Tuolumne County Grand Jury
1998-1999
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
Hess Road Interchange, part of the Highway 108 bypass project, $7,000,000
F2:
Pavement Management Plan, currently comprising of 19 projects, $2,000,000
F3:
Engineering and Feasibility studies for current and projected road problems One bike path project has been completed along Soulsbyville Road and two projects are in the funding stage. Funding for these projects is not received until the project is approved. This can be a burdensome process. Other priorities may not allow the Engineering staff to fully take advantage of these funds. Conclusions Trying to determine when to invest in preventative maintenance, completing priority projects and reacting to emergency situations is a daunting task. These goals are achieved by adhering to the departments mission statement: “To provide the county’s residents with the safest, best quality roadway’s, with available funds.”
F4:
Quality of Education – Would consolidation improve the quality of education for the students of Tuolumne County? According to a State Department of Education official and a variety of educators who have been through a consolidation, there appears to be no hard evidence to support this idea. The organizational structure of school districts does not appear to have a direct bearing on the quality of education provided. There may be differing points of view regarding some of the results of consolidation. With consolidation you would have: On one hand On the other hand One bus plan Multigrade kids sharing the same bus Only one Superintendent and one Board One Superintendent and one Board with less local access to Superintendent and Board Less administrators at site More administrators at centralized site Many teachers salaries raised, higher salaries attract more teachers Teachers hired centrally; possibly less local control. Perhaps attract a different type of teacher Loss of small school district atmosphere and appeal More resources available to all schools More mobility for teachers to change schools Less bonding to a particular school district No reduction in administrators but centralized staff more specialized Specialist shared by all schools increases response time. Conclusions Whether to consolidate our schools is an issue of importance in Tuolumne County only if there are enough people dissatisfied with our schools as they presently operate. The School District Organization Handbook, which is officially approved by the State Board of Education, is the guide to any school reorganization. It outlines methods for school consolidation to occur and lays out the procedure of various choices of reorganization, identifying the roles and responsibilities of all parties, including the State Board of Education. The State Board has set criteria for approval of any school reorganization and is involved in all steps of the process. It is our conclusion that it is not for the Grand Jury to take the lead in the schools consolidation issue, pro or con. The Grand Jury can do fact finding, as we have tried to do, share our findings and leave it for the people of Tuolumne County to decide. If a cadre of individuals wants to organize a petition to put the issue on the ballot or if a school district board wants to respond to its constituents and press the issue, or if the County Board, by establishing a committee on School District Organization, wants to take the lead on behalf of all their constituents, let any or all of them do so. The bottom line is that the success or failure of a school district financially and academically does not rest upon the districts organizational structure. It rests with the decisions of the governing School Board and the administrators hired by that Board to carry out its policies.
F5:
Basement areas such as the deputy's locker room, and the evidence room are subject to sewage leakage from jail areas above. A water leak was noted as we visited.
F6:
Evidence room needs a new freezer, not the one salvaged from another agency. We were concerned that Trustees could work without apparent supervision in this area.
F7:
In the dispatch office, there is no room for an EMS dispatcher, but the department must be commended for getting the LifeScan identity and background checking system on line this year. Conclusion Sheriff's Department The Tuolumne County Sheriff's Department cannot be expected to meet modern demands and challenges without locating some new space for its growing staff. The shortage of filing, storage, and staff space needs to be addressed immediately. The space and security shortcomings in the basement of the building now appear to pose some liability to the department and its mission.
Additional Recommendations
18
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Recommend that all County departments go online with the ACO by the end of the year 2000.
R2:
Recommend a long-range planning process be developed to include a master plan for Capital Improvements. Recommend the plan include welfare, criminal justice and the hospital. Grand Jury — County of Tuolumne Tuolumne County Administration Center 2 South Green Street Sonora, CA 95370 GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS Overview The Department of Public Works oversees the Administration, Engineering, Road Operations and Surveying of the County's public roadways, and Solid Waste Management. Reason for Investigation This department had not been the subject of Grand Jury interest for five years; additionally the Grand Jury had received correspondence regarding walking and bicycle path funding.
R3:
In the future the County should encourage economic development by others and not undertake such projects itself. Government bureaucracies are not well structured or suited for single-minded direction or creative thinking, nor do they have the financial resources necessary for successful land development.
R4:
The County needs to clarify the rights and options to the 1500-acre feet of water that Mr. Mitton counted as an asset in the acquisition of the mine property and start making plans to sell that water. MOTHER LODE REGIONAL JUVENILE DETENTION FACILITY . . . . . TASKS FOR 1999 PROJECT TASKS Jan '99 Feb '99 Mar '99 Apr '99 May '99 Jun '99 Jul '99 Aug '99 Sep '99 Oct '99 Nov '99 Dec '99 Project Team reviews and makes recommendation on Programer/Construction Manager X Project Team works with Programer/ Construction Manager X X X X X X X X X X Facility JPA Governing Board Meeting X X X X X Project Team reviews, interviews, and makes recommendation on Architectural/Engineering Services X Community meetings with Programer/ Construction Manager (T.C., A.C., C.C.) X Program consultant finalizes work X Preliminary Design Scenarios completed X Tuolumne County Board of Supervisors preliminary approval of site infrastructure improvements X Project Team reviews design and preliminary cost estimates X Board of Corrections and State Fire Marshal's Office approval of facility plans X Complete design and finalize cost estimates X Presentations made to respective Board of Supervisors and Communities regarding project X Design information to the Community Development Dept. for their review X CEQA review and approval X Tuolumne County Building and Local Fire Marshal review X Bidding Phase commences X Af Boundary of Golden Pond Properties ies Figure 1 SMC Fac 25 Topography from 1986 aerial photography, prior to SMC mining activities. Grand Jury — County of Tuolumne Tuolumne County Administration Center 2 South Green Street Sonora, CA 95370 GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT MENTAL HEALTH/ALCOHOL/DRUG SERVICES Overview Tuolumne County Mental Health/Alcohol and Drug Services are provided by contract with Kings View, a private health care agency. Reason for Investigation In reviewing different agencies, the Grand Jury noticed that since 1987 only one investigation was made into Mental Health and that was in 1990 when several employee complaints were registered against the former health care agency that was replaced by Kings View. Since taking over in 1997 the Kings View/Tuolumne Mental Health/Alcohol/Drug Service has had no complaints filed against them and has had an excellent working relationship with the Mental Health Board. The Grand Jury then decided to investigate the Alcohol and Drug problem in Tuolumne County and what part it plays in Mental Health and in particular, what affect it has on juveniles in this County and what services are being given to those affected who are under 21.
