered in" to provide contracted services, which is the same service they supplied to our sites through Timberline Disposal.

F3: The SAT provides a means of comparison of students preparing for college. SAT scores are intended to supplement the secondary school records and help admissions officers put local data – such as course work, grades, and class rank – in a national perspective. SAT scores are the single most important indicator used in determining admission at most highly regarded universities. SAT tests are usually taken only by students considering attending a college or university; and a high SAT score is essentially a requirement at many universities. Average NPR's for the PSAT and SAT for the Trinity County high school students that took those tests in the year 2000 are summarized in Table 3. As shown in Table 3 the average NPR of Trinity County students that took the SAT test ranged from 47 at Hayfork High School to 58 at both Trinity High School and So. Trinity High School. The NPR's of 58 indicate that the average student score at Trinity High School and So. Trinity High School was above the 50th percentile nationwide. Looking at the SAT scores from the perspective of the high scores necessary for admission to colleges and universities which admit only a small percentage of applicants, nine Trinity County students had SAT NPR's between 80 and 89, and one student had a SAT NPR between 90 and 100.

F4: The results of the ASVAB, taken by students contemplating enlistment in the military, are summarized in Table 3. One-half or more of the students that took the test at each high school had scores higher than the national average. As could be expected there is noticeable correlation between scores on the ASVAB and the Stanford 9 test.

F5: National Percentile Rank (NPR) is a valuable indicator of student and school performance, but certain limitations need to be taken into consideration when drawing conclusions. First, the Stanford 9 test is not perfectly aligned with California state curriculum standards. Most school officials in Trinity County do not consider this to be a major problem and consider Stanford 9 to be a good, if imperfect, performance indicator. Second, average scores for small schools can be misleading because when few students take the test the absence or addition of one or more particularly high or low scoring students can significantly affect the average score of the school. Great care must therefore be taken in reaching conclusions based on average scores for a particular year in a very small school. Third, conclusions about schools should not be based on cursory examinations of scores and their relationships should not be reached without due consideration of the complexities of geographies, demographics, and economics. There is broad acceptance of the belief that socio-economic factors (such as local culture, family income, family stability and guidance, and exposure to drugs and alcohol) all affect student performance but are beyond the schools' control. Despite the above mentioned limitations, test results of nationally normed tests such as Stanford 9 are being used in Trinity County public schools and are enthusiastically endorsed by some school administrators and teachers. Expressions of support for the Stanford 9 tests were found at some of the schools with the lowest test scores because of the belief that test scores help identify weaknesses that can be corrected. The Grand Jury found significant variation in the interest of the school district trustees in the NPR results of the nationally normed tests. It is believed that this is at least partially attributable to the emphasis on API scores and the associated monetary awards. Similarly, parents of students are reportedly more aware and interested in API scores and the corresponding ranking of California schools than in NPR's; though parent interest in NPR is increasing as the parents become more aware of and familiar with the significance of using NPR to interpret test results.

F6: In general, the Grand Jury finds that smaller school and class size is an advantage, up to a point. In Trinity County the elementary schools in particular appear to benefit from smaller school and class size. A full complement of college preparatory classes are not generally offered by the smaller high schools, thereby placing an additional burden on individual students who plan to attend a college or university. In most areas, extra classes are offered through junior college or college extension programs. The problem of availability of college preparatory classes is recognized by the smaller Trinity County high schools, and effort is being exerted to mitigate the problem.

F7: One-on-one academic and career counseling takes place at least once each year with every student in all of the Trinity County high schools. Trinity High School has a full-time counselor; and, in Summer 2001, will extend counseling and academic preparation down to 7th and 8th grade students that are expected to attend Trinity High School. Hayfork High School and Southern Trinity High School, being smaller schools, do not have a full-time counselor, but have comprehensive counseling and student tracking programs. At Hayfork High School the counseling is performed by the school principal who meets with 8th grade students to discuss careers and academic pathways. One-on-one counseling begins in the 9th grade, with parent participation encouraged. Many parents of Hayfork High School students take advantage of this opportunity to participate. At Southern Trinity High School academic coordination and career counseling is performed on a part-time basis by a dedicated member of the teaching staff. College catalogs and news articles on best jobs and best colleges are used to inform and create student interest. The Southern Trinity High School web page contains a “Counselor’s Corner” which has a menu of information on colleges and careers. The web page is a good source of information for both students and parents.

