Home
El Dorado County Grand Jury final report
To link to this object, paste this link in email, IM or document
To embed this object, paste this HTML in website
El Dorado County Grand Jury final report
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
|
|
i
FOREWORD
Just what is the Grand Jury, who are its members, and what are their functions? William J. Shaw
and Noah Weinstein in their article, Grand Jury Reports – A Safeguard of Democracy, describe a
Grand Jury as “ a short- lived, representative, non- political body of citizens functioning without
hope of personal aggrandizement. It [ the Grand Jury] comes from the citizens at large and soon
disappears into anonymity without individual recognition or personal reward.” In El Dorado
County this is a group of 19 citizens who have the ability, time and willingness to serve the
citizens of the County for a period of one year.
The requirements for service are basic and designed to allow and encourage maximum
participation by the County’s citizens. A juror must be 18 years old, a United States citizen, and
a resident of El Dorado County for at least one- year on the date they are sworn to service. The
candidate for juror must also possess natural faculties of ordinary intelligence, sound judgment,
and fair character.
Service on the Grand Jury is an act of citizenship. Individuals selected for the Grand Jury should
expect to work a minimum of three six- hour days per week throughout their year of service.
Remuneration for service was paid at the rate of $ 15.00 for those days actually worked. Mileage
driven for grand jury business is currently reimbursed at the rate paid to all county employees.
The Grand Jury essentially serves as the agency of civilian oversight for our local government.
The common public perception of the Grand Jury is a body taking testimony and handing down
Criminal Indictments. In reality, the principal functions of the Grand Jury are civil in nature.
Some duties, such as the inspections of public prisons, are required by law to be performed on a
yearly basis. The majority of the Grand Jury’s inquiries, however, are the result of its own
internal direction. Generally, the Grand Jury audits local government processes, expenditures,
and the actions of its officials. Practically speaking, a grand jury primarily responds to
complaints brought to it by citizens of the County, to issues of concern and public debate as
publicized in the local media, and to other issues exposed during the investigation of complaints.
During the course of its inquiries, members of the Grand Jury not only will find conditions and
practices within government that deserve recommendations for improvement, they also will
encounter examples of excellent service performed by units or persons in local government.
Grand Juries by their very design are intended to identify and recommend improvement of
deficiencies within government; as such, reports of the Grand Jury tend to be viewed as negative
in nature. It would be unfair, however, for the Report of the Grand Jury to focus on the negative
without recognizing outstanding performance within government. In that light, this Report also
contains commendations for those persons, encountered by members of the Grand Jury, who
were noted to have performed exemplary service for the County.
ii
At the conclusion of its investigations the Grand Jury may issue an indictment, an accusation,
and/ or a report. The year- end Report of the Grand Jury is a compilation of investigative reports
complete with recommendations for change that are intended to improve the operations of
government and so better serve the citizens of this County. Grand Juries have no power to
impose their recommendations on local government. Grand Juries cannot enforce their
recommendations; they merely have the ability to “ shine a light” on the facts uncovered by their
inquiries, thus bringing matters to the public’s attention. The Report then provides a vehicle for
public debate. It is a matter for the public to decide whether the recommendations of the Grand
Jury are appropriate, and whether actions taken by government officials in response to those
recommendations are themselves appropriate. Ultimately, the citizens of the County carry out
their role in this process, by expressing their judgment on the issues at the ballot box.
Richard J. Brunner, Foreman
2002/ 2003 Grand Jury
To Obtain an Application
Any interested citizen who meets the required qualifications and is able to make the time
commitment may request an application for appointment to the Grand Jury from the Staff Court
Secretary at the following location:
Superior Courthouse
495 Main Street
Placerville, California 95667
( 530) 621- 6451
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
FOREWARD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i
TABLE OF CONTENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii
EL DORADO COUNTY GRAND JURY
Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii
LETTER TO THE JUDGE FROM FOREMAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix
JUDGE’S LETTER TO THE GRAND JURY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x
EL DORADO COUNTY GRAND JURY
2002/ 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi
Group Picture . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xii
CITIZENS’ COMPLAINTS INDEX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiv
AUDIT & FINANCE COMMITTEE
Georgetown Divide Public Utility District . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Georgetown Divide Public Utility District, Accounting Practices . . . . . . . 4
Citizen Complaint # C1- 02/ 03
Public Record Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Citizen Complaint # C4- 02/ 03
Superior Court – Exhibit Room . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
CRIMINAL JUSTICE COMMITTEE
Inappropriate Tahoe Differential Pay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Citizen Complaint # C19- 02/ 03
Sheriff’s Non Follow- up Regarding Sick Leave Abuse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Citizen Complaint # C20- 02/ 03
Appearance of Inappropriate Action and Conflict of Interests
by the El Dorado County District Attorney . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Citizen Complaint # C34- 02/ 03
iv
PAGE
Non- Action by District Attorney . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Citizen Complaint # C41- 02/ 03
CRIMINAL JUSTICE, JAIL REPORTS
El Dorado County Jail, Placerville . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
El Dorado County Jail, South Lake Tahoe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
El Dorado County Juvenile Hall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Growlersberg Conservation Camp, Georgetown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
EDUCATION COMMITTEE
School Bus Transportation Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
El Dorado Union High School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Indian Diggings Elementary School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Latrobe School & Miller High School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Edwin Markham Middle School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Ponderosa High School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
South Tahoe Middle School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
El Dorado County Library – South Lake Tahoe Branch Library . . . . . . . . . 64
Citizen Complaint # C43- 02/ 03
GOVERNMENT & ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE
Purchase of a Doctor’s Services for a “ Fitness for Duty” Evaluation . . . . . . . 67
Citizen Complaint # C5- 02/ 03
City of South Lake Tahoe Transient Occupancy Tax ( TOT) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Citizen Complaint # C7- 02/ 03
Mobile Homes/ Senior Abuse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
Citizen Complaint # C12- 02/ 03
Conflict of Interest/ Employee Evaluations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
Citizen Complaint # C21 & C22- 02/ 03
County Fiscal Issues/ Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
Citizen Complaint # C23- 02/ 03
v
PAGE
Measure Z . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
Citizen Complaint # C35- 02/ 03
Fallen Leaf Lake Community Services District . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
Citizen Complaint # C36- 02/ 03
Chief Administrative Officer’s Contract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
Citizen Complaint # C44- 02/ 03
HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES COMMITTEE
El Dorado County Social Services Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
INFORMATION SERVICES
Information Services Billing Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
Information Services General Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE
El Dorado County Fleet Maintenance Facility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
South Lake Tahoe Vacation Home Rentals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
Citizen Complaint # C14- 02/ 03
El Dorado County Waste Disposal System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
PUBLIC BUILDINGS & PROPERTY COMMITTEE
Community Services/ Senior Nutrition Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
District Attorney’s Offices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
Public Health Department . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
Update of Pat Riley Family Court ( formerly Logan Building) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
El Dorado County Museum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
Library ( General Services) Building, Placerville . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
Psychiatric Health Facility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
Senior Day- Care Building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
vi
PAGE
Superior Court, Cameron Park . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
Superior Court, Placerville . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
APPENDIX A
Instructions to Respondents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
vii
EL DORADO COUNTY GRAND JURY
2002- 2003
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the EL DORADO COUNTY GRAND JURY has conducted investigations
and has arrived at certain findings and recommendations; and
WHEREAS, the EL DORADO COUNTY GRAND JURY desires to make its final report
thereon;
RESOLVED, by the EL DORADO COUNTY GRAND JURY that the attached report be,
and hereby is, adopted as the final report and conclusions of the EL DORADO COUNTY
GRAND JURY, 2002- 2003.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at the meeting of the EL DORADO COUNTY GRAND
JURY this eighteen day of June, Two Thousand and Three.
RICHARD BRUNNER
Foreman
viii
EL DORADO COUNTY GRAND JURY
P. O. Box 472
Placerville, CA 95667
June 13, 2003
Honorable Jerald M. Lasarow
Superior Court
1354 Johnson Blvd., Suite 1
South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150
Dear Judge Lasarow:
The members of the 2002/ 2003 El Dorado County Grand Jury were honored to have been
selected to serve our County, and on their behalf I submit this final report.
In your charge twelve months ago, you requested we accept the responsibility and duty to
investigate and examine all phases of county government.
As nineteen ordinary citizens from many backgrounds and walks of life, we were quite obviously
not experts in county government, but what we did have in common was a desire to serve with
diligence and faithfulness. With truth and fairness as our guidelines, drawing from this diversity,
we have worked hard to fulfill those obligations. It has been my honor and privilege to have
served with this great group of people and I commend them.
Each year as a new jury begins to research and respond to complaints from citizens, specific
areas come into focus for further study/ examination. Therefore, simultaneously with the
expected interviews of county employees and visiting many of the facilities, other more
specialized situations are addressed. This year was no exception.
The Jury discovered a need to look in- depth into the lack of enforcement of collecting T. O. T.
( the Transit Occupancy Tax) in the South Lake Tahoe area. As a direct result of our study, future
income for that City should increase greatly, and all rentals will share equally in the
responsibility of collecting appropriate and equitable taxes.
Also studied in considerable depth was a growing concern of this Jury that there may be some
elected officials who may be assuming more power and authority than they have been given by
voter mandate.
ix
The Grand Jury commends the elected officials and County employees for their cooperation and
assistance in our mutual goal of better government.
Thank you Judge Lasarow for your encouragement and guidance throughout the year. Your
understanding and decisiveness were much appreciated by myself and this Grand Jury.
Sincerely,
Richard J. Brunner
2002/ 2003 El Dorado County Grand Jury Foreman
x
Letter from Judge Lasarow
xi
EL DORADO COUNTY GRAND JURY
2002/ 2003
Honorable Jerald M. Lasarow, Supervising Judge
Richard J. Brunner, Foreman
Bob O’Grady, Pro Tempore
Louise Closs, Recording Secretary
Michael Gray, Sergeant- at- Arms
Ray Boyer Brom Hunt
Dave DeBella Jackie Leland
Jim Estelle Mimi Mattock
Ralph Fernandez Ira Mirsky
Alex Giloff Christy Philipp
Bob Heilman Wally Russell
Sally Hipp Richard Taylor
The Grand Jury would like to acknowledge the contribution of Sandy Johnston and Peder
Matthews, who through no fault of their own, were not able to complete their year of service.
xii
GRAND JURY PICTURE
xiii
CITIZENS’
COMPLAINTS
xiv
EL DORADO COUNTY GRAND JURY
2002/ 2003
CITIZENS’ COMPLAINTS
CASE NO.
SUBJECT DISPOSITION
COMMENTS DATE
C- 1- 02/ 03
Accounting – Conflict of
Interest
Audit & Finance See Final Report
C- 2- 02/ 03
So. Lake Tahoe Bldg.
Permits
So. Lake Tahoe, Bldg. No Action Finding 9/ 25/ 02
C- 3- 02/ 03
So. Lake Tahoe District
Attorney, Child Support/ CPS
Criminal Justice No Action Finding 8/ 14/ 02
C- 4- 02/ 03
Attorney Fees
Public Record Act
Audit & Finance See Final Report
C- 5- 02/ 03
Fitness Evaluation So. Lake Tahoe, Govt.
& Admin.
See Final Report
C- 6- 02/ 03
Flu Shots Health & Social
Services
No Action Finding 10/ 17/ 02
C- 7- 02/ 03
Transient Occupancy Tax So. Lake Tahoe, Govt.
& Admin.
See Final Report
C- 8- 02/ 03
Personnel/ Human Resources Health & Social
Services
No Acting Finding 8/ 14/ 02
C- 9- 02/ 03
Cemetery Govt. & Admin. No Action Finding 8/ 21/ 02
C- 10- 02/ 03
Parking Violation Audit & Finance No Action Finding 10/ 17/ 02
xv
EL DORADO COUNTY GRAND JURY
2002/ 2003
CITIZENS’ COMPLAINTS
CASE NO.
SUBJECT DISPOSITION
COMMENTS DATE
C- 11- 02/ 03 Child Adoption Health & Social
Services
No Action Finding 8/ 21/ 02
C- 12- 02/ 03 Mobile Homes Govt. & Admin. See Final Report
C- 13- 02/ 03 Child Adoption Health & Social
Services
No Action Finding 8/ 21/ 02
C- 14- 02/ 03 Transient Occupancy Tax
and Zoning
So. Lake Tahoe,
Planning & Environ.
See Final Report
C- 15- 02/ 03 El Dorado Irrigation Dist. Public Bldg. & Special
Districts
No Action Finding 10/ 30/ 02
C- 16- 02/ 03 Animal Control Health & Social
Services
No Action Finding 10/ 30/ 02
C- 17- 02/ 03 Audit Debts, Equipment
Depreciation
Audit & Finance No Action Finding 9/ 3/ 02
C- 18- 02/ 03 Overturn Superior Court
Decision
Health & Social
Services
No Jurisdiction 9/ 28/ 02
C- 19- 02/ 03 Misuse of Sick Pay, Lack of
Follow- up, Sheriff’s Dept.
Criminal Justice See Final Report
C- 20- 02/ 03 So. Lake Tahoe, Differential
Pay, Sheriff’s Dept.
Criminal Justice See Final Report
C- 21- 02/ 03 Nepotism in County Work
Place/ Evaluations
Govt. & Admin. See Final Report
xvi
EL DORADO COUNTY GRAND JURY
2002/ 2003
CITIZENS’ COMPLAINTS
CASE NO.
SUBJECT DISPOSITION
COMMENTS DATE
C- 22- 02/ 03 Nepotism in County Work
Place/ Evaluations
Govt. & Admin. See Final Report
C- 23- 02/ 03 Social Services Trust Fund
Shortages
Govt. & Admin. See Final Report
C- 24- 02/ 03 Anonymous Complaint
Against UnderSheriff
Criminal Justice No Action Finding 11/ 20/ 02
C- 25- 02/ 03 Sheriff’s Violation of
Govt. Codes
Criminal Justice No Action Finding 12/ 11/ 02
C- 26- 02/ 03 Georgetown Fire Dept. Govt. & Admin. No Action Finding 2/ 12/ 03
C- 27- 02/ 03 District Attorney’s Office Govt. & Admin. No Action Finding 12/ 8/ 02
C- 28- 02/ 03 County Jail Criminal Justice No Action Finding 1/ 15/ 03
C- 29- 02/ 03 Golden West Community
Services District
Special Districts No Action Finding 5/ 21/ 03
C- 30- 02/ 03 District Attorney’s Office and
Sheriff’s Dept.
Criminal Justice No Action Finding 3/ 26/ 03
C- 31- 02/ 03 District Attorney’s Office
Criminal Justice See Final Report
C- 32- 02/ 03 District Attorney’s Office Criminal Justice No Action Finding 3/ 26/ 03
xvii
EL DORADO COUNTY GRAND JURY
2002/ 2003
CITIZENS’ COMPLAINTS
CASE NO.
SUBJECT DISPOSITION
COMMENTS DATE
C- 33- 02/ 03 Superior Court Staff Govt. & Admin. No Action Finding 3/ 12/ 03
C- 34- 02/ 03 District Attorney’s Office Criminal Justice See Final Report
C- 35- 02/ 03 Transient Occupancy Tax
Measure 2
So. Lake Tahoe,
Govt. & Admin.
See Final Report
C- 36- 02/ 03 Fallen Leaf Lake Community
Services District
Govt. & Admin. See Final Report
C- 37- 02/ 03 District Attorney’s Office Govt. & Admin. No Action Finding 3/ 26/ 03
C- 38- 02/ 03 Cameron Estates Community
Services District
Govt. & Admin. No Action Finding 5/ 14/ 03
C- 39- 02/ 03 Cameron Estates Community
Services District
Govt. & Admin No Action Finding 5/ 14/ 03
C- 40- 02/ 03 Evaluations Govt. & Admin No Action Finding 4/ 14/ 03
C- 41- 02/ 03 District Attorney’s Office Criminal Justice See Final Report
C- 42- 02/ 03 El Dorado Irrigation
District
Planning & Environment No Action Finding 4/ 3/ 0/ 03
C- 43- 02/ 03 County Library Education See Final Report
xviii
EL DORADO COUNTY GRAND JURY
2002/ 2003
CITIZENS’ COMPLAINTS
CASE NO.
SUBJECT DISPOSITION
COMMENTS DATE
C- 44- 02/ 03 Chief Administrative
Officer’s Contract
Govt. & Admin. See Final Report
C- 45- 02/ 03 Latrobe School District Education No Action Finding 4/ 9/ 03
C- 46- 02/ 03 District Attorney’s Office Criminal Justice No Action Finding 5/ 14/ 03
C- 47- 02/ 03 District Attorney’s Office Health & Social
Services
No Action Finding 4/ 16/ 03
C- 48- 02/ 03 Chief Administrative Officer’s
Budget Estimates
Audit & Finance See Final Report
C- 49- 02/ 03 District Attorney’s Office Criminal Justice No Action Finding 5/ 14/ 03
C- 50- 02/ 03 Superior Court – Allegations
of Misconduct
Govt. & Admin. No Jurisdiction 4/ 16/ 03
C- 51- 02/ 03 Transient Occupancy Tax So. Lake Tahoe,
Govt. & Admin.
See Final Report
C- 52- 02/ 03 DEFERRED TO 2003/ 2004
DOT Planning Comm.
GRAND JURY
C- 53- 02/ 03 DEFFERED TO 2003/ 2004
E. I. D.
GRAND JURY
C- 54- 02/ 03 Sheriff’s Dept.
Coroner Report
Criminal Justice No Action Finding 6/ 18/ 03
C- 55- 02/ 03 DEFERRED TO 2003/ 2004 GRAND JURY
C- 56- 02/ 03 DEFERRED TO 2003/ 2004 GRAND JURY
C- 57- 02/ 03 DEFERRED TO 2003/ 2004 GRAND JURY
xix
AUDIT &
FINANCE
1
AUDIT AND FINANCE COMMITTEE
Georgetown Divide Public Utility District
Georgetown
Reason for the Report
The Grand Jury selected the Georgetown Divide Public Utility District ( GDPUD) as a general
review for 2002/ 2003.
Scope of the Investigation
The members of the Grand Jury:
· Made an announced visit to GDPUD on January 23, 2002;
· Interviewed the General Manager and other staff members;
· Attended two GDPUD board meetings;
· Reviewed the GDPUD certified Incorporation Documents created in 1946;
· Reviewed the Five Year Facilities and Financial Planning Study dated February 1,
1999;
· Reviewed financial statements for fiscal year 2001/ 2002;
· Reviewed the budget for fiscal year 2002/ 2003;
· Reviewed previous Grand Jury reports and found no reports that dealt with GDPUD.
Background
The GDPUD is a special independent enterprise district. It is considered “ independent” because
it is a self- governed body, and the term “ enterprise” means it can charge the public directly for
services without relying on property taxes. As such GDPUD is more resistant to economic
fluctuations. It maintains designated reserve funds for the servicing and replacement of fixed
assets as well as undesignated reserve funds for future projects. For the fiscal year ending June
2002, designated reserve funds were $ 2,661,358 and the undesignated reserve funds were
$ 9,847,331 ( approximately three times the annual operating revenue of $ 3,242,206). Net income
for fiscal year 2001/ 2002 was $ 542,254.
As a special district, GDPUD receives assistance from local, state and federal governments in the
form of grants and low interest loans for special projects.
The water supply comes from Stumpy Meadows Reservoir and amounts to 20,000 acre- feet ( or
327 surface acres). Approximately 3000 water connections and 1,100 wastewater disposal
accounts exist within the district. Both Auburn Lake Trails and Walton Lake treatment plants
2
are approximately 30 years old, and have a 4.5 million gallon capacity. Nine storage tanks
cumulatively hold about 3 million gallons. The general manager believes the district is prepared
to accommodate the predicted one to two percent growth rate within its service area for the
immediate future, however, the demand is estimated to exceed supply by 2025.
The district operates with no written personnel procedures or formal policies for employees and
their evaluations.
The district has 20 employees and most of whom are cross- trained. The district has an unusually
low employee turnover rate with an average of 15 plus years of service.
The District has two CPAs. One is a recently hired employee, and the other is an hourly
contractor. For computerized accountancy software, GDPUD uses a program called Multiple
Operations Manager ( M. O. M.), while the Consultant uses the Solomon program. These two
accounting programs are not compatible which may create problems with the exchange of data.
Findings
F1. The undesignated reserve funds are approximately three times the annual operating
revenues.
F2. Stumpy Meadows Reservoir is the only source of water for GDPUD.
F3. The district operates with no written personnel procedures or formal policies for
employees and their evaluations.
F4. The District has two CPAs. One is an employee, and the other is an hourly consultant.
F5. GDPUD uses an accounting software program called Multiple Operations Manager
( M. O. M.), while the Consultant uses Solomon.
Recommendations
R1. GDPUD should adopt and publicize their policy for accumulating undesignated reserve
funds as well as the planned use of the funds.
R2. GDPUD should look into secondary water sources for the anticipated growth within the
District.
R3. GDPUD should create a personnel policies and procedures manual. The manual should
be updated periodically as required.
R4. There should only be one CPA. The time frame of the contract with the Consultant
should be reduced and a termination date established.
R5. For efficiency purposes, there should be one accounting software program.
3
R6. GDPUD should increase treated water storage capacities in the event of equipment
breakdown or extended drought cycles.
Commendation
Management is very proactive in seeking to meet the needs of its customers and appears
interested in the overall well being of the community.
Responses Required for Findings
F1 through F5 GDPUD Board of Directors
GDPUD General Manager
Responses Required for Recommendations
R1 through R6 GDPUD Board of Directors
GDPUD General Manager
4
AUDIT & FINANCE COMMITTEE
Georgetown Divide Public Utility District
Accounting Practices
Citizen Complaint # C1- 02/ 03
Reason for the Report
A complaint was made against Georgetown Divide Public Utility District ( GDPUD) for past
accounting practices.
Scope of the Investigation
The members of the Grand Jury interviewed:
· The Complainant;
· GDPUD CPA ( Consultant) for the period of 1976 to present;
· Two GDPUD board members;
· The prior GDPUD General Manager;
· The Current Auditor;
· The El Dorado County Auditor- Controller.
The Grand Jury also reviewed:
· The June 1, 1998, AICPA Code for independence as to audit services;
· The accounting records of GDPUD;
· The reports prepared by the in- house CPA;
· The annual audits for the fiscal years 1995 through 1998.
Background
Founded in 1946, Georgetown Divide Public Utility District is a public utility district operating
under the State of California Public Utility Code and Special District Codes & Procedures. The
District has a governing body of five elected Board of Directors and an appointed General
Manager/ Clerk of the Board. The District employs twenty full- time operations and
administrative staff.
The first issue the complaint raised was the current Consultant conducted audits on his own work
from 1981 through 1995. The committee found this to be true. GDPUD in- house personnel
performed the basic bookkeeping functions and the information was given to the Consultant to
complete the necessary accounting records. The Consultant was not an employee of GDPUD
5
and did not make management decisions. GDPUD’s general manager signed the Consultant’s
Letter of Engagement.
During this period, the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ( GAAP), and Generally
Accepted Auditing Standards ( GAAS) conflicted with Government Auditing Standards ( Yellow
Book) regarding a self- audit. The 1994 Edition of the Yellow Book ( Personal Impairment
Chapter 3.16f, Note 3) does allow a self- audit under the following condition:
“ An individual performs a substantial part of the accounting process or cycle, such as
analyzing, journalizing, posting, preparing, adjusting and closing entries, and preparing
the financial statements and later the same individual performs and audit. In instances in
which the auditor acts as the main processor for transactions initiated by the audited entity,
but the audited entity acknowledges responsibility for the financial records and financial
statements, the independence of the auditor is not necessarily impaired.”
The second issue was the Consultant shared an office with the Auditor who performed the 1996
through 1999. A shared office arrangement would not necessarily violate the independence of
the audit firm but could lead others to question the independence of the auditor.
The third issue was the current auditor did not obtain the mandatory Management Representation
letter at the conclusion of the auditor’s fieldwork for year ending June 30, 2000. The Grand Jury
requested but was unable to obtain a copy of the Management Representative Letter from the
auditor or GDPUD for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2000 therefore the Grand Jury was unable
to determine whether the Management Representative Letter existed.
The fourth issue was for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2001, the fieldwork was completed in the
fall of 2001, but the Management Representation letter was not prepared until January 7, 2002
and was ultimately signed by a person who was not employed by GDPUD during the audit
period.
It was alleged that the Consultant made it difficult for the current aud iting firm to proceed in a
timely manner by ordering five rewrites. The current auditing firm has concluded that these
rewrites were not the result of financial errors but of an interpretation nature.
The Consultant provided accounting services for GDPUD without a contract from 1976 through
2001 when the parties agreed to a written contract. An in- house CPA was hired in the fall of
2002 to provide financial information to the general manager and gradually assume the
accounting functions of the Consultant.
Findings
F1. The Consultant performed audits for GDPUD from 1981 through 1995 in addition to
certain accounting functions with GDPUD management knowledge and approval.
F2. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ( GAAP) and Generally Accepted Auditing
Standards ( GAAS) do not allow a self- audit. Government Auditing Standards ( Yellow
6
Book) do allow self- audits under certain conditions. The Yellow Book was revised in
January 2003 to disallow a self- audit and any appearance of same.