R5:
Encourage internal auditing by boards and commissions on Brown Act compliance.
R6:
1999-2000 Grand Jury follow up on Brown Act compliance and understanding by local boards and commissions. “It should be standard practice for the Grand Jury to question public officials about their knowledge of and compliance with laws requiring open government” Buzz Eggleston 1999 Union Democrat Editorial 1998-1999 Tuolumne County Grand Jury Brown Act Survey BOARD NAME: _____ Your comments/questions are welcome. Please use the back page.
R7:
A quorum for your board is _____ member(s).
R8:
Can the public comment on all issues before the board Please explain . a) yes _____ b) no _____ c) sometimes _____ d) other _____
R9:
Can your meetings be tape recorded or broadcast by anyone? Please explain, if necessary. a) no _____ b) yes _____ c) sometimes: _____ d) other: _____
R10:
Can the public be asked to register, or otherwise identify themselves as a requirement to attend any meeting? Please explain, if necessary. a) yes b) no c) sometimes _____ d) other: _____
R11:
Circle those items that can be discussed in closed session: a Quorum b Closed session c Agenda items d Litigation e Personnel actions f Emergency agenda items g Posting requirements h Regular meetings I Special meetings j Serial meetings k Actions taken l Labor relations m Labor negotiations n Grievances o Public comment p Bid selections q Right of the public to record meetings r Public registration s non-agenda items t public comment
R12:
Have citizens complained about non-compliance with Brown Act issues during your tenure on the board? Yes No If so, please describe the nature of the complaint _____ _____ _____ _____
R13:
All materials sent or otherwise given to the board must be made available to the public. Please explain, if necessary. a) yes b) no c) sometimes: _____ d) other _____
R14:
The agenda must be posted how long before a scheduled meeting? a) 12 hours b) 24 hours c) 48 hours d) 72 hours e) other: _____
R15:
Special meetings or agenda items are required to be posted during which time frame given below? a) 12 hours b) 24 hours c) 48 hours d) 72 hours e) other: _____
R16:
All closed session actions must be reported during: _____ _____ _____
R17:
New business can be acted upon during the meeting at which it is introduced. Please explain, if necessary: a) yes b) no c) sometimes: _____ d) other: _____
R18:
What is a serial meeting and how can they enhance or detract from the functioning of your particular board? Please explain. _____ _____ _____ 1998-1999 Tuolumne County Grand Jury Brown Act Survey Comments/Questions: Signature (optional), CHAPTER I PURPOSE AND SCOPE The Ralph M. Brown Act (Gov. Code, § 54950U et seq.; hereinafter "the Brown Act," or "the Act") governs meetings conducted by local legislative bodies, such as boards of supervisor, city councils and school boards. The Act represents the Legislature's determination of how the balance should be struck between public access to meetings of multi-member public bodies on the one hand and the need for confidential candor, debate, and information gathering on the other. As the rest of this pamphlet will indicate, the Legislature has established a presumption in favor of public access. However, the Act also contains specific exceptions from the open meeting requirements where government has a demonstrated need for confidentiality. These exceptions have been construed narrowly; thus if a specific statutory exception authorizing a closed session cannot be found, the matter must be conducted in public regardless of its sensitivity. (§ 54962; Rowen v. Santa Clara Unified School District (1981) 121 Cal.App.3d 231; 68 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 34, 41-42 (1985).) Where matters are not subject to a closed meeting exception, the Act has been interpreted to mean that all of the deliberative processes by legislative bodies, including discussion, debate and the acquisition of information, be open and available for public scrutiny. (Sacramento Newspaper Guild v. Sacramento County Bd. of Suprs. (1968) 263 Cal.App.2d 41; 42 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 61, 63 (1963); 32 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 240 (1958).) The Act only applies to multi-member bodies such as councils, boards, commissions, etc., since, unlike individual decision makers, such bodies are created for the purpose of reaching collaborative decisions through public discussion and debate. A host of provisions combine to provide public access to the meetings of legislative bodies. For example, the times and dates of all meetings must be noticed and an agenda must be prepared providing a brief general description of all matters to be discussed or considered at the meeting. (§§ 54953; 54954.2.) As a precondition to attending the meeting, members of the public may not be asked to provide their names. (§ 54953.3.) While in attendance, members of the public may make video or audio recordings of the meeting. (§ 54953.5.) As a general rule, information given to a majority of the members of the legislative body in connection with an open meeting must be equally available to members of the public. (§ 54957.5.)
* 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.