F8: A new cashiering procedure requiring unique Auditor/Controller assigned receipt numbers for cash receipts has been adopted by the County. The new procedure provides improved accountability of cash received by the County, which became effective in the Treasurer/Tax Collector's office on April 2, 2001. The Grand Jury has not been able to confirm that the new procedure has been adopted by all the county government departments.

F9: We agree in part and disagree in part with the finding. Longevity based increases were developed through a salary survey and they are not uncommon, and are beneficial in several avenues.

F10: A contract has been awarded for a Trinity County Government Job Classification and Compensation Study. This study, which is scheduled for completion in April, 2002 will cover the complete range of county government jobs from elected officials, including the BOS, to entry level positions. During the Grand Jury's review and investigation of the Treasurer/Tax Collector's salary, the Grand Jury found indications of probable inequities in the salaries of other Trinity County Government Department Heads and the BOS. The Grand Jury did not conduct an investigation sufficient to justify a specific recommendation regarding those perceived inequities.

F11: We agree with the finding.

F12: Does Hospital Management create an atmosphere which encourages and provides opportunity for GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT? Virtually Always (The growth and developmental needs of all employees are recognized and acted upon to the greatest extent possible.) 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Virtually Never (Employee growth and developmental needs are either ignored or acted upon in a haphazard or biased manner.) Comments: Attachment A

F13: Does the Hospital Management Team provide OBJECTIVE, FAIR, AND ACCURATE EVALUATIONS of Rank-and-File performance? Virtually Always (Rank-and-File employee performance evaluations are always thorough, accurate and objective.) 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Virtually Never (Rank-and-File employee performance evaluations are all too often weak, biased and unsubstantiated.) Comments:

F14: To what degree is the Hospital Management Team COMMITTED TO SERVING THE NEEDS OF PATIENTS? Maximally (The personal actions of all members of the Management Team reflect an unwavering service orientation.) 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Minimally (The personal actions of the Management Team members reflect a clear absence of a service orientation.) Comments: Attachment A

F15: To what degree are Rank-and-File employees COMMITTED TO SERVING THE NEEDS OF PATIENTS? Maximally (The personal actions of all Rank-and-File employees reflect an unwavering service orientation.) 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Minimally (The personal actions of many Rank-and-File employees reflect a clear absence of a service orientation.) Comments:

F16: What is the overall LEVEL OF TEAMWORK between the Hospital Management Team and the Rank-and-File employees? Very United (The Management Team and the Rank-and-File employees consistently work together to solve mutual problems and achieve common goals and objectives.) 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Very Divided (Few, if any, of the Management Team members and the Rank-and-File employees are committed to working together to solve mutual problems and meet common goals.) Comments: Attachment A

F17: What is the QUALITY OF LEADERSHIP displayed by the Hospital Management Team? Very Effective (The Management Team consistently assumes personal responsibility for their actions, considers the needs of the Hospital and their subordinates before taking action, and provides positive, fair and effective leadership.) 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Very Ineffective (The Management Team frequently tries to blame others for their actions, fails to consider the needs of the Hospital and their subordinates before taking action, and all to often, provides negative, biased and ineffective leadership.) Comments:

F18: Overall, I would rate the HOSPITAL OPERATION as: Outstanding 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Very Poor Comments: COMBINED RESPONSES Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15 Q16 Q17 Q18 Management 4.9 5.4 5.33 4 3.44 3.9 3.1 3.2 4 4.6 4.5 3.8 4.2 6 6.4 3.89 3.5 4.5 Medical Staff 2.73 3.13 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 Support Staff 2.5 3.06 4.5 2.39 1.72 2.5 1.22 1.82 1.88 2 2.29 1.94 2.44 4.28 5.89 1.94 2.18 3 E G G C F I T C S R A G F P P T L O X O O A N R O P E S R A A A E E E V P A A N I P U M E S O I T T A A E E L L S R U S M C O I W R I I M D R C I T T U I G S E E W E A T C C S D N A N T & N N O R L S O O T I F I L I & V T T R S L M M E S R C T G D A K H & M M N C O A A I U E L C C I O I I C I M T S O I V U O O P P D T T Y P I S N D E A M M E I L R O I E L T M M R R M R I & N G I I I A E G & N F N T F O T T T C T F E O O N I T R S M R O S R G & N & R T F S F & F Attachment B -9TI- COMBINED RESPONSE AVERAGES : | . + lp Gen 2+. 1 of Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 QB Q9 QIN Q11 Q1i2 Q13 Q14 Q15 Q16 Q1i7 Q18 ® Management * Medical Staff * Support Staff ¢ A Service of Trinity County TRINITY HOSPITAL BOARD OF DIRECTORS July 20, 2001 Honorable John K. Letton, Presiding Judge Trinity County Superior Court P.O. Box 1258 Weaverville, CA 96093 RECEIVED JUL 25 2001 SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE'S CHAMBERS Re: 2000-2001 Trinity County Grand Jury Report Health Committee – Hospital Survey Dear Judge Letton: The purpose of this correspondence is to comply with California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05(f), that in pertinent part require written response to the findings and recommendations of the 2000-2001 Trinity County Grand Jury Report. This response is on behalf of the Trinity Hospital Board of Directors. GENERAL OVERVIEW: The Hospital Administrator, in a joint reply with the hospital board of directors, challenged the Grand Jury findings to the 1999-2000 Grand Jury final report on the basis that the findings lacked objectivity, and methods used to evaluate management failed to include a large enough or diverse enough sample group. The Grand Jury Health Committee obtained and modified a survey instrument designed to measure eighteen aspects or dimensions of the management process. FINDINGS: We neither agree nor disagree with the findings. The information presented in the survey results has almost no positive comments. To be completely objective the raw data should be presented.