F3. It appears no Management Representation Letter was presented to the auditor for the
fiscal year ending June 30, 2000.
F4. The General Manager signed a Management Representation Letter for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 2002 covering a period of time prior to his employment.
F5. The Consultant did not have a written contract for accounting services until 2001. There
were Letters of Engagement only for the auditing functions signed by the General
Manager.
Recommendations
R1. An independent audit firm should conduc t the annual audit.
R2. Proper letters of engagement and management representation should be prepared for the
audit.
R3. Board Members and the General Manager should not allow a self- audit or the appearance
of a self- audit.
R4. GDPUD should enter into contracting services with a clear statement and understanding
by all parties of work to be done.
Responses Required for Findings
F1 through F5 GDPUD Board of Directors
GDPUD General Manager
Responses Required for Recommendations
R1 through R4 GDPUD Board of Directors
GDPUD General Manager
7
AUDIT AND FINANCE COMMITTEE
Public Record Act
Citizen Complaint # C4- 02/ 03
Reason for the Report
A complaint was made against the El Dorado County Counsel ( County Counsel) for not
providing information as required by the Public Record Act in a timely manner. However, the
investigation revealed the complaint should have been directed to the El Dorado County Auditor-
Controller ( Auditor- Controller).
Scope of the Investigation
The members of the Grand Jury:
· Interviewed the Complainant;
· Interviewed the Auditor- Controller;
· Reviewed Public Record Act;
· Reviewed data furnished by the Complainant;
· Reviewed accounting records furnished by the Auditor- Controller for payments made
to a law firm ( The Firm).
Background
A series of written and verbal exchanges occurred between the complainant and the Auditor-
Controller dating from February 1999 though December 2001. The complainant attempted to
obtain a record of payments made to The Firm for services in connection with the general plan
and specific development proposals from the time of The Firm’s start date ( Summer 1995) to the
present.
The complainant wanted to make sure the payments started with The Firm’s start date of summer
1995. The Auditor- Controller never provided this information. The Auditor- Controller provided
a series of correspondence of payment information that appears to be misleading and fragmented.
Several letters sent by the Auditor- Controller contained quotations referring to possible
payments by others. Some of these statements are:
1. “ It is important to remember that the County is reimbursed from developers for a
significant portion of these payments.”
8
2. “ The County is undergoing an accounting system conversion at this time, and it is
unlikely that more complete information will be readily available for sometime.”
3. “ We have not summarized any payments made by Third Party Administrator
( TPA) of the County’s Self- Insurance Program. Specific payments made by the
County’s TPA are not recorded in the County’s general or disbursements ledgers.
It is my opinion that the County chooses to have the TPA make these ‘ self
insurance’ payments to make it more difficult for the public and the Auditor-
Controller to identify and summarize the payment of claims and payments to
outside counsel.”
Statement 3 prompted the complainant to write a letter to the County Counsel requesting a record
of payments made through Risk Management to The Firm. The County Counsel replied by letter
stating, “ Risk Management has been contacted and they do not have any records of payments
made by them.”
The complaint was investigated and the Auditor- Controller was asked to provide copies of
invoices and payments from the summer 1995 to the present. After reviewing the invoices
( never provided to the complainant) and payments made to The Firm, the Grand Jury was able to
reconcile all invoices to payments.
The Grand Jury wrote a letter to the complainant summarizing invoices by The Firms and related
payments by the County. The investigation did not find evidence that any payments were made
to The Firm by the County Counsel or Third Party Administrator.
Findings
F1. Although the complaint was made against the County Counsel it should have been
directed to the Auditor- Controller.
F2. The Public Record Act request was submitted in February 1999 but the complaint was
made in February 2002, this request had not been satisfactorily answered.
F3. On December 31, 2001, the Auditor- Controller furnished an accounting spreadsheet to
the complainant showing all payments made to The Firm, but never identified a payment
associated with The Firm’s start date of summer of 1995.
Recommendations
R1. The Auditor- Controller should respond to Public Record Act requests in a timely manner
and with accurate information.
R2. The Auditor- Controller should not attempt to shift responsibility to other departments.
9
Responses Required for Findings
F1 through F3 El Dorado County Board of Supervisors
El Dorado County Auditor- Controller
Responses Required for Recommendations
R1 and R2 El Dorado County Board of Supervisors
El Dorado County Auditor- Controller
10
AUDIT AND FINANCE COMMITTEE
Superior Court – Exhibit Room
495 Main Street, Placerville
Reason for the Report
The Grand Jury selected the Superior Court Exhibit Room as a general review for 2002/ 2003.
Scope of the Investigation
The members of the Grand Jury:
· Made an unannounced visit to the Superior Court on March 26, 2003;
· Was provided a brief tour of the non- physical Exhibit Room courtesy of the Court
Operations Supervisor;
· Spoke informally with the two other staff members;
· Interviewed the Assistant Court Executive Officer;
· Reviewed previous Grand Jury reports and found no reports that dealt with the
Exhibit Room.
Background
The Grand Jury was briefed on the process for the filing and transfer of all exhibits ( physical
and non- physical). Non- physical exhibits consist of documents, pictures, courtroom charts, etc,
which are entered into trial as exhibits. Physical exhibits are handled separately and are secured
by the Sheriff’s Department. Procedures exist for inventorying, handling and discarding of non-physical
exhibits, however they are not always followed as no one is designated this
responsibility.
The non- physical Exhibit Room appears to lack adequate space and shelving for storing exhibits.
About 75 percent of the exhibits pertain to closed cases and therefore should be discarded. Court
approval is required for disposition of closed case exhibits.
Findings
F1. The non- physical Exhibit Room appears to lack adequate space and shelving. Exhibits
appear to be in disorder and are placed on the floor in this small room.
F2. Written procedures are not being followed for discarding closed- case exhibits. About
75% of exhibits in the storage area are beyond the retention period.
11
F3. There is no person designated to manage the exhibit process.
F4. No sprinkler system or fire extinguishers could be found in or near the Exhibit Room.
Recommendations
R1. The Exhibit Room should have adequate shelving.
R2. All exhibits should be inventoried and established procedures should be followed.
R3. A person should be designated to manage the exhibit process.
R4. A fire extinguisher should be installed in or near the Exhibit Room.
Responses Required for Findings
F1 through F4 El Dorado County Board of Supervisors
El Dorado County Department of General Services
Chief Executive Officer for Superior Court
Responses Required for Recommendations
R1 through R4 El Dorado County Board of Supervisors
El Dorado County Department of General Services
Chief Executive Officer for Superior Court
12
CRIMINAL
JUSTICE
13
CRIMINAL JUSTICE COMMITTEE
Inappropriate Tahoe Differential Pay
Citizen Complaint # C19 – 02/ 03
Reason for the Report
A citizen’s complaint was received alleging a former Undersheriff received Tahoe Differential
Pay to which he was not entitled.
Scope of the Investigation
The members of the Grand Jury interviewed:
· The former Sheriff ( Sheriff);
· The former Undersheriff ( Undersheriff);
· Employees of the El Dorado County Sheriff’s Department;
· Employees of El Dorado County Department of Human Resources.
The Grand Jury also reviewed:
· Appropriate payroll documents;
· Tahoe Differential pay policies for the County and Memoranda of Understanding
( MOU);
· “ Agreement to Appointment of Undersheriff” memo, signed by the Sheriff and the
Undersheriff regarding Tahoe assignment.
Background
Early in 1999, the Sheriff and a Captain, about to be appointed Undersheriff, had a brief
exchange regarding the Undersheriff’s assignment to Lake Tahoe. The Captain’s promotion to
Undersheriff was based on the condition he leave the Department in January 2000. The Captain
asked, upon his promotion to Undersheriff, if he could be assigned to Lake Tahoe and the Sheriff
agreed. The Undersheriff prepared an agreement stating his assignment was to South Lake
Tahoe, which was signed by both the Undersheriff and the Sheriff.
Subsequently, Sheriff’s Payroll Department processed the Payroll/ Personnel Action Form with
the increase in pay for the Tahoe Differential to coincide with the promotion to Undersheriff.
The Undersheriff signed the form as “ employee” and a payroll clerk signed on behalf of the
Sheriff. Although approval for promotional pay actions were purportedly documented, attached
to the memo announcing the promotion, and allegedly filed in the appropriate personnel file, no
14
written approval is currently on file with the Sheriff’s Department. The payroll clerk did not
question the new Undersheriff receiving the benefit because he was second in command.
The Grand Jury investigation revealed that the usual work station assignment for an Undersheriff
is Placerville. County policy and the relevant MOUs require an employee to spend more than
50 percent of his work time at South Lake Tahoe in order to qualify and receive Tahoe
Differential pay. Based on the Grand Jury investigation it appears the Undersheriff in question
did not spend the required time in South Lake Tahoe to qualify for the differential pay. The
Undersheriff’s retirement pay increased as a result of this benefit. It should be further noted the
investigation revealed this to be an isolated case.
The Grand Jury investigation also revealed it is common practice for the Sheriff’s Department
Payroll Clerks to sign Payroll/ Personnel Action Forms on behalf of Division Chiefs without
obtaining their approval or written delegation of authority. This included those
Payroll/ Personnel Action Forms resulting in financial impact. Although it is common practice
for the payroll clerks to sign on behalf of Division Chiefs, there were not any written
authorizations for them to do so.
Findings
F1. The Sheriff told the Undersheriff he could be assigned to Lake Tahoe, with the hours and
days to be set by the Sheriff.
F2. The Sheriff did not set days or hours for the Undersheriff to work in South Lake Tahoe.
F3. The Undersheriff received Tahoe Differential pay without working primarily in the South
Lake Tahoe area.
F4. Payroll clerks, without written authorization, routinely sign Payroll/ Personnel Action
forms on behalf of Division Chiefs, including those resulting in financial impact.
F5. The Tahoe Differential pay received by the Undersheriff impacted his final
compensation, which in turn was used to calculate his retirement benefits.
F6. The Grand Jury investigation revealed this was an isolated case.
Recommendations
R1. Payroll/ Personnel Action Forms relating to the Undersheriff should be signed by the
Sheriff.
R2. Delegation of authority to Payroll Clerks to sign on behalf of Division Chiefs should be
specific and exclude actions involving financial benefit.
R3. The County should be reimbursed for the Tahoe Differential paid to the Undersheriff.
15
R4. The County Counsel should review with the Board of Supervisors the issues presented
and take whatever action( s) is deemed appropriate.
Commendations
It should be noted that the Sheriff’s Department recently took action to establish procedures to
minimize the opportunity for future abuse.
Responses Required for Findings
F1 through F5 El Dorado County Sheriff
Responses Required for Recommendations
R1 and R2 El Dorado County Sheriff
El Dorado County Department of Human Resources
R3 and R4 El Dorado County Board of Supervisors
16
CRIMINAL JUSTICE COMMITTEE
Sheriff’s Non Follow- Up Regarding Sick Leave Abuse
Citizen Complaint # C20 – 02/ 03
Reason for the Report
A citizen’s complaint was received alleging the Sheriff failed to investigate the 200 hours of sick
leave a former Undersheriff was paid. This complaint relates to a follow- up of a previous Grand
Jury complaint (# 00/ 01 – C021).
Scope of the Investigation
The members of the Grand Jury interviewed:
· The former County Sheriff ( Sheriff);
· The former Undersheriff ( Undersheriff);
· Employees of El Dorado County Sheriff’s Department;
· Employees of El Dorado County Department of Human Resources;
· Employees of El Dorado County Risk Management.
The Grand Jury also reviewed:
· Citizen complaint # 00/ 01- C- 021 alleging abuse of sick leave by the Undersheriff;
· Grand Jury Report 2000/ 2001 regarding complaint # 00/ 01- C- 021;
· The Sheriff’s response to the Grand Jury Report 2000/ 2001;
· Appropriate payroll documents;
· All sick leave records of Sheriff’s Department personnel who terminated service
between January 1, 1999 and November 2002;
· Correspondence between Sheriff and former Undersheriff regarding abuse of sick
leave ;
· Various memoranda regarding principals involved;
· Policies for the County and Memoranda of Understandings ( MOUs) relating to sick
leave;
· Medical records of the former Undersheriff.
Background
The 2000/ 2001 Grand Jury received and investigated a citizen complaint concerning the alleged
abuse of sick leave by the Undersheriff. In response to that Grand Jury Report, the Sheriff
responded that he would investigate the Grand Jury’s findings. He stated if it was determined
that the Undersheriff was not ill, a demand for repayment of funds would be pursued.
17
Subsequently, the 2002/ 2003 Grand Jury received another complaint regarding the status of the
Sheriff’s investigation and requested that the County seek reimbursement for the unauthorized
sick leave. A second investigation commenced.
Early in 1999, because of differences between the Sheriff and one of his Captains, the Sheriff
approached the Captain with an offer to which the Captain agreed. This agreement involved the
Sheriff promoting the Captain to Undersheriff with the understanding the Undersheriff would
retire from the Sheriff’s Department at the end of January 2000.
Thereafter, the Undersheriff sent a memo to the Sheriff, confirming their conversation that he
would be retiring on April 28, 2000. He also stated he would use his accrued vacation leave
from January 31, 2000 until his retirement on April 28, 2000 with the Sheriff’s approval.
The Salary & Benefits Resolution for Unrepresented Employees, amended effective July 3,
1999, allows all accrued vacation leave to be paid upon the employee’s retirement. However, the
Resolution allows a maximum of 504 hours of accrued sick leave to be paid upon retirement.
Any accrued sick leave in excess of 504 hours is lost upon retirement.
Subsequently, during the period of time he was on vacation leave, the Undersheriff contacted
payroll clerks in the Sheriff’s Department and instructed them to change a substantial portion of
his vacation leave to sick leave. Due to his rank and no written established procedures for
unrepresented employees, the clerks followed his instructions without question.
Thus, on five occasions over a period of approximately three months, the Undersheriff instructed
payroll to change a portion of his vacation leave to sick leave. It appears the Undersheriff’s
actions enabled him to manipulate the County sick leave policy wherein he received 200 hours of
sick leave, valued at over $ 10,000, he would have otherwise lost at retirement.
This Grand Jury contacted members of the Sheriff’s Department regarding the status of the
above- mentioned investigation into the abuse of sick leave. They were informed that the Sheriff
wrote a letter to the former Undersheriff on August 20, 2001, requesting medical verification for
the unauthorized sick leave. ( It should be noted the Sheriff’s Department does not have a receipt
of delivery of the letter to the former Undersheriff and the Undersheriff claims he never received
said letter.) The Sheriff failed to follow up on the matter until this Grand Jury inquired into the
status of his investigation.
The Sheriff wrote a second letter on October 6, 2002, fourteen months later, again requesting
medical verification of sick leave. The Undersheriff, in a written response dated October 9,
2002, claimed various illnesses. He also stated no one required medical verification prior to that
date. The Undersheriff indicated he would like to provide specific documentation, however, he
found the request unrealistic and unreasonable. Subsequently, the Undersheriff signed a medical
release for the Grand Jury to obtain his medical records. The Grand Jury reviewed the medical
records and concluded there did not appear to be any verification to substantiate his use of sick
leave.
18
Findings
F1. It appears the former Sheriff promoted a Captain to Undersheriff for personal reasons,
rather than for the benefit of the County.
F2. The Sheriff authorized the Undersheriff to use accumulated leave from January 31, 2000
through April 28, 2000.
F3. The Undersheriff contacted the Payroll clerks with instructions to change his vacation
leave to sick leave.
F4. The 2000/ 2001Grand Jury reported this Undersheriff was paid 200 hours for sick leave
when he was not sick and resulted in the use of accumulated sick leave for which he
would not have been entitled to be paid for upon retirement.
F5. The Sheriff, responding to the 2000/ 2001 Grand Jury Report, said he would investigate
the Grand Jury’s finding. If the Sheriff determined that the Undersheriff was not entitled
to receive sick leave payment, he would demand repayment of funds.
F6. The Sheriff alleges he sent a letter to the Undersheriff on August 29, 2001, requesting
doctor’s documentation. However he failed to follow up on said letter for a period of
fourteen months until contacted by this Grand Jury.
F7. The Undersheriff responded in a letter on October 9, 2002 that he was sick during the
time in question.
F8. The Undersheriff’s medical records reviewed by this Grand Jury do not appear to
substantiate his claim.
F9. A review by this Grand Jury of Sheriff’s Department sick leave records, between January
1999 and November 2002, revealed this apparent abuse of sick leave to be an isolated
case.
F10. In January 2003, the County Counsel filed suit against the Undersheriff in small claims
court to recover monies owed pursuant to the limitations of said court.
Recommendations
R1. Procedures should be established, implemented, and followed for obtaining appropriate
approval to change any vacation leave to sick leave for all personnel, including
management.
R2. Written medical verification required for related sick leave should be obtained in a timely
manner.
19
R3. Proper procedures should be established for follow- up of required written medical
verification.
R4. County Counsel should review the issues presented and take whatever additional action
they deem appropriate.
Commendations
County employees were cooperative with this Grand Jury’s investigation. It should be noted that
the Sheriff’s Department has implemented procedures to ensure compliance to the sick leave
policy.
Responses Required for Findings
F3 through F5 El Dorado County Sheriff
F4 through F5, and F10 El Dorado County Board of Supervisors
Responses Required for Recommendations
R1 through R3 El Dorado County Sheriff
R4 El Dorado County Board of Supervisors
El Dorado County Counsel
20
CRIMINAL JUSTICE COMMITTEE
Appearance of Inappropriate Actions by the El Dorado County District Attorney
Citizen Complaint # C34- 02/ 03
Reason for the Report
A complaint alleges inappropriate behavior by the El Dorado County District Attorney.
Scope of the Investigation
The Grand Jury interviewed:
· The Complainant;
· The El Dorado County District Attorney;
· The District Attorney’s “ girlfriend;”
· Attorneys currently and formerly associa ted with the District Attorney’s Office;
· Several Judicial Officers;
· A Deputy Sheriff of El Dorado County;
· Current and former El Dorado County Employees;
· Director of Human Resources for El Dorado County;
· Auditor- Controller for El Dorado County;
· A representative of one of the El Dorado County employee unions.
The Grand Jury also reviewed:
· The Complaint;
· Numerous Court documents relating to Complainant and District Attorney’s
girlfriend ( hereinafter referred to as “ Friend”);
· Various Court Orders of the El Dorado Superior and Municipal Courts
Transcripts of Superior Court proceedings;
· Police and Sheriff’s reports pertaining to Complainant, “ Friend,” and “ Friend’s” son;
· Various memoranda from the District Attorney;
· El Dorado County timesheets, payroll and expense records of the “ Friend;”
· Criminal Court records of “ Friend’s” son;
· Letters to and from the California Judicial Council;
· Letter to and from the California State Bar;
· California Rules of Professional Conduct - State Bar Act;
21
· Applicable Penal Code Sections ;
· Applicable Government Code Sections;
· Applicable Business and Professions Codes Sections;
· Professionalism a Sourcebook of Ethics and Civil Liability Principals for Prosecutors
by The Ethics Committee of the California District Attorneys Association;
· Recusal of District Attorneys – Attorney General Publications;
· District Attorney Department Handbook;
· Grand Jury Reports for years 1999/ 2000, 2000/ 2001 and 2001/ 2002;
· Additional information supplied by the District Attorney to “ clarify” his previous
testimony;
· Additional information supplied by the District Attorney’s “ Friend” to “ clarify” her
previous testimony;
· Reviewed transcripts of District Attorney and “ Friend’s “ testimony.
Background
The complaint alleges inappropriate behavior by the El Dorado County District Attorney, various
Court and County employees, and various judicial officers.
The Complainant is a former “ live- in boyfriend” of the El Dorado County District Attorney’s
“ Friend.” The Complainant is the father of one of the children of “ Friend.”
Both the Complainant and the District Attorney’s “ Friend” have been and continue to be
involved in convoluted and bitter proceedings in the El Dorado County Superior Court. The
myriad of issues includes child custody, child visitation, child support, multiple restraining
orders against both parties, and allegations regarding “ who did what to whom.” At one point, the
Court declared Complainant to be a “ vexatious” litigant.
This Grand Jury’s investigation determined many of the Complainant’s allegations regarding
Court and County employees and Judges to be without merit. However, the investigation did
reveal issues enmeshing the District Attorney in potential conflicts of interest, appearances of
impropriety, less- than- strict adherence to the ethical requirements of prosecutors, and violations
of the Rules of Professional Conduct for Attorneys and the California Business and Professions
Code.
This Grand Jury was concerned to find that sworn testimony by the El Dorado County District
Attorney and other witnesses differed in important and significantly conflicting details.
The Grand Jury investigation revealed animosity exists between the District Attorney and the
Complainant.
During the recent election the Complainant put offensive signs on his truck opposing the District
Attorney’s reelection. In October 2002, the District Attorney filed a complaint with the Sheriff’s
Department for damaged and missing election signs. The District Attorney told the Deputy
22
Sheriff that because of his job anyone could have damaged/ vandalized his signs. However, the
District Attorney identified only the Complainant as a possible perpetrator to the Deputy. The
District Attorney told the Deputy that the Complainant’s driver’s license had been suspended.
The morning after filing his complaint, the District Attorney contacted the Deputy to inform him
of the whereabouts of the Complainant. The Deputy stopped the Complainant, informed him of
his suspended driver’s license, and questioned him about the vandalism/ theft of the election
signs. Subsequently after receiving verbal consent, the Deputy searched the Complainant’s
vehicle and home. The Deputy found no evidence of the signs.
The Complainant contacted Child Support Services regarding the suspended license. Child
Support Services told him the suspension had been lifted. Subsequently, this Grand Jury heard
testimony that the District Attorney inappropriately commented at a Department Head meeting
that the department should never have lifted the Complainant’s suspension.
The District Attorney testified he spoke with the Deputy about a half a dozen times during the
investigation. In addition, the District Attorney testified that he keeps a personal file relating to
Complainant in his personal office. He mentioned this file is not maintained within the course of
his duties as a District Attorney but only for his own personal records.
The 2002/ 2003 Grand Jury concluded certain other actions by the District Attorney, while
probably not unlawful, are highly questionable given his relationship with his “ Friend.” For
example, on June 18, 1999, the District Attorney signed a form of “ proof of service” for
documents he mailed to Complainant on his “ Friend’s” behalf. By injecting himself into a legal
proceeding involving his “ Friend,” the District Attorney projected the appearance of impropriety.
Another example involves a declaration signed under penalty of perjury by the District Attorney.
The declaration was apparently filed in one of “ Friend’s” Court cases. It concerned a telephone
conversation between Complainant and “ Friend” that the District Attorney overheard. The
District Attorney assumed his declaration could be used in a Court action involving his “ Friend”
and the Complainant. If the matter had gone to trial, the District Attorney could have been called
as a witness. Injecting himself into Court proceedings involving his close personal “ Friend” may
create a conflict of interest.
The District Attorney also testified that he should not be disqualified from doing things that
anyone else can do. Although the District Attorney does not give up his rights as a private
citizen because he is the District Attorney, he is still bound by certain constraints precisely
because he is the District Attorne y of El Dorado County. The top prosecutor of the County is
required to meet standards of candor and impartiality not demanded of other attorneys.
“ Friend” has a son with a lengthy criminal court record. His El Dorado County cases were
handled by the District Attorney’s Office. Evidence of special consideration does not appear.
This Grand Jury is concerned, however, about a public perception of an appearance of
impropriety because of the close relationship between the District Attorney and his “ Friend,” and
by extension, “ Friend’s” family. In the opinion of the Grand Jury, it should be the duty of the
District Attorney to place himself above reproach in all legal matters relating to his “ Friend” and
her family.
23
In another matter, the Complainant filed two Orders to Show Cause requesting temporary
restraining orders pertaining, in part, to possession of firearms by “ Friend.” Complainant filed
one of the Orders to Show Cause in 1999 and the other in the year 2000.
The 1999 temporary Court Order, among other things, required the District Attorney’s “ Friend”
to give up any firearm in or subject to her immediate possession or control within 24 hours. The
Order also required “ Friend” to surrender any firearms to local law enforcement and file a
receipt with the Court showing compliance.
In testimony before the Grand Jury, the “ Friend” stated she asked the District Attorney about the
appropriateness and legality of the Order. She testified he told her it was legal. She then
testified she delivered her gun, a .380 caliber Smith & Wesson semi- automatic pistol, to the
District Attorney and he gave her a written receipt.
The District Attorney subsequently testified he purchased the .380 for his “ Friend” as a gift in
December 1998. He said she lives alone and he felt she needed a gun for her home so she had a
means to protect herself. He also testified that he was not aware of her having any other
firearms.
During his initial testimony on May 21, 2003, the District Attorney denied any memory of the
“ Friend” turning the gun into his office. Later when the Grand Jury inspected the official
logbook of evidence held in the District Attorney’s Office, there was no record of the gun having
been turned in.
At his request to clarify his earlier testimony, the District Attorney re- testified on June 4, 2003.
In this testimony he recalled taking possession of the gun and provided the Grand Jury with a
photocopy of his handwritten evidence log that showed he put the gun in his personal safe in his
office.
The evidence log for the District Attorney’s personal safe contained five entries:
March 3, 1995 Envelope from Grand Jury In
May 15, 1995 Envelope with $ 1,254 cash In
November 17, 1995 Envelope from Grand Jury In
July 13, 1999 Smith and Wesson 380 caliber, In
A Serial number from [“ Friend’s”] gun
November 15, 1999 Smith and Wesson 380 caliber, Out
A Serial number from [“ Friend’s”] gun
The entries had log numbers and were initialed by the District Attorney. The entries on the
evidence log, cited above, show receipt of a gun from “ Friend” on July 13, 1999, and removal of
the gun from the safe on November 15, 1999. These are the last two entries on the District
Attorney’s current evidence log. The entry showing the gun going “ out” is the only “ out” entry
recorded in the log in the previous eight years. The District Attorney did not have a copy of any
Court Order to release the gun to “ Friend” nor a receipt from “ Friend” evidencing return of the
24
gun. The District Attorney’s method of receiving “ Friend’s” gun for safekeeping in his private
office safe did not follow normally accepted procedures that are in place in his office. This
procedure on behalf of “ Friend” conveys an appearance of impropriety.
The District Attorney testified he did not know how accurate his evidence log was. He also
testified the log did not accurately convey all the “ in” and “ out” activities of his personal safe. In
addition, he maintained he was the only one with access and the combination to the safe.
The District Attorney also stated his personal safe currently contains more items than just the
three remaining items listed in the evidence log. However he had no log of the additional files in
his personal safe nor did he recall anything about the other items in his safe. While he knew
from the evidence log who delivered the above items, he did not know if some of the items were
still in his possession or even the reason for the cash being in the safe. Fur thermore he was
unaware if the cash was still in the safe. ( Later, he informed this Grand Jury by telephone the
cash was still in his safe.)
During the District Attorney’s testimony he mentioned he did not always record or keep records
of guns stored or placed in his custody.
In April 2000, the Complainant filed another Order To Show Cause and Temporary Restraining
Order. This Court Order required the “ Friend” to surrender a .22 caliber pistol and all weapons
to the Sheriff’s Department. The “ Friend ” testified to the Grand Jury that she had never seen this
Court Order. However, the transcript of a later Court hearing ( April 12, 2000) indicates she was
aware of it.
The Grand Jury sent a subpoena to the Sheriff’s Department requesting information relating to
any surrender of firearms by “ Friend” between April 3, 2000 and April 26, 2000. The
Sheriff’s Department search did not any find any record of such surrender. This clearly
indicates “ Friend” did not, in fact, surrender her weapons to the Sheriff’s Department as
ordered by the Court.
The Grand Jury asked the District Attorney what he would do with a firearm the Court had
directed be delivered to the Sheriff’s Department but was given to him instead. The District
Attorney said he would usually give it to an investigator or put it into a locked safe. With
reference to the fact that the Court Order directed the firearm be delivered to the Sheriff’s
Department, the District Attorney testified his compliance with the Court Order would depend on
the reason for the Order. If it involved evidence that required booking into the Sheriff’s
Department, then the District Attorney indicated that he might deliver the firearm to the Sheriff.
If it were just for safekeeping, the District Attorney said he might store the weapons in the
District Attorney’s office. He added that even if he knew the Court had ordered his “ Friend’s”
gun be delivered to the Sheriff, he might have accepted the gun to lock it up to keep it away from
her.
The Grand Jury evaluated the District Attorney’s testimony in light of his obligation to comply
with ethical guidelines and to conform to standards of professionalism:
25
“ In order to instill public confidence in the legal profession and our judicial system, an
attorney must be an example of lawfulness, not lawlessness.” 1
After repeated questions about a Court Order that a firearm be delivered to the Sheriff, the
District Attorney left this Grand Jury with the impression it would be his decision whether or not
to follow the Court Order.
After the Temporary Restraining Order was issued on April 3, 2000, requiring the ” Friend,”
among other things, to deliver all weapons to the Sheriff’s Department, the Court held another
hearing on April 12, 2000. Both parties were present at this hearing and the “ Friend” admitted
having received the Temporary Restraining Order discussed above.
During the April 12, 2000 hearing, the Court asked the “ Friend” about a .22 caliber pistol. The
“ Friend” responded to the Court that she did not have a .22 pistol. However in her testimony
before the Grand Jury, she testified she possessed a .38 caliber handgun. The District Attorney’s
personal evidence log indicates the District Attorney returned a .380 Smith and Wesson semi-automatic
pistol to “ Friend” in November of 1999. “ Friend” said she did not inform the Court of
her other weapons because the Court did not ask about them.
In addition, the “ Friend” may have been in Contempt of Court for noncompliance with the April
3, 2000 Temporary Restraining Order because she did not deliver all of her weapons to the
Sheriff’s Department.
When the District Attorney assumed his elected position in 1995, Child Support Services was
under the auspices of the District Attorney’s Office. The District Attorne y was thus his
“ Friend’s” department head. In December of 1996, “ Friend” moved from the Placerville office
to the South Lake Tahoe Office of Child Support Services. Initially assigned as a supervisor,
“ Friend” was promoted to Family Support Branch Manager in October 1997. Just over two
months after her promotion in December 1997, “ Friend” transferred to another County
department citing personal issues. According to “ Friend,” others had the perception that she was
having a relationship with the District Attorney. “ Friend” testified no such relationship existed
at that time.
During their Grand Jury individual interviews, both the District Attorney and “ Friend” testified
“ Friend” left Child Support Services and the District Attorney’s Office about the end of 1996.
The District Attorney and “ Friend” also testified their relationship began in June 1998. The
District Attorney said they became involved several years after “ Friend” left Child Support
Services. County payroll records, however, show “ Friend” left the District Attorney’s Office in
December 1997, less than six months before they testified their relationship allegedly began.
The District Attorney later hired “ Friend” to transcribe records for the District Attorney’s Office
on a part- time basis ( from late 1999 through early summer 2001). During this time “ Friend’s”
child support case was still under the auspices of the District Attorney. The District Attorney did
1 PROFESSIONALISM, A Sourcebook of Ethics and Civil Liability Principles for Prosecutors, by the Ethic
Committee of the California District Attorneys Association; Chapter X, Page X- 1.
26
not see any problem with an appearance of impropriety with “ Friend’s” case being handled by
his office.
“ Friend’ worked for another County Department from March 2002 to November 2002.
According to “ Friend,” the District Attorney told her his office was short- handed and asked if
she would like an “ Extra Help” position. The following day the District Attorney requested
approval for the “ Extra Help” position. He also requested “ Friend’s” position be upgraded from
Legal Office Assistant I/ II to Legal Secretary I/ II. He based his request on the fact that vacancies
existed in the office of one full time Legal Secretary and 2.5 full time Legal Office Assistant
positions. Since the new position was “ Extra Help,” the District Attorney was allowed to hire
without posting for the position or using a pool of five candidates supplied by Human Resources.
“ Friend” began working for the District Attorney in December 3, 2002, as a Legal Secretary II.
According to Human Resources, the District Attorney’s Office has been short three legal
assistant/ secretary positions since October 2002 and has not filled any of these positions as of
May 2003. The District Attorney told this Grand Jury his office was down five to six clerical
positions, which conflicts with Human Resources information that only three positions are
currently open.
“ Friend’ testified she may work up to 40 hours a week as extra help. Records indicate she
averages approximately 30 hours per week. When asked how it is determined the number of
hours a week “ Friend” works, the District Attorney testified it depended partially upon the needs
in his office and partially upon her time commitment to another job she holds.
In addition to “ Friend” currently working on a part time basis in the District Attorney’s office,
“ Friend” also works part time for a local family law attorney. The family law attorney is married
to the Chief Assistant District Attorney who reports to the District Attorney. The District
Attorney testified the Chief Assistant District Attorney is also the person who handles any cases
involving “ Friend,” “ Friend’s” son and any criminal matters involving the Complainant and
“ Friend”.
The Grand Jury interviews established the personal relationship between the District Attorney
and “ Friend” is known to the staff in the District Attorney’s Office. The District Attorney
testified his subordinate employees would tell him if work problems arose with regard to his
“ Friend’s” work performance. If “ Friend’s” supervisor or co- workers have an issue with
“ Friend’s” work performance they are placed in the untenable position of having to raise their
concern with their department head who is also “ Friend’s” boyfriend.
The District Attorney denies that “ Friend’s” employment creates the perception or appearance of
impropriety. He testified that some people may perceive a conflict regardless of what he says or
does and some people may be offended by the situation. He stated, however, his office
operations would be in serious trouble without “ Friend’s” extra help.
Potential Violation of Rule 5- 300 of the California Rules of Professional Conduct the State
Bar Act ( ex parte communications)
27
“ Rule [ of Professional Conduct} 5- 300. Contact with Officials . . .
( B) A member shall not directly or indirectly communicate with or argue
to a judge or judicial officer upon the merits of a contested matter pending
before such judge or judicial officers, except:
( 1) In open court; or
( 2) With the consent of all other counsel in such matter, or
( 3) In the presence of all other counsel in such matter, or
( 4) In writing with a copy thereof furnished to such other
counsel; or
( 5) In ex parte matters.”
In 1999, a court clerk apparently failed to delete a child’s name on a temporary restraining order
served on the El Dorado County District Attorney’s “ Friend.” This caused the “ Friend” to
believe the Court had issued an Order restraining her contact with her child. She was upset and
told her boyfriend, the District Attorney, about what had happened. The District Attorney then
telephoned a Judge regarding this issue, and contacted the Commissioner presiding over the
“ Friend’s” case. According to the Commissioner, the District Attorney contacted him as he was
walking into the courthouse demanding to know why the Commissioner had changed custody.
The District Attorney initially claimed that his communication with the Commissioner presiding
over his “ Friend’s” case was not a prohibited ex parte communication because he was not a party
to the case and therefore he could speak [ ex parte] with the Commissioner.
Rule 5- 300 ( B) clearly and affirmatively prohibits a “ member” of the bar, such as the District
Attorney, from communicating, ex parte, with a judge or judicial officer about a case. It does
not matter that the District Attorney was not personally involved as a party. He is a “ member” of
the State Bar of California.
The District Attorney’s communication with the Commissioner, according to the two Judges
who spoke with the District Attorney about the incident, was an impermissible ex parte
communication and therefore a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct 5- 300.
The District Attorney compromised his position by later testifying, under oath before this Grand
Jury, that he contacted the Commissioner because of inconsistent terms within two separate
copies of the same restraining order. He said he felt it was his duty to do so because he might be
called upon to enforce the Court Order a violation of which would be a misdemeanor. However,
the District Attorney could not recall any other time when he personally investigated a
misdemeanor since he became the District Attorney of El Dorado County. He testified his
conversation with the Commissioner was not on the merits of the case and that his demeanor was
calm.
The Grand Jury investigation disclosed the District Attorney went to the general filing clerk’s
window to see the file in question. The file was unavailable ( presumably it was still with the
Commissioner’s judicial assistant) and the clerks were unable, at that time, to retrieve it.
According to a clerk who observed the interaction, the District Attorney was rude and acted in a
manner unbecoming a District Attorney.
28
An attorney also witnessed the District Attorney’s actions during this transaction. According to
this attorney’s testimony, the District Attorney came to the clerk and “ proceeded to raise hell”.
The District Attorney wanted to see a file and was adamant about it. The attorney characterized
the District Attorney’s manner as abrupt and curt.
The Commissioner wrote that the District Attorney was outraged because of the Commissioner’s
Order. The Commissioner told the District Attorney he had no idea what the District Attorney
was talking about. After the District Attorney left, the Commissioner went to the files to see
what the problem was. At that point in time, the Commissioner saw the error and contacted the
District Attorney to inform him of same.
Thus, it seems clear, if the Court file was not available to the District Attorney before he spoke to
the Commissioner, it was not possible for the District Attorney to have or be aware of two
Restraining Orders during his conversation with the Commissioner. This Grand Jury finds the
District Attorney’s sworn testimony to be untrue.
Another issue arose during the District Attorney’s ex parte conversation with the Commissioner.
The District Attorney told the Commissioner another Judge had temporarily vacated the
Commissioner’s Order. During his testimony to this Grand Jury, the District Attorney denied
telling the Commissioner that he had spoken with another Judge who was going to vacate the
Commissioner’s Order.
The District Attorney testified to this Grand Jury that what he said to the Commissioner was that
he spoke with a Judge and asked the Judge to temporarily put a temporary hold on any
enforcement of the Order until the District Attorney had the opportunity to clarify which Order
was correct. The evidence received by the Grand Jury does not support his testimony.
The Grand Jury reviewed e- mails between the Commissioner, the Judge, the District Attorney,
and a letter from the Commissioner. These documents disclosed the District Attorney did
telephone a Judge before his discussion with the Commissioner. His telephone conversation
with the Judge, however, did not include anything about the Judge placing a temporary hold on
any enforcement of the Commissioner’s Order. This is contrary to what the District Attorney
told the Commissioner and this Grand Jury. During that telephone conversation the District
Attorney asked the Judge what to do regarding the Order. The Judge told the District Attorney to
have his “ Friend” type a declaration and seek an Ex parte Order from the Commissioner
modifying the Order.
The Grand Jury finds the District Attorney’s statement to the Commissioner, regarding the Order
being vacated or regarding a temporary hold and his sworn statements to this Grand Jury
concerning this incident, to be lacking in truth and veracity.
The District Attorney’s statement to the Commissioner, about the Judge placing a “ hold” on the
Order, was a violation of Business & Professions Code, Section 6068 ( d). That Section concerns
attorneys and says, in part, a member of the Bar should:
29
“( d)… never seek to mislead the judge or any judicial
officer by an artifice or false statement of fact or law.”
The District Attorney’s statement to the Commissioner was an attempt to mislead him by a false
statement of fact. According to the Judge, as stated previously, the District Attorney never
mentioned putting a hold or temporary stay on the Commissioner’s Order to him.
Of greater seriousness, in the view of the Grand Jury, are the statements the District
Attorney made to the Grand Jury to exculpate or insulate himself from the communication
he had with the Commissioner.
After his second appearance before this Grand Jury, the District Attorney sent the Grand Jury a
letter. His letter misquoted Rule 5- 300 ( B). He wrote, “ A member may directly or indirectly
communicate with or argue to a judge or judicial officer upon the merits of a contested matter
pending before such judge or judicial officer, except…” [ emphasis added]. The Rule actually
states “ A member shall not directly or indirectly communicate with or argue to a judge or
judicial officer upon the merits of a contested matter pending before such judge or judicial
officer, except…” [ emphasis added].
During his testimony to the Grand Jury and in a letter he sent to the Grand Jury to “ clarify” his
testimony, the District Attorney again testified that the two Judges told him his communication
with the Commissioner was not a prohibited ex parte communication.
The Grand Jury investigation determined both the Presiding Judge and the Assistant Presiding
Judge met with the District Attorney because the Commissioner informed them of the District
Attorney’s ex parte communication. The purpose of the meeting was to admonish the District
Attorney about the improper nature of his communication and to ensure it did not occur again.
The District Attorney misrepresented these facts to the Grand Jur y.
Another issue concerns a letter the District Attorney wrote to the California State Bar. The
District Attorney wrote the letter after the Complainant contacted the State Bar about the District
Attorney’s ex parte communication discussed above. The District Attorney’s letter denied any
misconduct and offered his explanations as to what happened.
The District Attorney’s letter to the State Bar was misleading. In his letter to the State Bar, the
District Attorney wrote he spoke with the Presiding Judge and the Assistant Presiding Judge
about his communications to the Commissioner and the Judges were satisfied that no
inappropriate conduct took place. This statement in the District Attorney’s letter to the State Bar
is not true. Both the Presiding Jud ge and the Assistant Presiding Judge advised the Grand Jury
they characterized the District Attorney’s communication with the Commissioner as an
“ inappropriate ex parte communication.” They told this to the District Attorney during their
meeting on this issue.
In his letter to the California State Bar, the District Attorney wrote he believed the Commissioner
recused himself from his “ Friend’s” case because of extensive frivolous litigation by the
Complainant.
30
The District Attorney’s “ belief” is not based on fact. The Commissioner signed a Minute Order
saying the reason for his recusal arose from the unsolicited ex parte communication from the El
Dorado County District Attorney’s Office. The Commissioner reported that he disqualified
himself due to the District Attorney’s involvement and ex parte communication.
Based only on information received from the District Attorney, the State Bar wrote to the District
Attorney and said it had completed the investigation of the allegations of professional
misconduct and concluded the matter did not warrant further action. The State Bar closed the
matter without prejudice to further proceedings as appropriate.
The Grand Jury finds that the District Attorney’s communication with the Commissioner, and,
more serious ly, his misrepresentation of the facts to this Grand Jury and to the California State
Bar, to be completely at variance with the conduct expected of attorneys in public office. This is
especially true for the District Attorney because “ Prosecutors are entrusted with great power and
responsibilities. For that reason the public and the judiciary hold them to the highest ethical
standards…” 2
A District Attorney should at all times conduct himself in such a way as to be above reproach
and to strictly adhere to the highest standards of conduct and avoid any appearance of self
service or impropriety.
Findings
F1. The District Attorney involved himself in “ Friend’s” Court proceedings with the
Complainant.
F2. The District Attorney’s Office continues to hand le “ Friend’s” son’s criminal cases
resulting in the appearance of impropriety to the public.
F3. The District Attorney did not follow his office procedures relating to the logging in and
custody of “ Friend’s” weapon.
F4. The District Attorney has $ 1,254.00 in his personal office safe for eight years and cannot
explain this.
F5. The District Attorney does not maintain a complete and proper evidence log of the
contents of his personal office safe.
F6. The District Attorney hired “ Friend” to work in his office on several occasions, most
recently December 2002, while involved in a personal relationship with her.
F7. The District Attorney’s “ Friend” working in his office has created a perception of
favoritism and an adverse effect on staff morale.
2 PROFESSIONALISM, A Sourcebook of Ethics and Civil Liability Principles for Prosecutors, by the Ethic
Committee of the California District Attorneys Association; Chapter X, Page X- 1.
31
F8. The District Attorney had an ex parte communication with a Court Commissioner in
violation of Rule 5- 300 of the California Rules of Professional Conduct for attorneys.
F9. The District Attorney misled a Court Commissioner with a false statement of fact in
violation of Business & Professions Code, Section 6068 ( d).
F10. The District Attorney misrepresented facts regarding his communication with the
Commissioner to the State Bar of California and to this Grand Jury.
F11. The District Attorney sent a letter to the Grand Jury misquoting Rule 5- 300 of the
California Rules of Professional Conduct for attorneys.
F12. Sworn testimony by the District Attorney and other witnesses conflicts in important and
significant details.
F13. Portions of the District Attorney’s testimony and documentation were found to be lacking
in truth and veracity.
Recommendations
Rl. The District Attorney should establish proper written procedures for all cases involving
potential conflict of interest.
R2. The District Attorney should establish written procedures pertaining to his “ personal”
safe whereby all items are properly logged in and out with the appropriate detailed
information.
R3. The personal safe and evidence locker should be audited annually.
R4. All cash received should be maintained in “ double” custody.
R5. To avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest, the District Attorney should set up a
written protocol regarding cases whenever the accused is related to or has a relationship
with an employee in the District Attorney’s Office, including the District Attorney.
R6. The El Dorado County Board of Supervisors should revise the County’s nepotism policy
to include “ significant others.”
Responses Required for Recommendations
R1 through R5 El Dorado County District Attorney
R6 El Dorado County Board of Supervisors
32
CRIMINAL JUSTICE COMMITTEE
Non- Action by District Attorney
Citizen Complaint # C41- 02/ 03
Reason for the Report
A citizen’s complaint alleges the District Attorney failed to perform his job because he did not
prosecute the alleged leader of the Women Helping Women organization in El Dorado County.
Scope of the Investigation
The members of the Grand Jury interviewed:
· The Complainant;
· Various participants of Women Helping Women;
· Law Enforcement Officials from El Dorado County, Placerville, and South Lake
Tahoe;
· Deputy District Attorney for El Dorado County.
The Grand Jury also reviewed:
· Various written information including newspaper articles, Women Helping Women
Newsletters, Faxes, notes provided by Women Helping Women participants;
· Law Enforcement Reports;
· Video tape of national television program featuring Women Helping Women type of
organizations.
Background
Women Helping Women, determined by the District Attorney to be a pyramid scheme in
violation of Penal Code 327, started operations in Placerville during the year 2000.
Subsequently the organization moved from the Placerville City limits to various locations on the
Western Slope of El Dorado County during 2001. This shift in location changed the jurisdiction
from Placerville Police Department to the El Dorado County Sheriff’s Department. The Women
Helping Women activities then moved to Sacramento and Placer Counties. While a similar
organization was started in South Lake Tahoe, it did not flourish.
Five participants of the El Dorado County Women Helping Women met with the District
Attorney on February 13, 2002, to discuss the legality of the organization. During the meeting
the District Attorney advised the group that Women Helping Women was a pyramid scheme and
unlawful. He informed the participants that, if they stopped all their group activities in El
33
Dorado County as of that date, no charges would be brought against them. The alleged head of
El Dorado County Women Helping Women was included in the offer as she was one of the five
women in the meeting with the District Attorney.
Our investigation revealed it was difficult to substantiate the facts in the case. Individuals would
use only first names and an initial for last names on Women Helping Women documents. To
further complicate identifying the participants, many individuals did not use their real names,
signed up friends and relatives without their knowledge, and blackened out names and phone
numbers on documents . When asked to give names of witnesses, the information was refused
because the individuals did not want to involve others. Also, it was difficult to prove the actual
monetary value involved as all transactions were paid in cash.
There was an investigation underway by the Placerville Police Department when Women
Helping Women moved activities out of the their jurisdiction. Their investigative report was sent
to the District Attorney.
The El Dorado County Sheriff’s Department formed a task force comprised of two Sheriff’s
Detectives and one investigator from the District Attorney’s Office in October 2002. The result
of the investigation, which was conducted by the two Sheriff’s Detectives, did not have sufficient
evidence for criminal action. The investigative report was forwarded to the District Attorney’s
Office.
During our interview with the Deputy District Attorney, the Grand Jury was informed the
Deputy District Attorney had reviewed the reports from both the Placerville Police and the
Sheriff’s Departments and determined there was insufficient evidence for further action. The
reports, with the Deputy District Attorney’s recommendation for no action, were given to the
District Attorney for final review.
Findings
F1. Investigations were conducted by both the Placerville Police Department and the El
Dorado County Sheriff’s Department into the activities of Women Helping Women in El
Dorado County.
F2. The Placerville Police Department and El Dorado County Sheriff’s Department
investigative reports were forwarded to the District Attorney.
F3. On February 13, 2002 meeting with five members of Women Helping Women, the
District Attorney advised the women no action would be taken if they stopped all group
activities in El Dorado County as of that date.
F4. The alleged head of El Dorado County Women Helping Women was one of the five
women who met with the District Attorney and was told no charges would be brought
against her if she stopped all her activities in El Dorado County as of that date.
34
F5. The District Attorney has not taken any action against any members of Women Helping
Women in El Dorado County.
Responses Required to Findings
F3 through F5 El Dorado County District Attorney
No Recommendations
35
CRIMINAL
JUSTICE
( JAIL REPORTS)
36
CRIMINAL JUSTICE COMMITTEE
El Dorado County Jail, Placerville
Reason for the Report
California Penal Code authorizes and directs Grand Juries to inspect and report annually on
operations of all public prisons located within the boundaries of each county.
Scope of the Inspection
Members of the Grand Jury made a comprehensive inspection of the Placerville Jail facility on
February 28, 2003.
· The Jail Commander briefed jury members on Jail operations;
· The Jail Commander conducted a comprehensive tour of the facilities;
· Staffing levels were explained and discussed;
· Inspection Reports were reviewed;
· Recommendations of previous Grand Juries were discussed;
· Implementation of those recommendations was explained to and reviewed by the
inspecting members;
· Grand Jury Reports for 2000/ 01 and 2001/ 02 were reviewed.
Background
The Placerville Jail facility was built in 1988 as a “ direct supervision” jail wherein inmates have
direct contact with staff. Original plans allow for the future expansion of a second wing.
Staffing for the facility totals 103.5. The total is comprised of a Captain responsible for both
Placerville and South Lake Tahoe facilities, a Lieutenant in charge of the facility, Correctional
Officers, Sheriff Assistants, and Cooks. The staff provides the coverage of the jail facility, the
Work Program, Transportation, and the Bailiff/ Court Security.
The jail facility is adequate and has an oversized booking area and kitchen in anticipating future
expansion. The central control booth floor showed excessive wear. The original floor is old,
worn and cannot be cleaned. In the main hall an antenna wire was exposed.
The jail holds a maximum of 243 inmates and is rarely filled to capacity. When this Grand Jury
inspected the facilities, there were 185 inmates comprising of 160 males and 25 females. Of
these inmates, 180 were from El Dorado County, four were from Amador County, and one from
the U. S. Marshall. Two additional Placerville inmates were being housed in Amador County Jail.
In addition there were 23 inmates on the Electronic Monitoring Program.