Recomendaciones adicionales 18

No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.

R1: Citizen Complaint. "Rules and regulations as stated in finding number one should be 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.

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 nor adhere 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 a week, 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 key holder'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. TRINITY COUNTY OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Administration — Human Resources — Risk Management Grant Management — Information & Technology P. O. Box 1613 Weaverville, CA 96093-1613 County Administrator Phone: (530) 623-1382 Human Resources Phone (530) 623-1325 FAX (530) 623-4222 JEANNIE NIX-TEMPLE, County Administrative Officer TO: The Honorable John K. Letton, Presiding Judge of the Superior Court FROM: Jeannie Nix-Temple Jeannie Nix-Temple, County Administrative Officer SUBJECT: Response to Recommendations of 2000-01 Grand Jury Development and Environment Committee Final Report Citizen Complaint – Department of General Services DATE: September 14, 2001 RECEIVED SEP 18 2001 SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE'S CHAMBERS 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 should determine what steps are necessary to acquire a minimum of two or three bids. This might include advertising in additional locations outside of Trinity County. Hopefully actions such as notification of the Shasta Builders Exchange and additional advertising will achieve the need for additional 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 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 consistent with 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 Grand Jury believes it is unacceptable for the 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 never received it is impossible to determine if the cost exceeded what could have incurred by competitive bidding. The County should improve 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 suggest that the Grand Jury check the

R5: "Planning for future use of the existing Weaverville Airport site (after a new airport is constructed) was called for by the 1999-2000 Grand Jury. Based on the lack of any visible progress this Grand Jury strongly recommends that the Board of Supervisors intensify this effort and include more specific due dates for a preliminary report." Response: We disagree with the finding. The General Services Director was never asked questions about our strategic plans for the 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 for the site of the new juvenile hall facility, property purchases from the BLM of lands surrounding the old airport, solid waste transfer facility, office/maintenance building and the newly remodeled alcohol and 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 Grand Jury believes that the portion of the Solid Waste expenditures for the sewer line should not exceed the costs had the sewer line been extended from the Five-Cent gulch trailer Park with the minimum sized line. Those expenses in excess of that cost should be borne by the County General Fund or other appropriate 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 Grand Jury believes that the BOS and County Administrative Officer (CAO) need to take steps to guarantee that County employees follow the State and County laws regarding contracting and contracting authority. Creating a County contracting office should be considered in the interest of improving the administration of county contracts and complying with California State contracting laws. Summary: 1. The Grand Jury has found that Public Project contracts have been awarded without competitive bids required by California law. 2. The Grand Jury had found that Trinity County has used Solid Waste funds derived from Solid Waste disposal Fees and Tipping Fees for purposes other than Solid Waste. The Solid Waste Fund needs to be reimbursed for the improper use of those fees." Response: We disagree with the recommendations and the summarization. The creation of another department to deal with 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 grand jury'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. TRINITY COUNTY OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Administration — Human Resources — Risk Management Grant Management — Information & Technology P. O. Box 1613 Weaverville, CA 96093-1613 County Administrator Phone: (530) 623-1382 Human Resources Phone (530) 623-1325 FAX (530) 623-4222 JEANNIE NIX-TEMPLE, County Administrative Officer RECEIVED SEP 1 4 2001 TO: The Honorable John K. Letton, Presiding Judge of the Superior Court SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE'S CHAMBERS FROM: Jeannie Nix-Temple Jeannie Nix-Temple, County Administrative Officer SUBJECT: Response to Recommendations of 2000-01 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, if not yet adopted, be required of all the county departments that receive cash payments, effective immediately. SUMMARY: ❖ The Grand Jury recommends that the accounting records of the county be improved to obtain future Independent Auditor's Reports that do not contain qualifications. ❖ The Grand Jury recommends that action be taken to obtain Independent Auditor Reports on a more timely basis. ❖ The Grand Jury recommends that immediate attention be given to the completeness and accuracy of the financial statements for the Enterprise Fund accounts. ❖ The Grand Jury recommends that the estimated landfill closure and post-closure maintenance costs be reviewed. ❖ The Grand Jury commends the Auditor/Controller and the Auditor/Controller Department for improvements in the recording and classification of funds. ❖ The Grand Jury commends the Auditor/Controller for his efforts to reduce the interest costs of equipment leases. RESPONSE REQUESTED FROM: Trinity County Board of Supervisors, Trinity County Administrative Officer, Trinity County Auditor/Controller. TRINITY COUNTY BRIAN E. MUIR, COUNTY AUDITOR-CONTROLLER P.O. BOX 1230, WEAVERVILLE, CALIFORNIA 96093-1230 PHONE (530) 623-1317 FAX (530) 623-1323 RECEIVED JUN 18 2001 SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE'S CHAMBERS MEMORANDUM DATE: June 11, 2001 TO: John K. Letton, Presiding Judge of the Superior Court FROM: Brian Muir, Auditor / Controller SUBJECT: 2000 - 2001 Trinity County Grand Jury Report Trinity County Financial Statements and Related Accounting Matters The following response is provided as requested in the above report:

R9: The Grand Jury recommends that the BOS eliminate longevity based increases for elected officials in Trinity County. The Grand Jury recommends that salaries of elected officials be based solely on the duties and responsibilities of the office. When determining salaries, due consideration should be given to the salaries of the elected and appointed officials in Trinity County, the salaries of officials in the same office 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 that may have received a longevity based salary increase.

R10: The Grand Jury enthusiastically endorses the Job Classification and Compensation Study as a means of correcting any compensation inequities that may be identified.

R11: The Grand Jury believes that a spirit of cooperation between various offices within the County government is in the best interest of the citizens of this county. To this end it is recommended that all Department Heads actively pursue respectful and cooperative relationships with other departments and department heads. It is understood that many personalities are involved, however, relationships should be conducted professionally. The citizens of the County should expect no less. The Grand Jury further recommends that individual members of the BOS that are concerned about the performance of any department or department head personally visit that department for a first hand review. SUMMARY: ➤ The citizens of Trinity County have been and are being well served by the Treasurer/Tax Collector Dept. ➤ The Treasurer/Tax Collector Department operations were hampered by high rate of employee turnover, but essential services were not adversely affected. ➤ The Treasurer/Tax Collector Department employee morale is good and the workforce appears to have stabilized. ➤ The Treasurer/Tax Collector has an ongoing interest in improving efficiency and integrity of treasury and tax collection operations. Numerous improvements have been made and others are under consideration by the Treasurer/Tax Collector and other related departments. ➤ The Treasurer/Tax Collector is severely underpaid and the Grand Jury recommends immediate increases. ➤ The Grand Jury recommends abandonment of longevity based salary increases for elected officials and that it be replaced with a reasonable process to keep the salary of elected officials in parity with similar positions. RESPONSE REQUESTED FROM: Trinity County Board of Supervisors, Trinity County Administrative Officer, Trinity County Auditor/Controller, Trinity County Treasurer/Tax Collector, Trinity County Superintendent of Schools TRINITY COUNTY BRIAN E. MUIR, COUNTY AUDITOR-CONTROLLER P.O. BOX 1230, WEAVERVILLE, CALIFORNIA 96093-1230 PHONE (530) 623-1317 FAX (530) 623-1323 RECEIVED JUN 18 2001 SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE'S CHAMBERS MEMORANDUM DATE: June 14, 2001 TO: John K. Letton, Presiding Judge of the Superior Court FROM: Brian Muir, Auditor / Controller SUBJECT: 2000-2001 Trinity County Grand Jury Report Trinity County Treasurer / Tax Collector Department and Related County Operations The following response is provided as requested in the 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

* 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.