37
The Work Program assists individuals convicted of drunk driving, driving with suspended
license, white- collar crimes, or misdemeanor whose sentences require jail time of ten to fifteen
days. The individuals are allowed to continue their jobs, live at home, and not be on the
Electronic Monitoring Program. In exchange, individuals work off the sentence by performing
grounds and maintenance work at the fairgrounds, El Dorado High School, Consumes
Community College, Veterans Hall or other local places and pay $ 20 for each day worked.
Payments to participate in this program totaled $ 56,580 for the fiscal year 2001/ 2002 and
$ 57,100 for the first nine months of the current fiscal year. The funds received are credited to the
General Fund of the County.
Space is rented to the U. S. Marshall and other counties. If necessary for security needs, for
example to separate gang members, inmates are sent to other county jails. The jail has housed no
minors in the past three years.
The kitchen staff is comprised of one supervising cook and three cooks with several inmates
assisting. A part- time dietician reviews the meal plans for nutritional value. During the
inspection of the kitchen it was noted that some vegetables appeared to be old and need to be
discarded. Two food containers lids are cracked. Similar conditions have been reported in the
previous Grand Jury report.
Medical and dental needs are provided on site. Full time contract nursing services are available
with a doctor on call. A contract dentist provides emergency dental care on premises.
Findings
F1. The central control booth needs new floor covering.
F2. The antenna wire was exposed in the main hallway
F3. Some produce was old and needed to be discarded.
F4. Two food storage bins had cracked lids.
Recommendations
R1. The central control booth floor covering should be replaced.
R2. The antenna wire in the main hall should be put in a conduit.
R3. Produce should be checked regularly.
R4. Cracked food storage lids should be replaced.
38
Responses Required for Findings
F1 through F4 El Dorado County Board of Supervisors
El Dorado County Sheriff
Responses Required for Recommendations
R1 through R4 El Dorado County Board of Supervisors
El Dorado County Sheriff
39
CRIMINAL JUSTICE COMMITTEE
El Dorado County Jail, South Lake Tahoe
Reason for the Report
California Penal Code authorizes and directs Grand Juries to inspect and report annually on
operations of all public prisons located within the boundaries of each county.
Scope of the Investigation
Members of the Grand Jury made a comprehensive inspection of the South Lake Tahoe Jail
facility on September 20, 2002:
· Jury Members were briefed on Jail operations by the Jail Commander;
· The Jail commander conducted a comprehensive tour of the facilities;
· Staffing levels were discussed and explained;
· Recommendations of previous Grand Juries were discussed;
· Implementation of the recommendations was explained to and reviewed by the
inspecting members;
· Plans and location for the new Juvenile Hall to be constructed next to the Jail were
reviewed and discussed;
· Grand Jury Reports for 2000/ 01 and 2001/ 02 were reviewed.
Background
The South Lake Tahoe Jail premises appear to be well maintained and exceptionally clean.
Renovation/ construction is underway for a second sobering cell. Although plans had been made
for a new juvenile hall to attach to the jail, current plans are for the premises to be adjacent and
separate.
The staff appears well groomed and cooperative. Medical Staff, which is provided through
contract, is available 24 hours and appears to be adequate. Dental services currently are obtained
by transporting prisoners from South Lake Tahoe to Placerville Jail. However, dental services
are available locally, which may be more cost effective.
Correctional officers are scheduled for 12- hour shifts three days one week and four days the next
week ( 3/ 4). In addition, they routinely work additional overtime hours. The use of overtime to
supplement staffing needs is a common practice raising a concern of safety and effectiveness.
Since the inspection, the new Sheriff has modified and improved the work schedules.
The design and location of the ramp for the disabled which leads into the public area poses a
safety hazard to the users and a potential liability to the County. During certain weather
conditions the ramp must be closed. Since 1998, $ 31,860 has been appropriated from the
40
Criminal Justice Trust Fund for the ramp for the disabled as evidenced on the County of El
Dorado Proposed Budget and Workplan ( General Services, Carry- over Facility Projects, 98- 21
South Lake Tahoe Sheriff Handicap Ramp). The County has been aware of the problem with the
ramp and considered possible solutions, however, it has failed to take action to correct the
problem.
Security in the hallway between the jail and the Court Building needs to be improved. The
hallway does not have adequate camera surveillance. The hallway is accessible from outside by
key. Numerous County employees have access to the area.
Findings
F1. Prisoners are transported from South Lake Tahoe to Placerville for dental services.
F2. The correctional officers routinely work 12 hour shifts with substantial additional
overtime.
F3. Although $ 31,860 was appropriated from the Criminal Justice Trust Fund in 1998 and
included in the County of El Dorado Proposed Budget and Workplan ( General Services
Carryover Facility Projects, 98- 21 South Lake Tahoe Sheriff Handicap Ramp) necessary
improvements to the ramp for the disabled entrance have not been made resulting in
continued safety hazard to users and potential liability to the County.
F4. Current camera surveillance in the hallway between the jail and Court Building is not
adequate.
Recommendations
R1. Local dental services should be utilized if appropriate.
R2. Staffing should be adequate to minimize the need for overtime.
R3. The ramp for the disabled should immediately be improved to meet safety conditions and
the Americans with Disabilities Act ( ADA) requirements.
R4. Camera surveillance in the hallway between the jail and Court Building should be
properly and adequately upgraded.
Responses Required for Findings
F1 – F4 El Dorado County Sheriff
El Dorado County Board of Supervisors
F3 El Dorado County Department of General Services
41
Responses Required for Recommendations
R1 – R4 El Dorado County Sheriff
El Dorado County Board of Supervisors
R3 El Dorado County Department of General Services
42
CRIMINAL JUSTICE COMMITTEE
El Dorado County Juvenile Hall – Placerville
Reason for the Report
California Penal Code authorizes and directs Grand Juries to inspect and report annually on
operations of all public prisons located within the boundaries of each county.
Scope of the Inspection
Members of the Grand Jury inspected El Dorado County Juvenile Hall - Placerville on August
21, 2002 and April 9, 2003.
· Jury members met with the Chief Probation Officer and the Deputy Chief Probation
Officer;
· The Chief Probation Officer and the Deputy Chief Probation Officer jointly
conducted comprehensive tours of the facility with the Grand Jury Members
· Inspection reports were reviewed;
· The Principal/ lead teacher/ counselor and teachers were interviewed;
· Kitchen supervisor and assistants were interviewed;
· Several wards were interviewed;
· Grand Jury reports for 2000/ 2001 and 2001/ 2002 were reviewed.
Background
Juvenile Hall was built in 1971 as a “ direct supervis ion” jail for juveniles ( wards) where they
have direct contact with the staff. The facility, originally built to house 22 juveniles, has been
expanded to house 40. When necessary, extra beds are used to accommodate additional wards.
Due to Court Orders capping the number of juveniles housed at the facility at 42, Court approval
is required and obtained for all exceptions. Juvenile Hall has housed as many as 56. Due to
space limitations, counselors, who are contracted, are required to meet with the wards in open
activity areas.
While currently there are not any plans for new or expanded juvenile facilities in Placerville,
plans are underway for a new juvenile hall in South Lake Tahoe. Groundbreaking for the new
facility is scheduled for April 30, 2003, with completion anticipated in about a year. This new
facility which will accommodate up to 40 juveniles will help alleviate the periodic overcrowding
condition of the current Placerville juvenile facility.
Juvenile Hall is used to house both male and female juveniles between the ages of 8 to 19. On
the date of the Jury’s last visit there was a total of 36 juveniles comprised of 29 male and 7
female. Of these juveniles, 25 were from the west slope, 10 from South Lake Tahoe and one
from Alpine County. Juvenile Hall does on occasion house, by contract, juveniles from Amador
43
and Alpine Counties. Amador County does not have a juvenile hall facility. Special
arrangements have been made with Alpine County to house four wards a year, one at a time, for
30- day drug/ substance abuse treatment.
While the average stay is between 28 to 30 days, some juveniles may stay a day while others up
to a year. Juveniles requiring longer detention time are placed at a youth ranch within California
as directed by Court Order. In addition, some juveniles are placed on electronic house
supervision, which allows them to stay in their homes and continue to go to school.
Four supervisors and 16 permanent line employees staff the facilities. The facilities appear neat,
clean, and well run. However, it is in need of painting, as it has not been painted in seven years.
New baseboards are needed in the entry, halls, and general- purpose gym. Cell # 14 has a cracked
door window. In addition, the HVAC vents in the classrooms are dirty.
Juvenile Hall has an outstanding school program administered on premises by the Principal/ lead
teacher/ counselor with three teachers in two classrooms. Individual school programs are
prepared and administered for each ward, including Special Education. Juveniles attend school
Monday through Friday and weekly meet with a teacher to review the individual’s progress in
work packets. When juveniles are to be released, their next school is contacted to help provide a
smooth transition. In most cases the juveniles are placed back in their previous school.
All food for the juveniles is prepared on premises by the kitchen supervisor and two cooks with
clean up performed by the juveniles. Menus are planned for several weeks in advance, and
reviewed annually for nutritional value by a contract dietician. Special meals are provided as
needed for diet, doctor’s orders, allergies, and religious needs with medical related requests
approval by the facility nurse.
Medical needs are provided through contracted nursing services with a medical doctor on call.
Mental health counseling is provided through contract. In addition drug/ substance abuse
programs are available. The health facility room has no running water; the nurse has no water to
wash her hands between patients.
While the facility is constructed of non- flammable material, any fire could create smoke
conditions, which could cause serious harm to anyone in the facility. This Grand Jury concurs
with the 2001/ 2002 Grand Jury recommendations that air packs ( emergency breathing apparatus)
should be available on premises and staff trained in their use. During our review of all the other
correction facilities in the County, with the exception of Juvenile Hall, air packs are available
and staffs are trained in their proper use.
Findings
F1. Adequate space is not available for individual counseling.
F2. The facility needs painting.
F3. The baseboards in the entry, halls and general- purpose gym need to be replaced.
44
F4. Cell # 14 door window is cracked.
F5. The HVAC vents in the classrooms are dirty.
F6. No running water is available in the health facility room.
F7. Air packs are not available in case of fire.
Recommendations
R1. The facilities should be painted.
R2. Baseboards should be replaced as needed.
R3. Cell # 14 door window should be replaced.
R4. The health facility room should have running hot and cold water and blankets.
R5. The HVAC vents in the classrooms should be cleaned.
R6. Air packs should be available in Juve nile Hall for life safety and to limit potential
liability.
R7. The staff should be trained in the use of air packs.
Commendations
The Chief Probation Officer and the staff of Juvenile Hall in Placerville provide outstanding
service in an inadequate, old, facility, which is often over capacity. Special recognition is given
teaching staff for the exceptional individual educational program.
Responses Required for Findings
F1 through F7 El Dorado County Board of Supervisors
El Dorado County Probation Department
Responses Required for Recommendations
R1 through R7 El Dorado County Board of Supervisors
El Dorado County Probation Department
45
CRIMINAL JUSTICE COMMITTEE
Growlersberg Conservation Camp, Georgetown, CA
Reason for the Report
The California Penal Code requires Grand Juries to inspect and report annually on operations of
all public prisons located within boundaries of each county.
Scope of the Investigation
Members of the Grand Jury inspected the Growlersberg Conservation Camp on March 7, 2003.
The Jury members met with the Camp Commander of the Department of Corrections and the
Assistant Chief of Administration for the Department of Forestry and Fire Protections. The
Camp Commander escorted the Jury Members on a tour of the facility. The following
documents were reviewed:
· Inmate Orientation Handbook
· Camp Reports
· Inspection reports
· Staff and Inmates written reviews of meals
· Performance evaluations of inmates
· Grand Jury Reports for 2000/ 2001 and 2001/ 2002
Background
Growlersberg Conservation Camp ( Camp), a minimum security correctional facility established
in 1967, is one of 18 camps operated by the Sierra Conservation Center. The Camp is jointly
maintained and administered by the California Department of Corrections and California
Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. The California Department of Corrections is
responsible for the inmates, laundry, and kitchen. The Department of Forestry and Fire
Protection is responsible for the plant facilities, which include the buildings and fire fighting
equipment.
The Camp appears to be very well run and maintained. The Camp is clean, quiet, and orderly.
The addition of access ramps for the disabled to the indoor and outdoor visitation areas are now
in compliance with Americans with Disability Act ( ADA).
The Grand Jury Reports for 2000/ 2001 and 2001/ 2002 noted the need for an updated kitchen,
with special concern regarding the kitchen- stove hood. This kitchen is part of the original 1967
construction. The Camp is scheduled for a new kitchen facility in the fiscal year 2003/ 2004. Due
to State Budget constraints the scheduled construction may be postponed. The kitchen- stove
hood will not be updated because of cost and the planned new kitchen facility. The State Fire
Marshall, Department of Forestry, and Department of Correction have an agreement that until
46
funds are allocated to either restore the hood to code or build a new dining room/ kitchen facility,
an inmate specially trained to fight grease and chemical fires with special fire extinguishing
apparatus must be on duty in the kitchen during cooking.
The Camp holds a maximum of 132 inmates. Inmates are thoroughly screened and classified.
Sexual offenders, arsonists, and violent inmates are not classified for the Camp, as this is a
minimum- security facility with open dorms and no fences. Inmates are required to have three
years or less remaining on their sentences. The Camp is fully maintained by the inmates under
staff supervision.
All inmates are required to work, with work ethic strongly emphasized. Work assignments,
which include fire and rescue crews, laundry, kitchen, grounds, etc., are based on skill and needs.
Inmates are given written job descriptions and written performance evaluations. They are paid a
nominal hourly rate for their services.
Five fire crews, comprised of 16 to 17 inmates each, fight fires and help in rescues wherever
needed in California and along the Nevada border. In addition, 22 inmates staff the Mobile
Kitchen Unit, which can provides up to 3,000 meals at a time. Inmates also work in the Mill and
Cabinet Shop, constructing desks, cabinets, tables, and other various wood furniture items for tax
supported agencies at cost.
For the past eleven years the inmates have participated in “ Helping Hands” where they raise
funds through a comprehensive recycling program. Funds received from this program along
with donations from the staff, civilians, and local businesses are used at Christmas to provide
new bicycles, assembled by the inmates, and helmets for children in the community. The
Superintendent of the local school district provides the Camp Commander with a list of parents
and students to contact. The Camp Commander then contacts the parents asking if they wis h to
participate in the program. The bicycles and helmets are brought to a local school where the
children make their selection.
Finding
F1. A solution to the code non- compliance of the kitchen hood has been agreed upon by the
State Fire Marshall, Department of Forestry and Department of Corrections.
Response to Finding
F1 California State Department of Forestry
California State Department of Corrections
47
EDUCATION
48
EDUCATION COMMITTEE
El Dorado County
School Bus Transportation
General Review
Reason for the Report
The Grand Jury selected El Dorado County school bus transportation for general review.
Scope of the Investigation
The Grand Jur y did the following:
· Surveyed transportation offices of each school;
· Analyzed data obtained from the surveys;
· Obtained information from the California Highway Patrol ( CHP) pertaining to safety
conditions of school busses.
Background
School bus transportation has not been reviewed by the Grand Jury in the recent past, therefore it
was decided to undertake such an investigation.
A one- page survey was created and mailed to the transportation supervisors of each school
providing bus transportation. All surveys were returned and analyzed. A total of 17 school
districts provide bus transportation. Most school districts own their own busses. Expenses for
maintenance of busses vary considerably from one school to another. The main finding is that
none of the districts had any substantial safety problems to report regarding their bus
transportation over the past two years
The California Highway Patrol ( CHP) is responsible for annual safety inspections of each school
bus operating in the State of California. The committee received a copy of the safety review
( Exception report) from the CHP Safety Review officer for each bus operating in El Dorado
County.
The CHP provided this committee with a report of exceptions to safety inspections, according to
individual schools and school districts. This report, which notes any exceptions to approved
safety conditions, revealed that no school district bus received a significant exception report
during the past year although a few minor exceptions were noted and had been corrected.
49
Findings
F1. School districts within El Dorado County offer school bus transportation to hundreds of
students each day throughout the year.
F2 All school buses in the 17 school districts are inspected annually by a safety inspection
program of the California Highway Patrol, and no substantial safety exceptions were
noted during the past year.
No Recommendations
50
EDUCATION COMMITTEE
El Dorado Union High School
Placerville
Reason for the Report
The Grand Jury selected El Dorado High School ( EDUHS) for a general review.
Scope of the Investigation
The members of the Grand Jury:
· Interviewed the principal and the vice- principal;
· Toured the school, including the cafeteria, the library, the gymnasium and the
computer laboratories.
Background
The Grand Jury met with and interviewed the principal and vice principal of the school on
February 10, 2002. The current principal was appointed mid- year 2002. The vice- principal has
been at the school in varying capacities for 31 years.
The school site was developed in 1905 and in 1928, the City of Placerville built the high school.
The current physical plant includes 57 classrooms, 2 gyms, and several activity rooms. All of the
buildings are permanent with the exception of 9 portables. A total of 345 storage lockers are
available to students, but 84 of them are unassigned as many students do not want them. Lockers
are assigned on a first come, first serve, basis.
Modernization funds have been helpful in bringing the buildings up to standard. School
maintenance is excellent. The campus has the smallest acreage when compared with the other
local schools. Maintenance is difficult due to the age of the buildings and the heavy use by the
community. There are 5 daytime maintenance staff and 4.5 night staff. Swimming pool, gyms
and athletic fields are all community shared.
At present, 1305 students are enrolled, this is down from 1600 students enrolled five years ago.
There are 72 teachers, including a librarian. 47 teachers are classified. The student - teacher ratio
is 30 - 1. In English/ Math the ratio is 20 to 1.
A Health Academy program is offered, in which students interested in the health fields are given
special counseling. Another program, Advanceme nt Via Individual Determination ( AVID),
identifies 20 students each year who are given special attention to assure their success in high
school.
51
A Sustained Silent Reading Program is well established on the campus. Every student has
required reading for 20 minutes each day following announcements. This program is unique to
the school and has been very rewarding. It encourages students to read for pleasure.
The school has three computer labs and one computer in every classroom. The labs appear to be
fully used by the students.
Vista High School is a new on- site high school located on the campus of EDUHS which offers
alternative education. This alternative education program allows staff to keep these students on
site. The students are given individual education plans and work with certified teachers. A
total of 30 students are currently enrolled.
The campus offers a full- time drama and full time music teacher, and drama costumes are
created in the Home Economic classes.
Special Education students include 135 resource students, 17 special day classes, 10 students
who are severely handicapped and 16 speech and language students. Special education students
comprise about 20 percent of the student body, -- most are “ mainstreamed.” This figure is high
according to the principal.
The school has a significant Title I population. ( Title I students include low- achieving low-income,
limited English, American Indian, migrants, neglected or delinquent, students with
disabilities, and those who need reading assistance.) Test results show El Dorado HS to be doing
well when compared to similar school populations. The State testing is important, but results
need to be more timely to be helpful.
An assigned school nurse is shared with another school. A full- time health aide is on duty. Three
full- time counselors are also on staff, along with the Healthy Start program. Healthy Start
provides supplemental tutoring after school among other activities.
Art and music are important programs at the EDUHS. The campus currently has a large
amphitheater and a small theatre. A school and community planning committee has been formed
to help design and build a 500 seat theatre, with an art gallery, and an amphitheater to
accommodate 300 permanent seats. Private gifts and bond funding are being explored. The
proposed complex would be shared with the Placerville community.
The Assistant principal is responsible for unifying an evacuation and lock down plan. The
District is currently developing a uniform plan.
A full- time police officer and a full- time probation officer are assigned to the school. Strong
relationships have been established with the fire and sheriff's departments.
The school has a 7- period day. Buses are shared with other schools. Students attend from as far
away as Kyburz.
52
To assist in student discipline problems, an In- house suspension room is used. When this is used,
students are not sent home and therefore do not lose a day of school. Teachers say " lack of
respect" and " poor language" ( commonly used in TV shows) are problems in the classrooms.
The campus has Safe School Ambassadors, selected from the student body, who work to prevent
campus confrontations from occurring.
Drugs and alcohol are always a continuing problem. The prescription drugs Rytalin and Vitagen
are being sold illegally to young students for $ 5 to $ 10 a pill. Attempts to control this are three
campus monitors, police and a full- time probation officer who has authority to search students.
The usual after school programs are offered, in addition to yoga, art, and dancing. The school
also offers ski and snowboard team sports.
Buildings, classrooms, and grounds appeared to be very well maintained and attractive. Elevators
and ramps are available for handicapped.
No Findings or Recommendations
53
EDUCATION COMMITTEE
Indian Diggings Elementary School
Somerset
Reason for the Report
The Grand Jury selected Indian Diggings Elementary School for a general review:
Scope of the Investigation
Members of the Grand Jury:
· Visited the School on January 31, 2003;
· Were given on an extensive tour of the School by the Superintendent;
· Reviewed various school plans, including emergency procedures, funding, and
staffing;
· Reviewed Grand Jury reports for 2000/ 2001 and 2001/ 2002 and found no findings or
recommendations pertaining to the school.
Background
Indian Diggings Elementary School, a two- room school with grades K - 8, has been in existence
since 1856. The school burned down in 1958 and was rebuilt primarily with volunteer labor and
materials. There are two classrooms, a multi- purpose room, small library, and office space. The
school owns an acre of land that is not utilized. Suggestions for use of the land have included
building a swimming pool and tennis courts for community use. However, the school is unable
to fund these projects.
The facility consists of 4 full- time credentialed employees and one exchange teacher from Japan.
The Superintendent functions as the principal and upper grade teacher. The faculty perform all
positions necessary including yard duty attendant, Special Needs Instructor, school secretary, etc.
The school building and grounds are well maintained by the part- time janitor.
Since the school population is small, special services are provided on a limited basis. A school
nurse is available four days a year. The nurse tests vision, checks immunization records, tests
hearing, and provides CPR training for the teachers. A music/ dance instructor comes in to train
the students for performances in performance arts. A karate teacher also comes in periodically to
instruct the students and one teacher that continues the instruction and practices with the
students.
The enrollment consists of 15 students in grades K - 3 and 21 students in grades 4 – 8. 0f these
total 36 students, 18 are inter- district transfers from Pioneer County and one from Amador
54
County. Only 2 students have transferred this year to another district. Enrollment throughout the
years varies from the lowest figure of 24 to the high of 44 students.
Educational opportunities in this small school are impressive. All students may participate in
cross- country skiing with boots and skis available for all students. Weeklong field trips, planned
with parents, are available for the upper grades with the lower grades joining for part of the time.
A financial reward program has been developed to encourage students to demonstrate good
behavior and earn good grades. The students earn “ Ono Bucks” and are required to maintain
records of “ Ono Bucks” earned. When students spend “ Ono Bucks” at the General Store, which
is supplied through donations, they are required to record the transactions in their checkbooks.
The school has a large multipurpose room, which was built in 1996- 97 with grant funds. This
room contains a kitchen, a full stage with curtain for play productions, a large- screen television,
gym, craft room, and an elevator for the disabled. The elevator, which was not operable at the
time of Committee’s visit, is being used for storage.
In the past seven years, the Superintendent applied for and received approximately $ 750,000 in
grant funds, part of which was used to build the multipurpose room. Other grants have provided
for chain- link fencing ( to keep bobcats out), water tanks ( no public water), computers ( each
student has a computer), satellite dish, sets of classical literature, and grassed play areas and
fields.
The Pioneer Lions Club of Somerset offers additional support to the school. Over the past seven
years, the Club has donated funds for field trips, including Spring Camp Science Trip, a student
store structure, provided picnic tables, and obtained a ball wall.
Findings
F1. The school owns an acre of land that is not being utilized due to funding.
F2. The elevator for disabled is not in working condition.
Recommendation
R1. The elevator should be repaired.
Commendations
The Teaching Principal/ Superintendent has obtained numerous grants to improve this unique
school. He and his staff provide excellent opportunities for their students.
55
Responses to Findings
F1 and F2 Indian Diggings School Teaching Principal/ Superintendent
Response to Recommendation
R1 Indian Diggings School Teaching Principal/ Superintendent
56
EDUCATION COMMITTEE
Latrobe School & Miller Hill School
Latrobe
Reason for the Report
Since the Latrobe School District had not been visited in at least 5 years the Grand Jury decided
it should be visited this year.
Scope of the Investigation
The Grand Jury:
· Visited Latrobe School;
· Visited Miller Hill School;
· Interviewed the Secretary and three teachers.
Background
Latrobe School is comprised of two schools, K through 3 and 4 through 8. The original school
building, built in 1911, is still being used on the Latrobe School site. The newer building is
several years old. All buildings are well maintained. Miller Hill School is two years old with a
new library. There are 100 students on each campus. The schools have more than adequate
space to house that number of students. Several classes were observed, including a Special
Education class. Classes appeared to be well run and orderly.
School busses are contracted from the El Dorado High School District and function well.
Commendations
The schools are well run. We would like to commend the faculty and administration for their fine
work.
No Findings or Recommendations
57
EDUCATION COMMITTEE
Edwin Markham Middle School
Placerville
Reason for the Report
The Grand Jury selected Edwin Markham Middle School to review the status of the building
repairs recommended in the 2001- 2002 Grand Jury Report, and for a general review.
Scope of the Investigation
The members of the Grand Jury:
· Interviewed the Superintendent and the Principal;
· Toured the school grounds;
· Visited the special science laboratory and several classes including an 8th grade math
class;
· Reviewed the Grand Jury report for 2001/ 2002.
Background
The school was opened in 1950, and has 756 students. According to the principal, the students
consistently score above average on the State Administrative Tests.
The curriculum provides at least 2 elective activities for every student. These electives consist of
art, music and drama. The school day begins at 7: 44 a. m. and ends at 2: 05 p. m. The classes that
were visited were orderly and well run. Teachers appear to be involved and interested in the
students.
The previous Grand Jury report identified dry- rot and drainage problems in several buildings.
While the repair work has not been started to date, the recent passage of school bonds will enable
a complete remodeling of the facility. This remodeling will correct the drainage and dry- rot.
The architect's plan for the remodeling should be ready for approval by the end of summer 2003.
Findings
F1. Repairs reported by 2001- 2002 Grand Jury have not been accomplished.
F2. Passage of school bonds will enable a complete remodeling of the school.
F3. Repairs/ remodeling will commence within the year.
58
Recommendations
R1. Repairs should be accomplished within a reasonable time frame.
R2. Follow up with architect to confirm project is on target.
R3. Continuous monitoring of the project should be performed by the Superintendent.
Responses Required for Findings
F1 – F2 Superintendent
Edwin Markham School
Principal
Edwin Markham School
Responses Required for Recommendations
R1 – R3 Superintendent
Edwin Markham School
Principal
Edwin Markham School
59
Education Committee
Ponderosa High School
Shingle Springs
Reason for the Report
Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.
Description
| Rating | |
| Title | El Dorado County Grand Jury final report |
| Subject | California. Grand Jury (El Dorado County)--Periodicals.; El Dorado County (Calif.)--Politics and government. |
| Description | Description based on: 2003/2004 ; title from cover.; Harvested from the web on 2/1/07 |
| Creator | California. Grand Jury (El Dorado County) |
| Publisher | El Dorado County Grand Jury] |
| Type | Text |
| Identifier | http://digitalarchive.oclc.org/request?id%3Doclcnum%3A144544458; http://www.co.el-dorado.ca.us/grandjury/index.html |
| Language | eng |
| Relation | http://worldcat.org/oclc/144544458/viewonline |
| Format-Extent | 1 web site : digital, HTML, PDF files. |
| Relation-Requires | System requirements: Adobe Acrobat Reader.; Mode of access: Internet. |
| Transcript | i FOREWORD Just what is the Grand Jury, who are its members, and what are their functions? William J. Shaw and Noah Weinstein in their article, Grand Jury Reports – A Safeguard of Democracy, describe a Grand Jury as “ a short- lived, representative, non- political body of citizens functioning without hope of personal aggrandizement. It [ the Grand Jury] comes from the citizens at large and soon disappears into anonymity without individual recognition or personal reward.” In El Dorado County this is a group of 19 citizens who have the ability, time and willingness to serve the citizens of the County for a period of one year. The requirements for service are basic and designed to allow and encourage maximum participation by the County’s citizens. A juror must be 18 years old, a United States citizen, and a resident of El Dorado County for at least one- year on the date they are sworn to service. The candidate for juror must also possess natural faculties of ordinary intelligence, sound judgment, and fair character. Service on the Grand Jury is an act of citizenship. Individuals selected for the Grand Jury should expect to work a minimum of three six- hour days per week throughout their year of service. Remuneration for service was paid at the rate of $ 15.00 for those days actually worked. Mileage driven for grand jury business is currently reimbursed at the rate paid to all county employees. The Grand Jury essentially serves as the agency of civilian oversight for our local government. The common public perception of the Grand Jury is a body taking testimony and handing down Criminal Indictments. In reality, the principal functions of the Grand Jury are civil in nature. Some duties, such as the inspections of public prisons, are required by law to be performed on a yearly basis. The majority of the Grand Jury’s inquiries, however, are the result of its own internal direction. Generally, the Grand Jury audits local government processes, expenditures, and the actions of its officials. Practically speaking, a grand jury primarily responds to complaints brought to it by citizens of the County, to issues of concern and public debate as publicized in the local media, and to other issues exposed during the investigation of complaints. During the course of its inquiries, members of the Grand Jury not only will find conditions and practices within government that deserve recommendations for improvement, they also will encounter examples of excellent service performed by units or persons in local government. Grand Juries by their very design are intended to identify and recommend improvement of deficiencies within government; as such, reports of the Grand Jury tend to be viewed as negative in nature. It would be unfair, however, for the Report of the Grand Jury to focus on the negative without recognizing outstanding performance within government. In that light, this Report also contains commendations for those persons, encountered by members of the Grand Jury, who were noted to have performed exemplary service for the County. ii At the conclusion of its investigations the Grand Jury may issue an indictment, an accusation, and/ or a report. The year- end Report of the Grand Jury is a compilation of investigative reports complete with recommendations for change that are intended to improve the operations of government and so better serve the citizens of this County. Grand Juries have no power to impose their recommendations on local government. Grand Juries cannot enforce their recommendations; they merely have the ability to “ shine a light” on the facts uncovered by their inquiries, thus bringing matters to the public’s attention. The Report then provides a vehicle for public debate. It is a matter for the public to decide whether the recommendations of the Grand Jury are appropriate, and whether actions taken by government officials in response to those recommendations are themselves appropriate. Ultimately, the citizens of the County carry out their role in this process, by expressing their judgment on the issues at the ballot box. Richard J. Brunner, Foreman 2002/ 2003 Grand Jury To Obtain an Application Any interested citizen who meets the required qualifications and is able to make the time commitment may request an application for appointment to the Grand Jury from the Staff Court Secretary at the following location: Superior Courthouse 495 Main Street Placerville, California 95667 ( 530) 621- 6451 iii TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE FOREWARD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i TABLE OF CONTENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii EL DORADO COUNTY GRAND JURY Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii LETTER TO THE JUDGE FROM FOREMAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix JUDGE’S LETTER TO THE GRAND JURY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x EL DORADO COUNTY GRAND JURY 2002/ 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi Group Picture . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xii CITIZENS’ COMPLAINTS INDEX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiv AUDIT & FINANCE COMMITTEE Georgetown Divide Public Utility District . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Georgetown Divide Public Utility District, Accounting Practices . . . . . . . 4 Citizen Complaint # C1- 02/ 03 Public Record Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Citizen Complaint # C4- 02/ 03 Superior Court – Exhibit Room . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 CRIMINAL JUSTICE COMMITTEE Inappropriate Tahoe Differential Pay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Citizen Complaint # C19- 02/ 03 Sheriff’s Non Follow- up Regarding Sick Leave Abuse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Citizen Complaint # C20- 02/ 03 Appearance of Inappropriate Action and Conflict of Interests by the El Dorado County District Attorney . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Citizen Complaint # C34- 02/ 03 iv PAGE Non- Action by District Attorney . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Citizen Complaint # C41- 02/ 03 CRIMINAL JUSTICE, JAIL REPORTS El Dorado County Jail, Placerville . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 El Dorado County Jail, South Lake Tahoe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 El Dorado County Juvenile Hall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Growlersberg Conservation Camp, Georgetown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 EDUCATION COMMITTEE School Bus Transportation Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 El Dorado Union High School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Indian Diggings Elementary School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Latrobe School & Miller High School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 Edwin Markham Middle School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Ponderosa High School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 South Tahoe Middle School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 El Dorado County Library – South Lake Tahoe Branch Library . . . . . . . . . 64 Citizen Complaint # C43- 02/ 03 GOVERNMENT & ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE Purchase of a Doctor’s Services for a “ Fitness for Duty” Evaluation . . . . . . . 67 Citizen Complaint # C5- 02/ 03 City of South Lake Tahoe Transient Occupancy Tax ( TOT) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 Citizen Complaint # C7- 02/ 03 Mobile Homes/ Senior Abuse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 Citizen Complaint # C12- 02/ 03 Conflict of Interest/ Employee Evaluations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 Citizen Complaint # C21 & C22- 02/ 03 County Fiscal Issues/ Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 Citizen Complaint # C23- 02/ 03 v PAGE Measure Z . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 Citizen Complaint # C35- 02/ 03 Fallen Leaf Lake Community Services District . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 Citizen Complaint # C36- 02/ 03 Chief Administrative Officer’s Contract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 Citizen Complaint # C44- 02/ 03 HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES COMMITTEE El Dorado County Social Services Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 INFORMATION SERVICES Information Services Billing Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 Information Services General Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE El Dorado County Fleet Maintenance Facility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 South Lake Tahoe Vacation Home Rentals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 Citizen Complaint # C14- 02/ 03 El Dorado County Waste Disposal System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 PUBLIC BUILDINGS & PROPERTY COMMITTEE Community Services/ Senior Nutrition Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126 District Attorney’s Offices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130 Public Health Department . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134 Update of Pat Riley Family Court ( formerly Logan Building) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136 El Dorado County Museum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 Library ( General Services) Building, Placerville . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141 Psychiatric Health Facility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143 Senior Day- Care Building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146 vi PAGE Superior Court, Cameron Park . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148 Superior Court, Placerville . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150 APPENDIX A Instructions to Respondents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155 vii EL DORADO COUNTY GRAND JURY 2002- 2003 RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the EL DORADO COUNTY GRAND JURY has conducted investigations and has arrived at certain findings and recommendations; and WHEREAS, the EL DORADO COUNTY GRAND JURY desires to make its final report thereon; RESOLVED, by the EL DORADO COUNTY GRAND JURY that the attached report be, and hereby is, adopted as the final report and conclusions of the EL DORADO COUNTY GRAND JURY, 2002- 2003. PASSED AND ADOPTED at the meeting of the EL DORADO COUNTY GRAND JURY this eighteen day of June, Two Thousand and Three. RICHARD BRUNNER Foreman viii EL DORADO COUNTY GRAND JURY P. O. Box 472 Placerville, CA 95667 June 13, 2003 Honorable Jerald M. Lasarow Superior Court 1354 Johnson Blvd., Suite 1 South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150 Dear Judge Lasarow: The members of the 2002/ 2003 El Dorado County Grand Jury were honored to have been selected to serve our County, and on their behalf I submit this final report. In your charge twelve months ago, you requested we accept the responsibility and duty to investigate and examine all phases of county government. As nineteen ordinary citizens from many backgrounds and walks of life, we were quite obviously not experts in county government, but what we did have in common was a desire to serve with diligence and faithfulness. With truth and fairness as our guidelines, drawing from this diversity, we have worked hard to fulfill those obligations. It has been my honor and privilege to have served with this great group of people and I commend them. Each year as a new jury begins to research and respond to complaints from citizens, specific areas come into focus for further study/ examination. Therefore, simultaneously with the expected interviews of county employees and visiting many of the facilities, other more specialized situations are addressed. This year was no exception. The Jury discovered a need to look in- depth into the lack of enforcement of collecting T. O. T. ( the Transit Occupancy Tax) in the South Lake Tahoe area. As a direct result of our study, future income for that City should increase greatly, and all rentals will share equally in the responsibility of collecting appropriate and equitable taxes. Also studied in considerable depth was a growing concern of this Jury that there may be some elected officials who may be assuming more power and authority than they have been given by voter mandate. ix The Grand Jury commends the elected officials and County employees for their cooperation and assistance in our mutual goal of better government. Thank you Judge Lasarow for your encouragement and guidance throughout the year. Your understanding and decisiveness were much appreciated by myself and this Grand Jury. Sincerely, Richard J. Brunner 2002/ 2003 El Dorado County Grand Jury Foreman x Letter from Judge Lasarow xi EL DORADO COUNTY GRAND JURY 2002/ 2003 Honorable Jerald M. Lasarow, Supervising Judge Richard J. Brunner, Foreman Bob O’Grady, Pro Tempore Louise Closs, Recording Secretary Michael Gray, Sergeant- at- Arms Ray Boyer Brom Hunt Dave DeBella Jackie Leland Jim Estelle Mimi Mattock Ralph Fernandez Ira Mirsky Alex Giloff Christy Philipp Bob Heilman Wally Russell Sally Hipp Richard Taylor The Grand Jury would like to acknowledge the contribution of Sandy Johnston and Peder Matthews, who through no fault of their own, were not able to complete their year of service. xii GRAND JURY PICTURE xiii CITIZENS’ COMPLAINTS xiv EL DORADO COUNTY GRAND JURY 2002/ 2003 CITIZENS’ COMPLAINTS CASE NO. SUBJECT DISPOSITION COMMENTS DATE C- 1- 02/ 03 Accounting – Conflict of Interest Audit & Finance See Final Report C- 2- 02/ 03 So. Lake Tahoe Bldg. Permits So. Lake Tahoe, Bldg. No Action Finding 9/ 25/ 02 C- 3- 02/ 03 So. Lake Tahoe District Attorney, Child Support/ CPS Criminal Justice No Action Finding 8/ 14/ 02 C- 4- 02/ 03 Attorney Fees Public Record Act Audit & Finance See Final Report C- 5- 02/ 03 Fitness Evaluation So. Lake Tahoe, Govt. & Admin. See Final Report C- 6- 02/ 03 Flu Shots Health & Social Services No Action Finding 10/ 17/ 02 C- 7- 02/ 03 Transient Occupancy Tax So. Lake Tahoe, Govt. & Admin. See Final Report C- 8- 02/ 03 Personnel/ Human Resources Health & Social Services No Acting Finding 8/ 14/ 02 C- 9- 02/ 03 Cemetery Govt. & Admin. No Action Finding 8/ 21/ 02 C- 10- 02/ 03 Parking Violation Audit & Finance No Action Finding 10/ 17/ 02 xv EL DORADO COUNTY GRAND JURY 2002/ 2003 CITIZENS’ COMPLAINTS CASE NO. SUBJECT DISPOSITION COMMENTS DATE C- 11- 02/ 03 Child Adoption Health & Social Services No Action Finding 8/ 21/ 02 C- 12- 02/ 03 Mobile Homes Govt. & Admin. See Final Report C- 13- 02/ 03 Child Adoption Health & Social Services No Action Finding 8/ 21/ 02 C- 14- 02/ 03 Transient Occupancy Tax and Zoning So. Lake Tahoe, Planning & Environ. See Final Report C- 15- 02/ 03 El Dorado Irrigation Dist. Public Bldg. & Special Districts No Action Finding 10/ 30/ 02 C- 16- 02/ 03 Animal Control Health & Social Services No Action Finding 10/ 30/ 02 C- 17- 02/ 03 Audit Debts, Equipment Depreciation Audit & Finance No Action Finding 9/ 3/ 02 C- 18- 02/ 03 Overturn Superior Court Decision Health & Social Services No Jurisdiction 9/ 28/ 02 C- 19- 02/ 03 Misuse of Sick Pay, Lack of Follow- up, Sheriff’s Dept. Criminal Justice See Final Report C- 20- 02/ 03 So. Lake Tahoe, Differential Pay, Sheriff’s Dept. Criminal Justice See Final Report C- 21- 02/ 03 Nepotism in County Work Place/ Evaluations Govt. & Admin. See Final Report xvi EL DORADO COUNTY GRAND JURY 2002/ 2003 CITIZENS’ COMPLAINTS CASE NO. SUBJECT DISPOSITION COMMENTS DATE C- 22- 02/ 03 Nepotism in County Work Place/ Evaluations Govt. & Admin. See Final Report C- 23- 02/ 03 Social Services Trust Fund Shortages Govt. & Admin. See Final Report C- 24- 02/ 03 Anonymous Complaint Against UnderSheriff Criminal Justice No Action Finding 11/ 20/ 02 C- 25- 02/ 03 Sheriff’s Violation of Govt. Codes Criminal Justice No Action Finding 12/ 11/ 02 C- 26- 02/ 03 Georgetown Fire Dept. Govt. & Admin. No Action Finding 2/ 12/ 03 C- 27- 02/ 03 District Attorney’s Office Govt. & Admin. No Action Finding 12/ 8/ 02 C- 28- 02/ 03 County Jail Criminal Justice No Action Finding 1/ 15/ 03 C- 29- 02/ 03 Golden West Community Services District Special Districts No Action Finding 5/ 21/ 03 C- 30- 02/ 03 District Attorney’s Office and Sheriff’s Dept. Criminal Justice No Action Finding 3/ 26/ 03 C- 31- 02/ 03 District Attorney’s Office Criminal Justice See Final Report C- 32- 02/ 03 District Attorney’s Office Criminal Justice No Action Finding 3/ 26/ 03 xvii EL DORADO COUNTY GRAND JURY 2002/ 2003 CITIZENS’ COMPLAINTS CASE NO. SUBJECT DISPOSITION COMMENTS DATE C- 33- 02/ 03 Superior Court Staff Govt. & Admin. No Action Finding 3/ 12/ 03 C- 34- 02/ 03 District Attorney’s Office Criminal Justice See Final Report C- 35- 02/ 03 Transient Occupancy Tax Measure 2 So. Lake Tahoe, Govt. & Admin. See Final Report C- 36- 02/ 03 Fallen Leaf Lake Community Services District Govt. & Admin. See Final Report C- 37- 02/ 03 District Attorney’s Office Govt. & Admin. No Action Finding 3/ 26/ 03 C- 38- 02/ 03 Cameron Estates Community Services District Govt. & Admin. No Action Finding 5/ 14/ 03 C- 39- 02/ 03 Cameron Estates Community Services District Govt. & Admin No Action Finding 5/ 14/ 03 C- 40- 02/ 03 Evaluations Govt. & Admin No Action Finding 4/ 14/ 03 C- 41- 02/ 03 District Attorney’s Office Criminal Justice See Final Report C- 42- 02/ 03 El Dorado Irrigation District Planning & Environment No Action Finding 4/ 3/ 0/ 03 C- 43- 02/ 03 County Library Education See Final Report xviii EL DORADO COUNTY GRAND JURY 2002/ 2003 CITIZENS’ COMPLAINTS CASE NO. SUBJECT DISPOSITION COMMENTS DATE C- 44- 02/ 03 Chief Administrative Officer’s Contract Govt. & Admin. See Final Report C- 45- 02/ 03 Latrobe School District Education No Action Finding 4/ 9/ 03 C- 46- 02/ 03 District Attorney’s Office Criminal Justice No Action Finding 5/ 14/ 03 C- 47- 02/ 03 District Attorney’s Office Health & Social Services No Action Finding 4/ 16/ 03 C- 48- 02/ 03 Chief Administrative Officer’s Budget Estimates Audit & Finance See Final Report C- 49- 02/ 03 District Attorney’s Office Criminal Justice No Action Finding 5/ 14/ 03 C- 50- 02/ 03 Superior Court – Allegations of Misconduct Govt. & Admin. No Jurisdiction 4/ 16/ 03 C- 51- 02/ 03 Transient Occupancy Tax So. Lake Tahoe, Govt. & Admin. See Final Report C- 52- 02/ 03 DEFERRED TO 2003/ 2004 DOT Planning Comm. GRAND JURY C- 53- 02/ 03 DEFFERED TO 2003/ 2004 E. I. D. GRAND JURY C- 54- 02/ 03 Sheriff’s Dept. Coroner Report Criminal Justice No Action Finding 6/ 18/ 03 C- 55- 02/ 03 DEFERRED TO 2003/ 2004 GRAND JURY C- 56- 02/ 03 DEFERRED TO 2003/ 2004 GRAND JURY C- 57- 02/ 03 DEFERRED TO 2003/ 2004 GRAND JURY xix AUDIT & FINANCE 1 AUDIT AND FINANCE COMMITTEE Georgetown Divide Public Utility District Georgetown Reason for the Report The Grand Jury selected the Georgetown Divide Public Utility District ( GDPUD) as a general review for 2002/ 2003. Scope of the Investigation The members of the Grand Jury: · Made an announced visit to GDPUD on January 23, 2002; · Interviewed the General Manager and other staff members; · Attended two GDPUD board meetings; · Reviewed the GDPUD certified Incorporation Documents created in 1946; · Reviewed the Five Year Facilities and Financial Planning Study dated February 1, 1999; · Reviewed financial statements for fiscal year 2001/ 2002; · Reviewed the budget for fiscal year 2002/ 2003; · Reviewed previous Grand Jury reports and found no reports that dealt with GDPUD. Background The GDPUD is a special independent enterprise district. It is considered “ independent” because it is a self- governed body, and the term “ enterprise” means it can charge the public directly for services without relying on property taxes. As such GDPUD is more resistant to economic fluctuations. It maintains designated reserve funds for the servicing and replacement of fixed assets as well as undesignated reserve funds for future projects. For the fiscal year ending June 2002, designated reserve funds were $ 2,661,358 and the undesignated reserve funds were $ 9,847,331 ( approximately three times the annual operating revenue of $ 3,242,206). Net income for fiscal year 2001/ 2002 was $ 542,254. As a special district, GDPUD receives assistance from local, state and federal governments in the form of grants and low interest loans for special projects. The water supply comes from Stumpy Meadows Reservoir and amounts to 20,000 acre- feet ( or 327 surface acres). Approximately 3000 water connections and 1,100 wastewater disposal accounts exist within the district. Both Auburn Lake Trails and Walton Lake treatment plants 2 are approximately 30 years old, and have a 4.5 million gallon capacity. Nine storage tanks cumulatively hold about 3 million gallons. The general manager believes the district is prepared to accommodate the predicted one to two percent growth rate within its service area for the immediate future, however, the demand is estimated to exceed supply by 2025. The district operates with no written personnel procedures or formal policies for employees and their evaluations. The district has 20 employees and most of whom are cross- trained. The district has an unusually low employee turnover rate with an average of 15 plus years of service. The District has two CPAs. One is a recently hired employee, and the other is an hourly contractor. For computerized accountancy software, GDPUD uses a program called Multiple Operations Manager ( M. O. M.), while the Consultant uses the Solomon program. These two accounting programs are not compatible which may create problems with the exchange of data. Findings F1. The undesignated reserve funds are approximately three times the annual operating revenues. F2. Stumpy Meadows Reservoir is the only source of water for GDPUD. F3. The district operates with no written personnel procedures or formal policies for employees and their evaluations. F4. The District has two CPAs. One is an employee, and the other is an hourly consultant. F5. GDPUD uses an accounting software program called Multiple Operations Manager ( M. O. M.), while the Consultant uses Solomon. Recommendations R1. GDPUD should adopt and publicize their policy for accumulating undesignated reserve funds as well as the planned use of the funds. R2. GDPUD should look into secondary water sources for the anticipated growth within the District. R3. GDPUD should create a personnel policies and procedures manual. The manual should be updated periodically as required. R4. There should only be one CPA. The time frame of the contract with the Consultant should be reduced and a termination date established. R5. For efficiency purposes, there should be one accounting software program. 3 R6. GDPUD should increase treated water storage capacities in the event of equipment breakdown or extended drought cycles. Commendation Management is very proactive in seeking to meet the needs of its customers and appears interested in the overall well being of the community. Responses Required for Findings F1 through F5 GDPUD Board of Directors GDPUD General Manager Responses Required for Recommendations R1 through R6 GDPUD Board of Directors GDPUD General Manager 4 AUDIT & FINANCE COMMITTEE Georgetown Divide Public Utility District Accounting Practices Citizen Complaint # C1- 02/ 03 Reason for the Report A complaint was made against Georgetown Divide Public Utility District ( GDPUD) for past accounting practices. Scope of the Investigation The members of the Grand Jury interviewed: · The Complainant; · GDPUD CPA ( Consultant) for the period of 1976 to present; · Two GDPUD board members; · The prior GDPUD General Manager; · The Current Auditor; · The El Dorado County Auditor- Controller. The Grand Jury also reviewed: · The June 1, 1998, AICPA Code for independence as to audit services; · The accounting records of GDPUD; · The reports prepared by the in- house CPA; · The annual audits for the fiscal years 1995 through 1998. Background Founded in 1946, Georgetown Divide Public Utility District is a public utility district operating under the State of California Public Utility Code and Special District Codes & Procedures. The District has a governing body of five elected Board of Directors and an appointed General Manager/ Clerk of the Board. The District employs twenty full- time operations and administrative staff. The first issue the complaint raised was the current Consultant conducted audits on his own work from 1981 through 1995. The committee found this to be true. GDPUD in- house personnel performed the basic bookkeeping functions and the information was given to the Consultant to complete the necessary accounting records. The Consultant was not an employee of GDPUD 5 and did not make management decisions. GDPUD’s general manager signed the Consultant’s Letter of Engagement. During this period, the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ( GAAP), and Generally Accepted Auditing Standards ( GAAS) conflicted with Government Auditing Standards ( Yellow Book) regarding a self- audit. The 1994 Edition of the Yellow Book ( Personal Impairment Chapter 3.16f, Note 3) does allow a self- audit under the following condition: “ An individual performs a substantial part of the accounting process or cycle, such as analyzing, journalizing, posting, preparing, adjusting and closing entries, and preparing the financial statements and later the same individual performs and audit. In instances in which the auditor acts as the main processor for transactions initiated by the audited entity, but the audited entity acknowledges responsibility for the financial records and financial statements, the independence of the auditor is not necessarily impaired.” The second issue was the Consultant shared an office with the Auditor who performed the 1996 through 1999. A shared office arrangement would not necessarily violate the independence of the audit firm but could lead others to question the independence of the auditor. The third issue was the current auditor did not obtain the mandatory Management Representation letter at the conclusion of the auditor’s fieldwork for year ending June 30, 2000. The Grand Jury requested but was unable to obtain a copy of the Management Representative Letter from the auditor or GDPUD for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2000 therefore the Grand Jury was unable to determine whether the Management Representative Letter existed. The fourth issue was for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2001, the fieldwork was completed in the fall of 2001, but the Management Representation letter was not prepared until January 7, 2002 and was ultimately signed by a person who was not employed by GDPUD during the audit period. It was alleged that the Consultant made it difficult for the current aud iting firm to proceed in a timely manner by ordering five rewrites. The current auditing firm has concluded that these rewrites were not the result of financial errors but of an interpretation nature. The Consultant provided accounting services for GDPUD without a contract from 1976 through 2001 when the parties agreed to a written contract. An in- house CPA was hired in the fall of 2002 to provide financial information to the general manager and gradually assume the accounting functions of the Consultant. Findings F1. The Consultant performed audits for GDPUD from 1981 through 1995 in addition to certain accounting functions with GDPUD management knowledge and approval. F2. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ( GAAP) and Generally Accepted Auditing Standards ( GAAS) do not allow a self- audit. Government Auditing Standards ( Yellow 6 Book) do allow self- audits under certain conditions. The Yellow Book was revised in January 2003 to disallow a self- audit and any appearance of same. F3. It appears no Management Representation Letter was presented to the auditor for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2000. F4. The General Manager signed a Management Representation Letter for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2002 covering a period of time prior to his employment. F5. The Consultant did not have a written contract for accounting services until 2001. There were Letters of Engagement only for the auditing functions signed by the General Manager. Recommendations R1. An independent audit firm should conduc t the annual audit. R2. Proper letters of engagement and management representation should be prepared for the audit. R3. Board Members and the General Manager should not allow a self- audit or the appearance of a self- audit. R4. GDPUD should enter into contracting services with a clear statement and understanding by all parties of work to be done. Responses Required for Findings F1 through F5 GDPUD Board of Directors GDPUD General Manager Responses Required for Recommendations R1 through R4 GDPUD Board of Directors GDPUD General Manager 7 AUDIT AND FINANCE COMMITTEE Public Record Act Citizen Complaint # C4- 02/ 03 Reason for the Report A complaint was made against the El Dorado County Counsel ( County Counsel) for not providing information as required by the Public Record Act in a timely manner. However, the investigation revealed the complaint should have been directed to the El Dorado County Auditor- Controller ( Auditor- Controller). Scope of the Investigation The members of the Grand Jury: · Interviewed the Complainant; · Interviewed the Auditor- Controller; · Reviewed Public Record Act; · Reviewed data furnished by the Complainant; · Reviewed accounting records furnished by the Auditor- Controller for payments made to a law firm ( The Firm). Background A series of written and verbal exchanges occurred between the complainant and the Auditor- Controller dating from February 1999 though December 2001. The complainant attempted to obtain a record of payments made to The Firm for services in connection with the general plan and specific development proposals from the time of The Firm’s start date ( Summer 1995) to the present. The complainant wanted to make sure the payments started with The Firm’s start date of summer 1995. The Auditor- Controller never provided this information. The Auditor- Controller provided a series of correspondence of payment information that appears to be misleading and fragmented. Several letters sent by the Auditor- Controller contained quotations referring to possible payments by others. Some of these statements are: 1. “ It is important to remember that the County is reimbursed from developers for a significant portion of these payments.” 8 2. “ The County is undergoing an accounting system conversion at this time, and it is unlikely that more complete information will be readily available for sometime.” 3. “ We have not summarized any payments made by Third Party Administrator ( TPA) of the County’s Self- Insurance Program. Specific payments made by the County’s TPA are not recorded in the County’s general or disbursements ledgers. It is my opinion that the County chooses to have the TPA make these ‘ self insurance’ payments to make it more difficult for the public and the Auditor- Controller to identify and summarize the payment of claims and payments to outside counsel.” Statement 3 prompted the complainant to write a letter to the County Counsel requesting a record of payments made through Risk Management to The Firm. The County Counsel replied by letter stating, “ Risk Management has been contacted and they do not have any records of payments made by them.” The complaint was investigated and the Auditor- Controller was asked to provide copies of invoices and payments from the summer 1995 to the present. After reviewing the invoices ( never provided to the complainant) and payments made to The Firm, the Grand Jury was able to reconcile all invoices to payments. The Grand Jury wrote a letter to the complainant summarizing invoices by The Firms and related payments by the County. The investigation did not find evidence that any payments were made to The Firm by the County Counsel or Third Party Administrator. Findings F1. Although the complaint was made against the County Counsel it should have been directed to the Auditor- Controller. F2. The Public Record Act request was submitted in February 1999 but the complaint was made in February 2002, this request had not been satisfactorily answered. F3. On December 31, 2001, the Auditor- Controller furnished an accounting spreadsheet to the complainant showing all payments made to The Firm, but never identified a payment associated with The Firm’s start date of summer of 1995. Recommendations R1. The Auditor- Controller should respond to Public Record Act requests in a timely manner and with accurate information. R2. The Auditor- Controller should not attempt to shift responsibility to other departments. 9 Responses Required for Findings F1 through F3 El Dorado County Board of Supervisors El Dorado County Auditor- Controller Responses Required for Recommendations R1 and R2 El Dorado County Board of Supervisors El Dorado County Auditor- Controller 10 AUDIT AND FINANCE COMMITTEE Superior Court – Exhibit Room 495 Main Street, Placerville Reason for the Report The Grand Jury selected the Superior Court Exhibit Room as a general review for 2002/ 2003. Scope of the Investigation The members of the Grand Jury: · Made an unannounced visit to the Superior Court on March 26, 2003; · Was provided a brief tour of the non- physical Exhibit Room courtesy of the Court Operations Supervisor; · Spoke informally with the two other staff members; · Interviewed the Assistant Court Executive Officer; · Reviewed previous Grand Jury reports and found no reports that dealt with the Exhibit Room. Background The Grand Jury was briefed on the process for the filing and transfer of all exhibits ( physical and non- physical). Non- physical exhibits consist of documents, pictures, courtroom charts, etc, which are entered into trial as exhibits. Physical exhibits are handled separately and are secured by the Sheriff’s Department. Procedures exist for inventorying, handling and discarding of non-physical exhibits, however they are not always followed as no one is designated this responsibility. The non- physical Exhibit Room appears to lack adequate space and shelving for storing exhibits. About 75 percent of the exhibits pertain to closed cases and therefore should be discarded. Court approval is required for disposition of closed case exhibits. Findings F1. The non- physical Exhibit Room appears to lack adequate space and shelving. Exhibits appear to be in disorder and are placed on the floor in this small room. F2. Written procedures are not being followed for discarding closed- case exhibits. About 75% of exhibits in the storage area are beyond the retention period. 11 F3. There is no person designated to manage the exhibit process. F4. No sprinkler system or fire extinguishers could be found in or near the Exhibit Room. Recommendations R1. The Exhibit Room should have adequate shelving. R2. All exhibits should be inventoried and established procedures should be followed. R3. A person should be designated to manage the exhibit process. R4. A fire extinguisher should be installed in or near the Exhibit Room. Responses Required for Findings F1 through F4 El Dorado County Board of Supervisors El Dorado County Department of General Services Chief Executive Officer for Superior Court Responses Required for Recommendations R1 through R4 El Dorado County Board of Supervisors El Dorado County Department of General Services Chief Executive Officer for Superior Court 12 CRIMINAL JUSTICE 13 CRIMINAL JUSTICE COMMITTEE Inappropriate Tahoe Differential Pay Citizen Complaint # C19 – 02/ 03 Reason for the Report A citizen’s complaint was received alleging a former Undersheriff received Tahoe Differential Pay to which he was not entitled. Scope of the Investigation The members of the Grand Jury interviewed: · The former Sheriff ( Sheriff); · The former Undersheriff ( Undersheriff); · Employees of the El Dorado County Sheriff’s Department; · Employees of El Dorado County Department of Human Resources. The Grand Jury also reviewed: · Appropriate payroll documents; · Tahoe Differential pay policies for the County and Memoranda of Understanding ( MOU); · “ Agreement to Appointment of Undersheriff” memo, signed by the Sheriff and the Undersheriff regarding Tahoe assignment. Background Early in 1999, the Sheriff and a Captain, about to be appointed Undersheriff, had a brief exchange regarding the Undersheriff’s assignment to Lake Tahoe. The Captain’s promotion to Undersheriff was based on the condition he leave the Department in January 2000. The Captain asked, upon his promotion to Undersheriff, if he could be assigned to Lake Tahoe and the Sheriff agreed. The Undersheriff prepared an agreement stating his assignment was to South Lake Tahoe, which was signed by both the Undersheriff and the Sheriff. Subsequently, Sheriff’s Payroll Department processed the Payroll/ Personnel Action Form with the increase in pay for the Tahoe Differential to coincide with the promotion to Undersheriff. The Undersheriff signed the form as “ employee” and a payroll clerk signed on behalf of the Sheriff. Although approval for promotional pay actions were purportedly documented, attached to the memo announcing the promotion, and allegedly filed in the appropriate personnel file, no 14 written approval is currently on file with the Sheriff’s Department. The payroll clerk did not question the new Undersheriff receiving the benefit because he was second in command. The Grand Jury investigation revealed that the usual work station assignment for an Undersheriff is Placerville. County policy and the relevant MOUs require an employee to spend more than 50 percent of his work time at South Lake Tahoe in order to qualify and receive Tahoe Differential pay. Based on the Grand Jury investigation it appears the Undersheriff in question did not spend the required time in South Lake Tahoe to qualify for the differential pay. The Undersheriff’s retirement pay increased as a result of this benefit. It should be further noted the investigation revealed this to be an isolated case. The Grand Jury investigation also revealed it is common practice for the Sheriff’s Department Payroll Clerks to sign Payroll/ Personnel Action Forms on behalf of Division Chiefs without obtaining their approval or written delegation of authority. This included those Payroll/ Personnel Action Forms resulting in financial impact. Although it is common practice for the payroll clerks to sign on behalf of Division Chiefs, there were not any written authorizations for them to do so. Findings F1. The Sheriff told the Undersheriff he could be assigned to Lake Tahoe, with the hours and days to be set by the Sheriff. F2. The Sheriff did not set days or hours for the Undersheriff to work in South Lake Tahoe. F3. The Undersheriff received Tahoe Differential pay without working primarily in the South Lake Tahoe area. F4. Payroll clerks, without written authorization, routinely sign Payroll/ Personnel Action forms on behalf of Division Chiefs, including those resulting in financial impact. F5. The Tahoe Differential pay received by the Undersheriff impacted his final compensation, which in turn was used to calculate his retirement benefits. F6. The Grand Jury investigation revealed this was an isolated case. Recommendations R1. Payroll/ Personnel Action Forms relating to the Undersheriff should be signed by the Sheriff. R2. Delegation of authority to Payroll Clerks to sign on behalf of Division Chiefs should be specific and exclude actions involving financial benefit. R3. The County should be reimbursed for the Tahoe Differential paid to the Undersheriff. 15 R4. The County Counsel should review with the Board of Supervisors the issues presented and take whatever action( s) is deemed appropriate. Commendations It should be noted that the Sheriff’s Department recently took action to establish procedures to minimize the opportunity for future abuse. Responses Required for Findings F1 through F5 El Dorado County Sheriff Responses Required for Recommendations R1 and R2 El Dorado County Sheriff El Dorado County Department of Human Resources R3 and R4 El Dorado County Board of Supervisors 16 CRIMINAL JUSTICE COMMITTEE Sheriff’s Non Follow- Up Regarding Sick Leave Abuse Citizen Complaint # C20 – 02/ 03 Reason for the Report A citizen’s complaint was received alleging the Sheriff failed to investigate the 200 hours of sick leave a former Undersheriff was paid. This complaint relates to a follow- up of a previous Grand Jury complaint (# 00/ 01 – C021). Scope of the Investigation The members of the Grand Jury interviewed: · The former County Sheriff ( Sheriff); · The former Undersheriff ( Undersheriff); · Employees of El Dorado County Sheriff’s Department; · Employees of El Dorado County Department of Human Resources; · Employees of El Dorado County Risk Management. The Grand Jury also reviewed: · Citizen complaint # 00/ 01- C- 021 alleging abuse of sick leave by the Undersheriff; · Grand Jury Report 2000/ 2001 regarding complaint # 00/ 01- C- 021; · The Sheriff’s response to the Grand Jury Report 2000/ 2001; · Appropriate payroll documents; · All sick leave records of Sheriff’s Department personnel who terminated service between January 1, 1999 and November 2002; · Correspondence between Sheriff and former Undersheriff regarding abuse of sick leave ; · Various memoranda regarding principals involved; · Policies for the County and Memoranda of Understandings ( MOUs) relating to sick leave; · Medical records of the former Undersheriff. Background The 2000/ 2001 Grand Jury received and investigated a citizen complaint concerning the alleged abuse of sick leave by the Undersheriff. In response to that Grand Jury Report, the Sheriff responded that he would investigate the Grand Jury’s findings. He stated if it was determined that the Undersheriff was not ill, a demand for repayment of funds would be pursued. 17 Subsequently, the 2002/ 2003 Grand Jury received another complaint regarding the status of the Sheriff’s investigation and requested that the County seek reimbursement for the unauthorized sick leave. A second investigation commenced. Early in 1999, because of differences between the Sheriff and one of his Captains, the Sheriff approached the Captain with an offer to which the Captain agreed. This agreement involved the Sheriff promoting the Captain to Undersheriff with the understanding the Undersheriff would retire from the Sheriff’s Department at the end of January 2000. Thereafter, the Undersheriff sent a memo to the Sheriff, confirming their conversation that he would be retiring on April 28, 2000. He also stated he would use his accrued vacation leave from January 31, 2000 until his retirement on April 28, 2000 with the Sheriff’s approval. The Salary & Benefits Resolution for Unrepresented Employees, amended effective July 3, 1999, allows all accrued vacation leave to be paid upon the employee’s retirement. However, the Resolution allows a maximum of 504 hours of accrued sick leave to be paid upon retirement. Any accrued sick leave in excess of 504 hours is lost upon retirement. Subsequently, during the period of time he was on vacation leave, the Undersheriff contacted payroll clerks in the Sheriff’s Department and instructed them to change a substantial portion of his vacation leave to sick leave. Due to his rank and no written established procedures for unrepresented employees, the clerks followed his instructions without question. Thus, on five occasions over a period of approximately three months, the Undersheriff instructed payroll to change a portion of his vacation leave to sick leave. It appears the Undersheriff’s actions enabled him to manipulate the County sick leave policy wherein he received 200 hours of sick leave, valued at over $ 10,000, he would have otherwise lost at retirement. This Grand Jury contacted members of the Sheriff’s Department regarding the status of the above- mentioned investigation into the abuse of sick leave. They were informed that the Sheriff wrote a letter to the former Undersheriff on August 20, 2001, requesting medical verification for the unauthorized sick leave. ( It should be noted the Sheriff’s Department does not have a receipt of delivery of the letter to the former Undersheriff and the Undersheriff claims he never received said letter.) The Sheriff failed to follow up on the matter until this Grand Jury inquired into the status of his investigation. The Sheriff wrote a second letter on October 6, 2002, fourteen months later, again requesting medical verification of sick leave. The Undersheriff, in a written response dated October 9, 2002, claimed various illnesses. He also stated no one required medical verification prior to that date. The Undersheriff indicated he would like to provide specific documentation, however, he found the request unrealistic and unreasonable. Subsequently, the Undersheriff signed a medical release for the Grand Jury to obtain his medical records. The Grand Jury reviewed the medical records and concluded there did not appear to be any verification to substantiate his use of sick leave. 18 Findings F1. It appears the former Sheriff promoted a Captain to Undersheriff for personal reasons, rather than for the benefit of the County. F2. The Sheriff authorized the Undersheriff to use accumulated leave from January 31, 2000 through April 28, 2000. F3. The Undersheriff contacted the Payroll clerks with instructions to change his vacation leave to sick leave. F4. The 2000/ 2001Grand Jury reported this Undersheriff was paid 200 hours for sick leave when he was not sick and resulted in the use of accumulated sick leave for which he would not have been entitled to be paid for upon retirement. F5. The Sheriff, responding to the 2000/ 2001 Grand Jury Report, said he would investigate the Grand Jury’s finding. If the Sheriff determined that the Undersheriff was not entitled to receive sick leave payment, he would demand repayment of funds. F6. The Sheriff alleges he sent a letter to the Undersheriff on August 29, 2001, requesting doctor’s documentation. However he failed to follow up on said letter for a period of fourteen months until contacted by this Grand Jury. F7. The Undersheriff responded in a letter on October 9, 2002 that he was sick during the time in question. F8. The Undersheriff’s medical records reviewed by this Grand Jury do not appear to substantiate his claim. F9. A review by this Grand Jury of Sheriff’s Department sick leave records, between January 1999 and November 2002, revealed this apparent abuse of sick leave to be an isolated case. F10. In January 2003, the County Counsel filed suit against the Undersheriff in small claims court to recover monies owed pursuant to the limitations of said court. Recommendations R1. Procedures should be established, implemented, and followed for obtaining appropriate approval to change any vacation leave to sick leave for all personnel, including management. R2. Written medical verification required for related sick leave should be obtained in a timely manner. 19 R3. Proper procedures should be established for follow- up of required written medical verification. R4. County Counsel should review the issues presented and take whatever additional action they deem appropriate. Commendations County employees were cooperative with this Grand Jury’s investigation. It should be noted that the Sheriff’s Department has implemented procedures to ensure compliance to the sick leave policy. Responses Required for Findings F3 through F5 El Dorado County Sheriff F4 through F5, and F10 El Dorado County Board of Supervisors Responses Required for Recommendations R1 through R3 El Dorado County Sheriff R4 El Dorado County Board of Supervisors El Dorado County Counsel 20 CRIMINAL JUSTICE COMMITTEE Appearance of Inappropriate Actions by the El Dorado County District Attorney Citizen Complaint # C34- 02/ 03 Reason for the Report A complaint alleges inappropriate behavior by the El Dorado County District Attorney. Scope of the Investigation The Grand Jury interviewed: · The Complainant; · The El Dorado County District Attorney; · The District Attorney’s “ girlfriend;” · Attorneys currently and formerly associa ted with the District Attorney’s Office; · Several Judicial Officers; · A Deputy Sheriff of El Dorado County; · Current and former El Dorado County Employees; · Director of Human Resources for El Dorado County; · Auditor- Controller for El Dorado County; · A representative of one of the El Dorado County employee unions. The Grand Jury also reviewed: · The Complaint; · Numerous Court documents relating to Complainant and District Attorney’s girlfriend ( hereinafter referred to as “ Friend”); · Various Court Orders of the El Dorado Superior and Municipal Courts Transcripts of Superior Court proceedings; · Police and Sheriff’s reports pertaining to Complainant, “ Friend,” and “ Friend’s” son; · Various memoranda from the District Attorney; · El Dorado County timesheets, payroll and expense records of the “ Friend;” · Criminal Court records of “ Friend’s” son; · Letters to and from the California Judicial Council; · Letter to and from the California State Bar; · California Rules of Professional Conduct - State Bar Act; 21 · Applicable Penal Code Sections ; · Applicable Government Code Sections; · Applicable Business and Professions Codes Sections; · Professionalism a Sourcebook of Ethics and Civil Liability Principals for Prosecutors by The Ethics Committee of the California District Attorneys Association; · Recusal of District Attorneys – Attorney General Publications; · District Attorney Department Handbook; · Grand Jury Reports for years 1999/ 2000, 2000/ 2001 and 2001/ 2002; · Additional information supplied by the District Attorney to “ clarify” his previous testimony; · Additional information supplied by the District Attorney’s “ Friend” to “ clarify” her previous testimony; · Reviewed transcripts of District Attorney and “ Friend’s “ testimony. Background The complaint alleges inappropriate behavior by the El Dorado County District Attorney, various Court and County employees, and various judicial officers. The Complainant is a former “ live- in boyfriend” of the El Dorado County District Attorney’s “ Friend.” The Complainant is the father of one of the children of “ Friend.” Both the Complainant and the District Attorney’s “ Friend” have been and continue to be involved in convoluted and bitter proceedings in the El Dorado County Superior Court. The myriad of issues includes child custody, child visitation, child support, multiple restraining orders against both parties, and allegations regarding “ who did what to whom.” At one point, the Court declared Complainant to be a “ vexatious” litigant. This Grand Jury’s investigation determined many of the Complainant’s allegations regarding Court and County employees and Judges to be without merit. However, the investigation did reveal issues enmeshing the District Attorney in potential conflicts of interest, appearances of impropriety, less- than- strict adherence to the ethical requirements of prosecutors, and violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct for Attorneys and the California Business and Professions Code. This Grand Jury was concerned to find that sworn testimony by the El Dorado County District Attorney and other witnesses differed in important and significantly conflicting details. The Grand Jury investigation revealed animosity exists between the District Attorney and the Complainant. During the recent election the Complainant put offensive signs on his truck opposing the District Attorney’s reelection. In October 2002, the District Attorney filed a complaint with the Sheriff’s Department for damaged and missing election signs. The District Attorney told the Deputy 22 Sheriff that because of his job anyone could have damaged/ vandalized his signs. However, the District Attorney identified only the Complainant as a possible perpetrator to the Deputy. The District Attorney told the Deputy that the Complainant’s driver’s license had been suspended. The morning after filing his complaint, the District Attorney contacted the Deputy to inform him of the whereabouts of the Complainant. The Deputy stopped the Complainant, informed him of his suspended driver’s license, and questioned him about the vandalism/ theft of the election signs. Subsequently after receiving verbal consent, the Deputy searched the Complainant’s vehicle and home. The Deputy found no evidence of the signs. The Complainant contacted Child Support Services regarding the suspended license. Child Support Services told him the suspension had been lifted. Subsequently, this Grand Jury heard testimony that the District Attorney inappropriately commented at a Department Head meeting that the department should never have lifted the Complainant’s suspension. The District Attorney testified he spoke with the Deputy about a half a dozen times during the investigation. In addition, the District Attorney testified that he keeps a personal file relating to Complainant in his personal office. He mentioned this file is not maintained within the course of his duties as a District Attorney but only for his own personal records. The 2002/ 2003 Grand Jury concluded certain other actions by the District Attorney, while probably not unlawful, are highly questionable given his relationship with his “ Friend.” For example, on June 18, 1999, the District Attorney signed a form of “ proof of service” for documents he mailed to Complainant on his “ Friend’s” behalf. By injecting himself into a legal proceeding involving his “ Friend,” the District Attorney projected the appearance of impropriety. Another example involves a declaration signed under penalty of perjury by the District Attorney. The declaration was apparently filed in one of “ Friend’s” Court cases. It concerned a telephone conversation between Complainant and “ Friend” that the District Attorney overheard. The District Attorney assumed his declaration could be used in a Court action involving his “ Friend” and the Complainant. If the matter had gone to trial, the District Attorney could have been called as a witness. Injecting himself into Court proceedings involving his close personal “ Friend” may create a conflict of interest. The District Attorney also testified that he should not be disqualified from doing things that anyone else can do. Although the District Attorney does not give up his rights as a private citizen because he is the District Attorney, he is still bound by certain constraints precisely because he is the District Attorne y of El Dorado County. The top prosecutor of the County is required to meet standards of candor and impartiality not demanded of other attorneys. “ Friend” has a son with a lengthy criminal court record. His El Dorado County cases were handled by the District Attorney’s Office. Evidence of special consideration does not appear. This Grand Jury is concerned, however, about a public perception of an appearance of impropriety because of the close relationship between the District Attorney and his “ Friend,” and by extension, “ Friend’s” family. In the opinion of the Grand Jury, it should be the duty of the District Attorney to place himself above reproach in all legal matters relating to his “ Friend” and her family. 23 In another matter, the Complainant filed two Orders to Show Cause requesting temporary restraining orders pertaining, in part, to possession of firearms by “ Friend.” Complainant filed one of the Orders to Show Cause in 1999 and the other in the year 2000. The 1999 temporary Court Order, among other things, required the District Attorney’s “ Friend” to give up any firearm in or subject to her immediate possession or control within 24 hours. The Order also required “ Friend” to surrender any firearms to local law enforcement and file a receipt with the Court showing compliance. In testimony before the Grand Jury, the “ Friend” stated she asked the District Attorney about the appropriateness and legality of the Order. She testified he told her it was legal. She then testified she delivered her gun, a .380 caliber Smith & Wesson semi- automatic pistol, to the District Attorney and he gave her a written receipt. The District Attorney subsequently testified he purchased the .380 for his “ Friend” as a gift in December 1998. He said she lives alone and he felt she needed a gun for her home so she had a means to protect herself. He also testified that he was not aware of her having any other firearms. During his initial testimony on May 21, 2003, the District Attorney denied any memory of the “ Friend” turning the gun into his office. Later when the Grand Jury inspected the official logbook of evidence held in the District Attorney’s Office, there was no record of the gun having been turned in. At his request to clarify his earlier testimony, the District Attorney re- testified on June 4, 2003. In this testimony he recalled taking possession of the gun and provided the Grand Jury with a photocopy of his handwritten evidence log that showed he put the gun in his personal safe in his office. The evidence log for the District Attorney’s personal safe contained five entries: March 3, 1995 Envelope from Grand Jury In May 15, 1995 Envelope with $ 1,254 cash In November 17, 1995 Envelope from Grand Jury In July 13, 1999 Smith and Wesson 380 caliber, In A Serial number from [“ Friend’s”] gun November 15, 1999 Smith and Wesson 380 caliber, Out A Serial number from [“ Friend’s”] gun The entries had log numbers and were initialed by the District Attorney. The entries on the evidence log, cited above, show receipt of a gun from “ Friend” on July 13, 1999, and removal of the gun from the safe on November 15, 1999. These are the last two entries on the District Attorney’s current evidence log. The entry showing the gun going “ out” is the only “ out” entry recorded in the log in the previous eight years. The District Attorney did not have a copy of any Court Order to release the gun to “ Friend” nor a receipt from “ Friend” evidencing return of the 24 gun. The District Attorney’s method of receiving “ Friend’s” gun for safekeeping in his private office safe did not follow normally accepted procedures that are in place in his office. This procedure on behalf of “ Friend” conveys an appearance of impropriety. The District Attorney testified he did not know how accurate his evidence log was. He also testified the log did not accurately convey all the “ in” and “ out” activities of his personal safe. In addition, he maintained he was the only one with access and the combination to the safe. The District Attorney also stated his personal safe currently contains more items than just the three remaining items listed in the evidence log. However he had no log of the additional files in his personal safe nor did he recall anything about the other items in his safe. While he knew from the evidence log who delivered the above items, he did not know if some of the items were still in his possession or even the reason for the cash being in the safe. Fur thermore he was unaware if the cash was still in the safe. ( Later, he informed this Grand Jury by telephone the cash was still in his safe.) During the District Attorney’s testimony he mentioned he did not always record or keep records of guns stored or placed in his custody. In April 2000, the Complainant filed another Order To Show Cause and Temporary Restraining Order. This Court Order required the “ Friend” to surrender a .22 caliber pistol and all weapons to the Sheriff’s Department. The “ Friend ” testified to the Grand Jury that she had never seen this Court Order. However, the transcript of a later Court hearing ( April 12, 2000) indicates she was aware of it. The Grand Jury sent a subpoena to the Sheriff’s Department requesting information relating to any surrender of firearms by “ Friend” between April 3, 2000 and April 26, 2000. The Sheriff’s Department search did not any find any record of such surrender. This clearly indicates “ Friend” did not, in fact, surrender her weapons to the Sheriff’s Department as ordered by the Court. The Grand Jury asked the District Attorney what he would do with a firearm the Court had directed be delivered to the Sheriff’s Department but was given to him instead. The District Attorney said he would usually give it to an investigator or put it into a locked safe. With reference to the fact that the Court Order directed the firearm be delivered to the Sheriff’s Department, the District Attorney testified his compliance with the Court Order would depend on the reason for the Order. If it involved evidence that required booking into the Sheriff’s Department, then the District Attorney indicated that he might deliver the firearm to the Sheriff. If it were just for safekeeping, the District Attorney said he might store the weapons in the District Attorney’s office. He added that even if he knew the Court had ordered his “ Friend’s” gun be delivered to the Sheriff, he might have accepted the gun to lock it up to keep it away from her. The Grand Jury evaluated the District Attorney’s testimony in light of his obligation to comply with ethical guidelines and to conform to standards of professionalism: 25 “ In order to instill public confidence in the legal profession and our judicial system, an attorney must be an example of lawfulness, not lawlessness.” 1 After repeated questions about a Court Order that a firearm be delivered to the Sheriff, the District Attorney left this Grand Jury with the impression it would be his decision whether or not to follow the Court Order. After the Temporary Restraining Order was issued on April 3, 2000, requiring the ” Friend,” among other things, to deliver all weapons to the Sheriff’s Department, the Court held another hearing on April 12, 2000. Both parties were present at this hearing and the “ Friend” admitted having received the Temporary Restraining Order discussed above. During the April 12, 2000 hearing, the Court asked the “ Friend” about a .22 caliber pistol. The “ Friend” responded to the Court that she did not have a .22 pistol. However in her testimony before the Grand Jury, she testified she possessed a .38 caliber handgun. The District Attorney’s personal evidence log indicates the District Attorney returned a .380 Smith and Wesson semi-automatic pistol to “ Friend” in November of 1999. “ Friend” said she did not inform the Court of her other weapons because the Court did not ask about them. In addition, the “ Friend” may have been in Contempt of Court for noncompliance with the April 3, 2000 Temporary Restraining Order because she did not deliver all of her weapons to the Sheriff’s Department. When the District Attorney assumed his elected position in 1995, Child Support Services was under the auspices of the District Attorney’s Office. The District Attorne y was thus his “ Friend’s” department head. In December of 1996, “ Friend” moved from the Placerville office to the South Lake Tahoe Office of Child Support Services. Initially assigned as a supervisor, “ Friend” was promoted to Family Support Branch Manager in October 1997. Just over two months after her promotion in December 1997, “ Friend” transferred to another County department citing personal issues. According to “ Friend,” others had the perception that she was having a relationship with the District Attorney. “ Friend” testified no such relationship existed at that time. During their Grand Jury individual interviews, both the District Attorney and “ Friend” testified “ Friend” left Child Support Services and the District Attorney’s Office about the end of 1996. The District Attorney and “ Friend” also testified their relationship began in June 1998. The District Attorney said they became involved several years after “ Friend” left Child Support Services. County payroll records, however, show “ Friend” left the District Attorney’s Office in December 1997, less than six months before they testified their relationship allegedly began. The District Attorney later hired “ Friend” to transcribe records for the District Attorney’s Office on a part- time basis ( from late 1999 through early summer 2001). During this time “ Friend’s” child support case was still under the auspices of the District Attorney. The District Attorney did 1 PROFESSIONALISM, A Sourcebook of Ethics and Civil Liability Principles for Prosecutors, by the Ethic Committee of the California District Attorneys Association; Chapter X, Page X- 1. 26 not see any problem with an appearance of impropriety with “ Friend’s” case being handled by his office. “ Friend’ worked for another County Department from March 2002 to November 2002. According to “ Friend,” the District Attorney told her his office was short- handed and asked if she would like an “ Extra Help” position. The following day the District Attorney requested approval for the “ Extra Help” position. He also requested “ Friend’s” position be upgraded from Legal Office Assistant I/ II to Legal Secretary I/ II. He based his request on the fact that vacancies existed in the office of one full time Legal Secretary and 2.5 full time Legal Office Assistant positions. Since the new position was “ Extra Help,” the District Attorney was allowed to hire without posting for the position or using a pool of five candidates supplied by Human Resources. “ Friend” began working for the District Attorney in December 3, 2002, as a Legal Secretary II. According to Human Resources, the District Attorney’s Office has been short three legal assistant/ secretary positions since October 2002 and has not filled any of these positions as of May 2003. The District Attorney told this Grand Jury his office was down five to six clerical positions, which conflicts with Human Resources information that only three positions are currently open. “ Friend’ testified she may work up to 40 hours a week as extra help. Records indicate she averages approximately 30 hours per week. When asked how it is determined the number of hours a week “ Friend” works, the District Attorney testified it depended partially upon the needs in his office and partially upon her time commitment to another job she holds. In addition to “ Friend” currently working on a part time basis in the District Attorney’s office, “ Friend” also works part time for a local family law attorney. The family law attorney is married to the Chief Assistant District Attorney who reports to the District Attorney. The District Attorney testified the Chief Assistant District Attorney is also the person who handles any cases involving “ Friend,” “ Friend’s” son and any criminal matters involving the Complainant and “ Friend”. The Grand Jury interviews established the personal relationship between the District Attorney and “ Friend” is known to the staff in the District Attorney’s Office. The District Attorney testified his subordinate employees would tell him if work problems arose with regard to his “ Friend’s” work performance. If “ Friend’s” supervisor or co- workers have an issue with “ Friend’s” work performance they are placed in the untenable position of having to raise their concern with their department head who is also “ Friend’s” boyfriend. The District Attorney denies that “ Friend’s” employment creates the perception or appearance of impropriety. He testified that some people may perceive a conflict regardless of what he says or does and some people may be offended by the situation. He stated, however, his office operations would be in serious trouble without “ Friend’s” extra help. Potential Violation of Rule 5- 300 of the California Rules of Professional Conduct the State Bar Act ( ex parte communications) 27 “ Rule [ of Professional Conduct} 5- 300. Contact with Officials . . . ( B) A member shall not directly or indirectly communicate with or argue to a judge or judicial officer upon the merits of a contested matter pending before such judge or judicial officers, except: ( 1) In open court; or ( 2) With the consent of all other counsel in such matter, or ( 3) In the presence of all other counsel in such matter, or ( 4) In writing with a copy thereof furnished to such other counsel; or ( 5) In ex parte matters.” In 1999, a court clerk apparently failed to delete a child’s name on a temporary restraining order served on the El Dorado County District Attorney’s “ Friend.” This caused the “ Friend” to believe the Court had issued an Order restraining her contact with her child. She was upset and told her boyfriend, the District Attorney, about what had happened. The District Attorney then telephoned a Judge regarding this issue, and contacted the Commissioner presiding over the “ Friend’s” case. According to the Commissioner, the District Attorney contacted him as he was walking into the courthouse demanding to know why the Commissioner had changed custody. The District Attorney initially claimed that his communication with the Commissioner presiding over his “ Friend’s” case was not a prohibited ex parte communication because he was not a party to the case and therefore he could speak [ ex parte] with the Commissioner. Rule 5- 300 ( B) clearly and affirmatively prohibits a “ member” of the bar, such as the District Attorney, from communicating, ex parte, with a judge or judicial officer about a case. It does not matter that the District Attorney was not personally involved as a party. He is a “ member” of the State Bar of California. The District Attorney’s communication with the Commissioner, according to the two Judges who spoke with the District Attorney about the incident, was an impermissible ex parte communication and therefore a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct 5- 300. The District Attorney compromised his position by later testifying, under oath before this Grand Jury, that he contacted the Commissioner because of inconsistent terms within two separate copies of the same restraining order. He said he felt it was his duty to do so because he might be called upon to enforce the Court Order a violation of which would be a misdemeanor. However, the District Attorney could not recall any other time when he personally investigated a misdemeanor since he became the District Attorney of El Dorado County. He testified his conversation with the Commissioner was not on the merits of the case and that his demeanor was calm. The Grand Jury investigation disclosed the District Attorney went to the general filing clerk’s window to see the file in question. The file was unavailable ( presumably it was still with the Commissioner’s judicial assistant) and the clerks were unable, at that time, to retrieve it. According to a clerk who observed the interaction, the District Attorney was rude and acted in a manner unbecoming a District Attorney. 28 An attorney also witnessed the District Attorney’s actions during this transaction. According to this attorney’s testimony, the District Attorney came to the clerk and “ proceeded to raise hell”. The District Attorney wanted to see a file and was adamant about it. The attorney characterized the District Attorney’s manner as abrupt and curt. The Commissioner wrote that the District Attorney was outraged because of the Commissioner’s Order. The Commissioner told the District Attorney he had no idea what the District Attorney was talking about. After the District Attorney left, the Commissioner went to the files to see what the problem was. At that point in time, the Commissioner saw the error and contacted the District Attorney to inform him of same. Thus, it seems clear, if the Court file was not available to the District Attorney before he spoke to the Commissioner, it was not possible for the District Attorney to have or be aware of two Restraining Orders during his conversation with the Commissioner. This Grand Jury finds the District Attorney’s sworn testimony to be untrue. Another issue arose during the District Attorney’s ex parte conversation with the Commissioner. The District Attorney told the Commissioner another Judge had temporarily vacated the Commissioner’s Order. During his testimony to this Grand Jury, the District Attorney denied telling the Commissioner that he had spoken with another Judge who was going to vacate the Commissioner’s Order. The District Attorney testified to this Grand Jury that what he said to the Commissioner was that he spoke with a Judge and asked the Judge to temporarily put a temporary hold on any enforcement of the Order until the District Attorney had the opportunity to clarify which Order was correct. The evidence received by the Grand Jury does not support his testimony. The Grand Jury reviewed e- mails between the Commissioner, the Judge, the District Attorney, and a letter from the Commissioner. These documents disclosed the District Attorney did telephone a Judge before his discussion with the Commissioner. His telephone conversation with the Judge, however, did not include anything about the Judge placing a temporary hold on any enforcement of the Commissioner’s Order. This is contrary to what the District Attorney told the Commissioner and this Grand Jury. During that telephone conversation the District Attorney asked the Judge what to do regarding the Order. The Judge told the District Attorney to have his “ Friend” type a declaration and seek an Ex parte Order from the Commissioner modifying the Order. The Grand Jury finds the District Attorney’s statement to the Commissioner, regarding the Order being vacated or regarding a temporary hold and his sworn statements to this Grand Jury concerning this incident, to be lacking in truth and veracity. The District Attorney’s statement to the Commissioner, about the Judge placing a “ hold” on the Order, was a violation of Business & Professions Code, Section 6068 ( d). That Section concerns attorneys and says, in part, a member of the Bar should: 29 “( d)… never seek to mislead the judge or any judicial officer by an artifice or false statement of fact or law.” The District Attorney’s statement to the Commissioner was an attempt to mislead him by a false statement of fact. According to the Judge, as stated previously, the District Attorney never mentioned putting a hold or temporary stay on the Commissioner’s Order to him. Of greater seriousness, in the view of the Grand Jury, are the statements the District Attorney made to the Grand Jury to exculpate or insulate himself from the communication he had with the Commissioner. After his second appearance before this Grand Jury, the District Attorney sent the Grand Jury a letter. His letter misquoted Rule 5- 300 ( B). He wrote, “ A member may directly or indirectly communicate with or argue to a judge or judicial officer upon the merits of a contested matter pending before such judge or judicial officer, except…” [ emphasis added]. The Rule actually states “ A member shall not directly or indirectly communicate with or argue to a judge or judicial officer upon the merits of a contested matter pending before such judge or judicial officer, except…” [ emphasis added]. During his testimony to the Grand Jury and in a letter he sent to the Grand Jury to “ clarify” his testimony, the District Attorney again testified that the two Judges told him his communication with the Commissioner was not a prohibited ex parte communication. The Grand Jury investigation determined both the Presiding Judge and the Assistant Presiding Judge met with the District Attorney because the Commissioner informed them of the District Attorney’s ex parte communication. The purpose of the meeting was to admonish the District Attorney about the improper nature of his communication and to ensure it did not occur again. The District Attorney misrepresented these facts to the Grand Jur y. Another issue concerns a letter the District Attorney wrote to the California State Bar. The District Attorney wrote the letter after the Complainant contacted the State Bar about the District Attorney’s ex parte communication discussed above. The District Attorney’s letter denied any misconduct and offered his explanations as to what happened. The District Attorney’s letter to the State Bar was misleading. In his letter to the State Bar, the District Attorney wrote he spoke with the Presiding Judge and the Assistant Presiding Judge about his communications to the Commissioner and the Judges were satisfied that no inappropriate conduct took place. This statement in the District Attorney’s letter to the State Bar is not true. Both the Presiding Jud ge and the Assistant Presiding Judge advised the Grand Jury they characterized the District Attorney’s communication with the Commissioner as an “ inappropriate ex parte communication.” They told this to the District Attorney during their meeting on this issue. In his letter to the California State Bar, the District Attorney wrote he believed the Commissioner recused himself from his “ Friend’s” case because of extensive frivolous litigation by the Complainant. 30 The District Attorney’s “ belief” is not based on fact. The Commissioner signed a Minute Order saying the reason for his recusal arose from the unsolicited ex parte communication from the El Dorado County District Attorney’s Office. The Commissioner reported that he disqualified himself due to the District Attorney’s involvement and ex parte communication. Based only on information received from the District Attorney, the State Bar wrote to the District Attorney and said it had completed the investigation of the allegations of professional misconduct and concluded the matter did not warrant further action. The State Bar closed the matter without prejudice to further proceedings as appropriate. The Grand Jury finds that the District Attorney’s communication with the Commissioner, and, more serious ly, his misrepresentation of the facts to this Grand Jury and to the California State Bar, to be completely at variance with the conduct expected of attorneys in public office. This is especially true for the District Attorney because “ Prosecutors are entrusted with great power and responsibilities. For that reason the public and the judiciary hold them to the highest ethical standards…” 2 A District Attorney should at all times conduct himself in such a way as to be above reproach and to strictly adhere to the highest standards of conduct and avoid any appearance of self service or impropriety. Findings F1. The District Attorney involved himself in “ Friend’s” Court proceedings with the Complainant. F2. The District Attorney’s Office continues to hand le “ Friend’s” son’s criminal cases resulting in the appearance of impropriety to the public. F3. The District Attorney did not follow his office procedures relating to the logging in and custody of “ Friend’s” weapon. F4. The District Attorney has $ 1,254.00 in his personal office safe for eight years and cannot explain this. F5. The District Attorney does not maintain a complete and proper evidence log of the contents of his personal office safe. F6. The District Attorney hired “ Friend” to work in his office on several occasions, most recently December 2002, while involved in a personal relationship with her. F7. The District Attorney’s “ Friend” working in his office has created a perception of favoritism and an adverse effect on staff morale. 2 PROFESSIONALISM, A Sourcebook of Ethics and Civil Liability Principles for Prosecutors, by the Ethic Committee of the California District Attorneys Association; Chapter X, Page X- 1. 31 F8. The District Attorney had an ex parte communication with a Court Commissioner in violation of Rule 5- 300 of the California Rules of Professional Conduct for attorneys. F9. The District Attorney misled a Court Commissioner with a false statement of fact in violation of Business & Professions Code, Section 6068 ( d). F10. The District Attorney misrepresented facts regarding his communication with the Commissioner to the State Bar of California and to this Grand Jury. F11. The District Attorney sent a letter to the Grand Jury misquoting Rule 5- 300 of the California Rules of Professional Conduct for attorneys. F12. Sworn testimony by the District Attorney and other witnesses conflicts in important and significant details. F13. Portions of the District Attorney’s testimony and documentation were found to be lacking in truth and veracity. Recommendations Rl. The District Attorney should establish proper written procedures for all cases involving potential conflict of interest. R2. The District Attorney should establish written procedures pertaining to his “ personal” safe whereby all items are properly logged in and out with the appropriate detailed information. R3. The personal safe and evidence locker should be audited annually. R4. All cash received should be maintained in “ double” custody. R5. To avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest, the District Attorney should set up a written protocol regarding cases whenever the accused is related to or has a relationship with an employee in the District Attorney’s Office, including the District Attorney. R6. The El Dorado County Board of Supervisors should revise the County’s nepotism policy to include “ significant others.” Responses Required for Recommendations R1 through R5 El Dorado County District Attorney R6 El Dorado County Board of Supervisors 32 CRIMINAL JUSTICE COMMITTEE Non- Action by District Attorney Citizen Complaint # C41- 02/ 03 Reason for the Report A citizen’s complaint alleges the District Attorney failed to perform his job because he did not prosecute the alleged leader of the Women Helping Women organization in El Dorado County. Scope of the Investigation The members of the Grand Jury interviewed: · The Complainant; · Various participants of Women Helping Women; · Law Enforcement Officials from El Dorado County, Placerville, and South Lake Tahoe; · Deputy District Attorney for El Dorado County. The Grand Jury also reviewed: · Various written information including newspaper articles, Women Helping Women Newsletters, Faxes, notes provided by Women Helping Women participants; · Law Enforcement Reports; · Video tape of national television program featuring Women Helping Women type of organizations. Background Women Helping Women, determined by the District Attorney to be a pyramid scheme in violation of Penal Code 327, started operations in Placerville during the year 2000. Subsequently the organization moved from the Placerville City limits to various locations on the Western Slope of El Dorado County during 2001. This shift in location changed the jurisdiction from Placerville Police Department to the El Dorado County Sheriff’s Department. The Women Helping Women activities then moved to Sacramento and Placer Counties. While a similar organization was started in South Lake Tahoe, it did not flourish. Five participants of the El Dorado County Women Helping Women met with the District Attorney on February 13, 2002, to discuss the legality of the organization. During the meeting the District Attorney advised the group that Women Helping Women was a pyramid scheme and unlawful. He informed the participants that, if they stopped all their group activities in El 33 Dorado County as of that date, no charges would be brought against them. The alleged head of El Dorado County Women Helping Women was included in the offer as she was one of the five women in the meeting with the District Attorney. Our investigation revealed it was difficult to substantiate the facts in the case. Individuals would use only first names and an initial for last names on Women Helping Women documents. To further complicate identifying the participants, many individuals did not use their real names, signed up friends and relatives without their knowledge, and blackened out names and phone numbers on documents . When asked to give names of witnesses, the information was refused because the individuals did not want to involve others. Also, it was difficult to prove the actual monetary value involved as all transactions were paid in cash. There was an investigation underway by the Placerville Police Department when Women Helping Women moved activities out of the their jurisdiction. Their investigative report was sent to the District Attorney. The El Dorado County Sheriff’s Department formed a task force comprised of two Sheriff’s Detectives and one investigator from the District Attorney’s Office in October 2002. The result of the investigation, which was conducted by the two Sheriff’s Detectives, did not have sufficient evidence for criminal action. The investigative report was forwarded to the District Attorney’s Office. During our interview with the Deputy District Attorney, the Grand Jury was informed the Deputy District Attorney had reviewed the reports from both the Placerville Police and the Sheriff’s Departments and determined there was insufficient evidence for further action. The reports, with the Deputy District Attorney’s recommendation for no action, were given to the District Attorney for final review. Findings F1. Investigations were conducted by both the Placerville Police Department and the El Dorado County Sheriff’s Department into the activities of Women Helping Women in El Dorado County. F2. The Placerville Police Department and El Dorado County Sheriff’s Department investigative reports were forwarded to the District Attorney. F3. On February 13, 2002 meeting with five members of Women Helping Women, the District Attorney advised the women no action would be taken if they stopped all group activities in El Dorado County as of that date. F4. The alleged head of El Dorado County Women Helping Women was one of the five women who met with the District Attorney and was told no charges would be brought against her if she stopped all her activities in El Dorado County as of that date. 34 F5. The District Attorney has not taken any action against any members of Women Helping Women in El Dorado County. Responses Required to Findings F3 through F5 El Dorado County District Attorney No Recommendations 35 CRIMINAL JUSTICE ( JAIL REPORTS) 36 CRIMINAL JUSTICE COMMITTEE El Dorado County Jail, Placerville Reason for the Report California Penal Code authorizes and directs Grand Juries to inspect and report annually on operations of all public prisons located within the boundaries of each county. Scope of the Inspection Members of the Grand Jury made a comprehensive inspection of the Placerville Jail facility on February 28, 2003. · The Jail Commander briefed jury members on Jail operations; · The Jail Commander conducted a comprehensive tour of the facilities; · Staffing levels were explained and discussed; · Inspection Reports were reviewed; · Recommendations of previous Grand Juries were discussed; · Implementation of those recommendations was explained to and reviewed by the inspecting members; · Grand Jury Reports for 2000/ 01 and 2001/ 02 were reviewed. Background The Placerville Jail facility was built in 1988 as a “ direct supervision” jail wherein inmates have direct contact with staff. Original plans allow for the future expansion of a second wing. Staffing for the facility totals 103.5. The total is comprised of a Captain responsible for both Placerville and South Lake Tahoe facilities, a Lieutenant in charge of the facility, Correctional Officers, Sheriff Assistants, and Cooks. The staff provides the coverage of the jail facility, the Work Program, Transportation, and the Bailiff/ Court Security. The jail facility is adequate and has an oversized booking area and kitchen in anticipating future expansion. The central control booth floor showed excessive wear. The original floor is old, worn and cannot be cleaned. In the main hall an antenna wire was exposed. The jail holds a maximum of 243 inmates and is rarely filled to capacity. When this Grand Jury inspected the facilities, there were 185 inmates comprising of 160 males and 25 females. Of these inmates, 180 were from El Dorado County, four were from Amador County, and one from the U. S. Marshall. Two additional Placerville inmates were being housed in Amador County Jail. In addition there were 23 inmates on the Electronic Monitoring Program. 37 The Work Program assists individuals convicted of drunk driving, driving with suspended license, white- collar crimes, or misdemeanor whose sentences require jail time of ten to fifteen days. The individuals are allowed to continue their jobs, live at home, and not be on the Electronic Monitoring Program. In exchange, individuals work off the sentence by performing grounds and maintenance work at the fairgrounds, El Dorado High School, Consumes Community College, Veterans Hall or other local places and pay $ 20 for each day worked. Payments to participate in this program totaled $ 56,580 for the fiscal year 2001/ 2002 and $ 57,100 for the first nine months of the current fiscal year. The funds received are credited to the General Fund of the County. Space is rented to the U. S. Marshall and other counties. If necessary for security needs, for example to separate gang members, inmates are sent to other county jails. The jail has housed no minors in the past three years. The kitchen staff is comprised of one supervising cook and three cooks with several inmates assisting. A part- time dietician reviews the meal plans for nutritional value. During the inspection of the kitchen it was noted that some vegetables appeared to be old and need to be discarded. Two food containers lids are cracked. Similar conditions have been reported in the previous Grand Jury report. Medical and dental needs are provided on site. Full time contract nursing services are available with a doctor on call. A contract dentist provides emergency dental care on premises. Findings F1. The central control booth needs new floor covering. F2. The antenna wire was exposed in the main hallway F3. Some produce was old and needed to be discarded. F4. Two food storage bins had cracked lids. Recommendations R1. The central control booth floor covering should be replaced. R2. The antenna wire in the main hall should be put in a conduit. R3. Produce should be checked regularly. R4. Cracked food storage lids should be replaced. 38 Responses Required for Findings F1 through F4 El Dorado County Board of Supervisors El Dorado County Sheriff Responses Required for Recommendations R1 through R4 El Dorado County Board of Supervisors El Dorado County Sheriff 39 CRIMINAL JUSTICE COMMITTEE El Dorado County Jail, South Lake Tahoe Reason for the Report California Penal Code authorizes and directs Grand Juries to inspect and report annually on operations of all public prisons located within the boundaries of each county. Scope of the Investigation Members of the Grand Jury made a comprehensive inspection of the South Lake Tahoe Jail facility on September 20, 2002: · Jury Members were briefed on Jail operations by the Jail Commander; · The Jail commander conducted a comprehensive tour of the facilities; · Staffing levels were discussed and explained; · Recommendations of previous Grand Juries were discussed; · Implementation of the recommendations was explained to and reviewed by the inspecting members; · Plans and location for the new Juvenile Hall to be constructed next to the Jail were reviewed and discussed; · Grand Jury Reports for 2000/ 01 and 2001/ 02 were reviewed. Background The South Lake Tahoe Jail premises appear to be well maintained and exceptionally clean. Renovation/ construction is underway for a second sobering cell. Although plans had been made for a new juvenile hall to attach to the jail, current plans are for the premises to be adjacent and separate. The staff appears well groomed and cooperative. Medical Staff, which is provided through contract, is available 24 hours and appears to be adequate. Dental services currently are obtained by transporting prisoners from South Lake Tahoe to Placerville Jail. However, dental services are available locally, which may be more cost effective. Correctional officers are scheduled for 12- hour shifts three days one week and four days the next week ( 3/ 4). In addition, they routinely work additional overtime hours. The use of overtime to supplement staffing needs is a common practice raising a concern of safety and effectiveness. Since the inspection, the new Sheriff has modified and improved the work schedules. The design and location of the ramp for the disabled which leads into the public area poses a safety hazard to the users and a potential liability to the County. During certain weather conditions the ramp must be closed. Since 1998, $ 31,860 has been appropriated from the 40 Criminal Justice Trust Fund for the ramp for the disabled as evidenced on the County of El Dorado Proposed Budget and Workplan ( General Services, Carry- over Facility Projects, 98- 21 South Lake Tahoe Sheriff Handicap Ramp). The County has been aware of the problem with the ramp and considered possible solutions, however, it has failed to take action to correct the problem. Security in the hallway between the jail and the Court Building needs to be improved. The hallway does not have adequate camera surveillance. The hallway is accessible from outside by key. Numerous County employees have access to the area. Findings F1. Prisoners are transported from South Lake Tahoe to Placerville for dental services. F2. The correctional officers routinely work 12 hour shifts with substantial additional overtime. F3. Although $ 31,860 was appropriated from the Criminal Justice Trust Fund in 1998 and included in the County of El Dorado Proposed Budget and Workplan ( General Services Carryover Facility Projects, 98- 21 South Lake Tahoe Sheriff Handicap Ramp) necessary improvements to the ramp for the disabled entrance have not been made resulting in continued safety hazard to users and potential liability to the County. F4. Current camera surveillance in the hallway between the jail and Court Building is not adequate. Recommendations R1. Local dental services should be utilized if appropriate. R2. Staffing should be adequate to minimize the need for overtime. R3. The ramp for the disabled should immediately be improved to meet safety conditions and the Americans with Disabilities Act ( ADA) requirements. R4. Camera surveillance in the hallway between the jail and Court Building should be properly and adequately upgraded. Responses Required for Findings F1 – F4 El Dorado County Sheriff El Dorado County Board of Supervisors F3 El Dorado County Department of General Services 41 Responses Required for Recommendations R1 – R4 El Dorado County Sheriff El Dorado County Board of Supervisors R3 El Dorado County Department of General Services 42 CRIMINAL JUSTICE COMMITTEE El Dorado County Juvenile Hall – Placerville Reason for the Report California Penal Code authorizes and directs Grand Juries to inspect and report annually on operations of all public prisons located within the boundaries of each county. Scope of the Inspection Members of the Grand Jury inspected El Dorado County Juvenile Hall - Placerville on August 21, 2002 and April 9, 2003. · Jury members met with the Chief Probation Officer and the Deputy Chief Probation Officer; · The Chief Probation Officer and the Deputy Chief Probation Officer jointly conducted comprehensive tours of the facility with the Grand Jury Members · Inspection reports were reviewed; · The Principal/ lead teacher/ counselor and teachers were interviewed; · Kitchen supervisor and assistants were interviewed; · Several wards were interviewed; · Grand Jury reports for 2000/ 2001 and 2001/ 2002 were reviewed. Background Juvenile Hall was built in 1971 as a “ direct supervis ion” jail for juveniles ( wards) where they have direct contact with the staff. The facility, originally built to house 22 juveniles, has been expanded to house 40. When necessary, extra beds are used to accommodate additional wards. Due to Court Orders capping the number of juveniles housed at the facility at 42, Court approval is required and obtained for all exceptions. Juvenile Hall has housed as many as 56. Due to space limitations, counselors, who are contracted, are required to meet with the wards in open activity areas. While currently there are not any plans for new or expanded juvenile facilities in Placerville, plans are underway for a new juvenile hall in South Lake Tahoe. Groundbreaking for the new facility is scheduled for April 30, 2003, with completion anticipated in about a year. This new facility which will accommodate up to 40 juveniles will help alleviate the periodic overcrowding condition of the current Placerville juvenile facility. Juvenile Hall is used to house both male and female juveniles between the ages of 8 to 19. On the date of the Jury’s last visit there was a total of 36 juveniles comprised of 29 male and 7 female. Of these juveniles, 25 were from the west slope, 10 from South Lake Tahoe and one from Alpine County. Juvenile Hall does on occasion house, by contract, juveniles from Amador 43 and Alpine Counties. Amador County does not have a juvenile hall facility. Special arrangements have been made with Alpine County to house four wards a year, one at a time, for 30- day drug/ substance abuse treatment. While the average stay is between 28 to 30 days, some juveniles may stay a day while others up to a year. Juveniles requiring longer detention time are placed at a youth ranch within California as directed by Court Order. In addition, some juveniles are placed on electronic house supervision, which allows them to stay in their homes and continue to go to school. Four supervisors and 16 permanent line employees staff the facilities. The facilities appear neat, clean, and well run. However, it is in need of painting, as it has not been painted in seven years. New baseboards are needed in the entry, halls, and general- purpose gym. Cell # 14 has a cracked door window. In addition, the HVAC vents in the classrooms are dirty. Juvenile Hall has an outstanding school program administered on premises by the Principal/ lead teacher/ counselor with three teachers in two classrooms. Individual school programs are prepared and administered for each ward, including Special Education. Juveniles attend school Monday through Friday and weekly meet with a teacher to review the individual’s progress in work packets. When juveniles are to be released, their next school is contacted to help provide a smooth transition. In most cases the juveniles are placed back in their previous school. All food for the juveniles is prepared on premises by the kitchen supervisor and two cooks with clean up performed by the juveniles. Menus are planned for several weeks in advance, and reviewed annually for nutritional value by a contract dietician. Special meals are provided as needed for diet, doctor’s orders, allergies, and religious needs with medical related requests approval by the facility nurse. Medical needs are provided through contracted nursing services with a medical doctor on call. Mental health counseling is provided through contract. In addition drug/ substance abuse programs are available. The health facility room has no running water; the nurse has no water to wash her hands between patients. While the facility is constructed of non- flammable material, any fire could create smoke conditions, which could cause serious harm to anyone in the facility. This Grand Jury concurs with the 2001/ 2002 Grand Jury recommendations that air packs ( emergency breathing apparatus) should be available on premises and staff trained in their use. During our review of all the other correction facilities in the County, with the exception of Juvenile Hall, air packs are available and staffs are trained in their proper use. Findings F1. Adequate space is not available for individual counseling. F2. The facility needs painting. F3. The baseboards in the entry, halls and general- purpose gym need to be replaced. 44 F4. Cell # 14 door window is cracked. F5. The HVAC vents in the classrooms are dirty. F6. No running water is available in the health facility room. F7. Air packs are not available in case of fire. Recommendations R1. The facilities should be painted. R2. Baseboards should be replaced as needed. R3. Cell # 14 door window should be replaced. R4. The health facility room should have running hot and cold water and blankets. R5. The HVAC vents in the classrooms should be cleaned. R6. Air packs should be available in Juve nile Hall for life safety and to limit potential liability. R7. The staff should be trained in the use of air packs. Commendations The Chief Probation Officer and the staff of Juvenile Hall in Placerville provide outstanding service in an inadequate, old, facility, which is often over capacity. Special recognition is given teaching staff for the exceptional individual educational program. Responses Required for Findings F1 through F7 El Dorado County Board of Supervisors El Dorado County Probation Department Responses Required for Recommendations R1 through R7 El Dorado County Board of Supervisors El Dorado County Probation Department 45 CRIMINAL JUSTICE COMMITTEE Growlersberg Conservation Camp, Georgetown, CA Reason for the Report The California Penal Code requires Grand Juries to inspect and report annually on operations of all public prisons located within boundaries of each county. Scope of the Investigation Members of the Grand Jury inspected the Growlersberg Conservation Camp on March 7, 2003. The Jury members met with the Camp Commander of the Department of Corrections and the Assistant Chief of Administration for the Department of Forestry and Fire Protections. The Camp Commander escorted the Jury Members on a tour of the facility. The following documents were reviewed: · Inmate Orientation Handbook · Camp Reports · Inspection reports · Staff and Inmates written reviews of meals · Performance evaluations of inmates · Grand Jury Reports for 2000/ 2001 and 2001/ 2002 Background Growlersberg Conservation Camp ( Camp), a minimum security correctional facility established in 1967, is one of 18 camps operated by the Sierra Conservation Center. The Camp is jointly maintained and administered by the California Department of Corrections and California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. The California Department of Corrections is responsible for the inmates, laundry, and kitchen. The Department of Forestry and Fire Protection is responsible for the plant facilities, which include the buildings and fire fighting equipment. The Camp appears to be very well run and maintained. The Camp is clean, quiet, and orderly. The addition of access ramps for the disabled to the indoor and outdoor visitation areas are now in compliance with Americans with Disability Act ( ADA). The Grand Jury Reports for 2000/ 2001 and 2001/ 2002 noted the need for an updated kitchen, with special concern regarding the kitchen- stove hood. This kitchen is part of the original 1967 construction. The Camp is scheduled for a new kitchen facility in the fiscal year 2003/ 2004. Due to State Budget constraints the scheduled construction may be postponed. The kitchen- stove hood will not be updated because of cost and the planned new kitchen facility. The State Fire Marshall, Department of Forestry, and Department of Correction have an agreement that until 46 funds are allocated to either restore the hood to code or build a new dining room/ kitchen facility, an inmate specially trained to fight grease and chemical fires with special fire extinguishing apparatus must be on duty in the kitchen during cooking. The Camp holds a maximum of 132 inmates. Inmates are thoroughly screened and classified. Sexual offenders, arsonists, and violent inmates are not classified for the Camp, as this is a minimum- security facility with open dorms and no fences. Inmates are required to have three years or less remaining on their sentences. The Camp is fully maintained by the inmates under staff supervision. All inmates are required to work, with work ethic strongly emphasized. Work assignments, which include fire and rescue crews, laundry, kitchen, grounds, etc., are based on skill and needs. Inmates are given written job descriptions and written performance evaluations. They are paid a nominal hourly rate for their services. Five fire crews, comprised of 16 to 17 inmates each, fight fires and help in rescues wherever needed in California and along the Nevada border. In addition, 22 inmates staff the Mobile Kitchen Unit, which can provides up to 3,000 meals at a time. Inmates also work in the Mill and Cabinet Shop, constructing desks, cabinets, tables, and other various wood furniture items for tax supported agencies at cost. For the past eleven years the inmates have participated in “ Helping Hands” where they raise funds through a comprehensive recycling program. Funds received from this program along with donations from the staff, civilians, and local businesses are used at Christmas to provide new bicycles, assembled by the inmates, and helmets for children in the community. The Superintendent of the local school district provides the Camp Commander with a list of parents and students to contact. The Camp Commander then contacts the parents asking if they wis h to participate in the program. The bicycles and helmets are brought to a local school where the children make their selection. Finding F1. A solution to the code non- compliance of the kitchen hood has been agreed upon by the State Fire Marshall, Department of Forestry and Department of Corrections. Response to Finding F1 California State Department of Forestry California State Department of Corrections 47 EDUCATION 48 EDUCATION COMMITTEE El Dorado County School Bus Transportation General Review Reason for the Report The Grand Jury selected El Dorado County school bus transportation for general review. Scope of the Investigation The Grand Jur y did the following: · Surveyed transportation offices of each school; · Analyzed data obtained from the surveys; · Obtained information from the California Highway Patrol ( CHP) pertaining to safety conditions of school busses. Background School bus transportation has not been reviewed by the Grand Jury in the recent past, therefore it was decided to undertake such an investigation. A one- page survey was created and mailed to the transportation supervisors of each school providing bus transportation. All surveys were returned and analyzed. A total of 17 school districts provide bus transportation. Most school districts own their own busses. Expenses for maintenance of busses vary considerably from one school to another. The main finding is that none of the districts had any substantial safety problems to report regarding their bus transportation over the past two years The California Highway Patrol ( CHP) is responsible for annual safety inspections of each school bus operating in the State of California. The committee received a copy of the safety review ( Exception report) from the CHP Safety Review officer for each bus operating in El Dorado County. The CHP provided this committee with a report of exceptions to safety inspections, according to individual schools and school districts. This report, which notes any exceptions to approved safety conditions, revealed that no school district bus received a significant exception report during the past year although a few minor exceptions were noted and had been corrected. 49 Findings F1. School districts within El Dorado County offer school bus transportation to hundreds of students each day throughout the year. F2 All school buses in the 17 school districts are inspected annually by a safety inspection program of the California Highway Patrol, and no substantial safety exceptions were noted during the past year. No Recommendations 50 EDUCATION COMMITTEE El Dorado Union High School Placerville Reason for the Report The Grand Jury selected El Dorado High School ( EDUHS) for a general review. Scope of the Investigation The members of the Grand Jury: · Interviewed the principal and the vice- principal; · Toured the school, including the cafeteria, the library, the gymnasium and the computer laboratories. Background The Grand Jury met with and interviewed the principal and vice principal of the school on February 10, 2002. The current principal was appointed mid- year 2002. The vice- principal has been at the school in varying capacities for 31 years. The school site was developed in 1905 and in 1928, the City of Placerville built the high school. The current physical plant includes 57 classrooms, 2 gyms, and several activity rooms. All of the buildings are permanent with the exception of 9 portables. A total of 345 storage lockers are available to students, but 84 of them are unassigned as many students do not want them. Lockers are assigned on a first come, first serve, basis. Modernization funds have been helpful in bringing the buildings up to standard. School maintenance is excellent. The campus has the smallest acreage when compared with the other local schools. Maintenance is difficult due to the age of the buildings and the heavy use by the community. There are 5 daytime maintenance staff and 4.5 night staff. Swimming pool, gyms and athletic fields are all community shared. At present, 1305 students are enrolled, this is down from 1600 students enrolled five years ago. There are 72 teachers, including a librarian. 47 teachers are classified. The student - teacher ratio is 30 - 1. In English/ Math the ratio is 20 to 1. A Health Academy program is offered, in which students interested in the health fields are given special counseling. Another program, Advanceme nt Via Individual Determination ( AVID), identifies 20 students each year who are given special attention to assure their success in high school. 51 A Sustained Silent Reading Program is well established on the campus. Every student has required reading for 20 minutes each day following announcements. This program is unique to the school and has been very rewarding. It encourages students to read for pleasure. The school has three computer labs and one computer in every classroom. The labs appear to be fully used by the students. Vista High School is a new on- site high school located on the campus of EDUHS which offers alternative education. This alternative education program allows staff to keep these students on site. The students are given individual education plans and work with certified teachers. A total of 30 students are currently enrolled. The campus offers a full- time drama and full time music teacher, and drama costumes are created in the Home Economic classes. Special Education students include 135 resource students, 17 special day classes, 10 students who are severely handicapped and 16 speech and language students. Special education students comprise about 20 percent of the student body, -- most are “ mainstreamed.” This figure is high according to the principal. The school has a significant Title I population. ( Title I students include low- achieving low-income, limited English, American Indian, migrants, neglected or delinquent, students with disabilities, and those who need reading assistance.) Test results show El Dorado HS to be doing well when compared to similar school populations. The State testing is important, but results need to be more timely to be helpful. An assigned school nurse is shared with another school. A full- time health aide is on duty. Three full- time counselors are also on staff, along with the Healthy Start program. Healthy Start provides supplemental tutoring after school among other activities. Art and music are important programs at the EDUHS. The campus currently has a large amphitheater and a small theatre. A school and community planning committee has been formed to help design and build a 500 seat theatre, with an art gallery, and an amphitheater to accommodate 300 permanent seats. Private gifts and bond funding are being explored. The proposed complex would be shared with the Placerville community. The Assistant principal is responsible for unifying an evacuation and lock down plan. The District is currently developing a uniform plan. A full- time police officer and a full- time probation officer are assigned to the school. Strong relationships have been established with the fire and sheriff's departments. The school has a 7- period day. Buses are shared with other schools. Students attend from as far away as Kyburz. 52 To assist in student discipline problems, an In- house suspension room is used. When this is used, students are not sent home and therefore do not lose a day of school. Teachers say " lack of respect" and " poor language" ( commonly used in TV shows) are problems in the classrooms. The campus has Safe School Ambassadors, selected from the student body, who work to prevent campus confrontations from occurring. Drugs and alcohol are always a continuing problem. The prescription drugs Rytalin and Vitagen are being sold illegally to young students for $ 5 to $ 10 a pill. Attempts to control this are three campus monitors, police and a full- time probation officer who has authority to search students. The usual after school programs are offered, in addition to yoga, art, and dancing. The school also offers ski and snowboard team sports. Buildings, classrooms, and grounds appeared to be very well maintained and attractive. Elevators and ramps are available for handicapped. No Findings or Recommendations 53 EDUCATION COMMITTEE Indian Diggings Elementary School Somerset Reason for the Report The Grand Jury selected Indian Diggings Elementary School for a general review: Scope of the Investigation Members of the Grand Jury: · Visited the School on January 31, 2003; · Were given on an extensive tour of the School by the Superintendent; · Reviewed various school plans, including emergency procedures, funding, and staffing; · Reviewed Grand Jury reports for 2000/ 2001 and 2001/ 2002 and found no findings or recommendations pertaining to the school. Background Indian Diggings Elementary School, a two- room school with grades K - 8, has been in existence since 1856. The school burned down in 1958 and was rebuilt primarily with volunteer labor and materials. There are two classrooms, a multi- purpose room, small library, and office space. The school owns an acre of land that is not utilized. Suggestions for use of the land have included building a swimming pool and tennis courts for community use. However, the school is unable to fund these projects. The facility consists of 4 full- time credentialed employees and one exchange teacher from Japan. The Superintendent functions as the principal and upper grade teacher. The faculty perform all positions necessary including yard duty attendant, Special Needs Instructor, school secretary, etc. The school building and grounds are well maintained by the part- time janitor. Since the school population is small, special services are provided on a limited basis. A school nurse is available four days a year. The nurse tests vision, checks immunization records, tests hearing, and provides CPR training for the teachers. A music/ dance instructor comes in to train the students for performances in performance arts. A karate teacher also comes in periodically to instruct the students and one teacher that continues the instruction and practices with the students. The enrollment consists of 15 students in grades K - 3 and 21 students in grades 4 – 8. 0f these total 36 students, 18 are inter- district transfers from Pioneer County and one from Amador 54 County. Only 2 students have transferred this year to another district. Enrollment throughout the years varies from the lowest figure of 24 to the high of 44 students. Educational opportunities in this small school are impressive. All students may participate in cross- country skiing with boots and skis available for all students. Weeklong field trips, planned with parents, are available for the upper grades with the lower grades joining for part of the time. A financial reward program has been developed to encourage students to demonstrate good behavior and earn good grades. The students earn “ Ono Bucks” and are required to maintain records of “ Ono Bucks” earned. When students spend “ Ono Bucks” at the General Store, which is supplied through donations, they are required to record the transactions in their checkbooks. The school has a large multipurpose room, which was built in 1996- 97 with grant funds. This room contains a kitchen, a full stage with curtain for play productions, a large- screen television, gym, craft room, and an elevator for the disabled. The elevator, which was not operable at the time of Committee’s visit, is being used for storage. In the past seven years, the Superintendent applied for and received approximately $ 750,000 in grant funds, part of which was used to build the multipurpose room. Other grants have provided for chain- link fencing ( to keep bobcats out), water tanks ( no public water), computers ( each student has a computer), satellite dish, sets of classical literature, and grassed play areas and fields. The Pioneer Lions Club of Somerset offers additional support to the school. Over the past seven years, the Club has donated funds for field trips, including Spring Camp Science Trip, a student store structure, provided picnic tables, and obtained a ball wall. Findings F1. The school owns an acre of land that is not being utilized due to funding. F2. The elevator for disabled is not in working condition. Recommendation R1. The elevator should be repaired. Commendations The Teaching Principal/ Superintendent has obtained numerous grants to improve this unique school. He and his staff provide excellent opportunities for their students. 55 Responses to Findings F1 and F2 Indian Diggings School Teaching Principal/ Superintendent Response to Recommendation R1 Indian Diggings School Teaching Principal/ Superintendent 56 EDUCATION COMMITTEE Latrobe School & Miller Hill School Latrobe Reason for the Report Since the Latrobe School District had not been visited in at least 5 years the Grand Jury decided it should be visited this year. Scope of the Investigation The Grand Jury: · Visited Latrobe School; · Visited Miller Hill School; · Interviewed the Secretary and three teachers. Background Latrobe School is comprised of two schools, K through 3 and 4 through 8. The original school building, built in 1911, is still being used on the Latrobe School site. The newer building is several years old. All buildings are well maintained. Miller Hill School is two years old with a new library. There are 100 students on each campus. The schools have more than adequate space to house that number of students. Several classes were observed, including a Special Education class. Classes appeared to be well run and orderly. School busses are contracted from the El Dorado High School District and function well. Commendations The schools are well run. We would like to commend the faculty and administration for their fine work. No Findings or Recommendations 57 EDUCATION COMMITTEE Edwin Markham Middle School Placerville Reason for the Report The Grand Jury selected Edwin Markham Middle School to review the status of the building repairs recommended in the 2001- 2002 Grand Jury Report, and for a general review. Scope of the Investigation The members of the Grand Jury: · Interviewed the Superintendent and the Principal; · Toured the school grounds; · Visited the special science laboratory and several classes including an 8th grade math class; · Reviewed the Grand Jury report for 2001/ 2002. Background The school was opened in 1950, and has 756 students. According to the principal, the students consistently score above average on the State Administrative Tests. The curriculum provides at least 2 elective activities for every student. These electives consist of art, music and drama. The school day begins at 7: 44 a. m. and ends at 2: 05 p. m. The classes that were visited were orderly and well run. Teachers appear to be involved and interested in the students. The previous Grand Jury report identified dry- rot and drainage problems in several buildings. While the repair work has not been started to date, the recent passage of school bonds will enable a complete remodeling of the facility. This remodeling will correct the drainage and dry- rot. The architect's plan for the remodeling should be ready for approval by the end of summer 2003. Findings F1. Repairs reported by 2001- 2002 Grand Jury have not been accomplished. F2. Passage of school bonds will enable a complete remodeling of the school. F3. Repairs/ remodeling will commence within the year. 58 Recommendations R1. Repairs should be accomplished within a reasonable time frame. R2. Follow up with architect to confirm project is on target. R3. Continuous monitoring of the project should be performed by the Superintendent. Responses Required for Findings F1 – F2 Superintendent Edwin Markham School Principal Edwin Markham School Responses Required for Recommendations R1 – R3 Superintendent Edwin Markham School Principal Edwin Markham School 59 Education Committee Ponderosa High School Shingle Springs Reason for the Report |
| PDI.Date | 2003 |
| PDI.Date.Issued | 2003 |
| PDI.Title | Final Report. 2002-2003. |
| OCLC number | 144544458 |
Tags
Add tags for El Dorado County Grand Jury final report
Comments
Post a Comment for El Dorado County Grand Jury final report
Your rating was saved.
you wish to report:
Your comment:
Your Name:
|
|
...