1998– 1999 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report

Preface ............................................................................................................................... ............ 4

Dog Licensing and Rabies Vaccinations ............................................................................................ 6

Brooktrails Township Community Services District ........................................................................... 9

Certification of Part- time Athletic Coaches in High Schools ............................................................. 11

Mendocino County Public Defender............................................................................................... 13

Citizen Complaint of the Environmental Health Division................................................................... 18

How to Build a 55- foot- high Hotel in a 35- foot- high Zone in Fort Bragg ......................................... 24

Grading Ordinance Requirements of the Mendocino County General Plan....................................... 27

Jail Staffing and Facilities................................................................................................................ 29

Mendocino County Juvenile Hall Administrative Practices ............................................................... 34

Mendocino County Library System................................................................................................ 44

Medical Services at the Mendocino County Adult Detention Facility................................................ 46

Mendocino Coast Health Care District ........................................................................................... 50

Mendocino- Lake Community College ............................................................................................ 57

Mendocino County Mental Health Board 1997– 1998..................................................................... 60

Millview Water District................................................................................................................... 67

An Investigation of a Police Shooting of a Mentally- ill Citizen.......................................................... 74

Investigation of a Complaint Filed Against the Fort Bragg Police Department and the Mendocino

County District Attorney’s Office.................................................................................................... 81

Special Education Local Plan Area ( SELPA).................................................................................. 83

Investigation of a Suicide at the Mendocino County Adult Detention Facility.................................... 86

Transient Occupancy Tax............................................................................................................... 90

Mendocino County: Injured Employees .......................................................................................... 92

1997- 98 Grand Jury Final Report Response Review....................................................................... 98

June 30, 1999

Eric Labowitz, Presiding Judge

Mendocino County Superior Court

The 1998- 99 Mendocino County Grand Jury submits to you this final report as mandated by law. Our

report is the culmination of study and work by a group of citizens who dedicated much of the past year

to investigate public agency services, management, and use of funds within Mendocino County.

Many recommendations are similar to those of previous Grand Juries and we hope that the public and

public servants will implement recommendations.

The final report is to be filed with the Mendocino County Clerk. We are submitting copies to each

agency which is the subject of a report, all County department directors, and the libraries.

In September 1999, the Grand Jury and the County will publish a newsprint version of the final report,

including agency responses. The Board of Supervisors would like to include the County response to

the reports in this publication and have agreed to report within a 60- day time frame instead of the 90

days allowed by law. Other agencies who wish to have their responses included in the publication

should also submit their responses to you within 60 days of release of this final report, August 30, 1999.

The final report and responses ( as received) will also be available on the County web- site,

www. co. mendocino. ca. us.

In addition to the investigative and oversight reports, we accomplished the following:

1. Originated a Grand Jury page and entered the 1997- 98 Final Report on the County

web- site.

2. Set up a protocol with the County Administrator's Office to do a mass publication of the

final report with agency responses.

3. Received 52 citizen complaints and determined whether they should be investigated,

rejected, or referred to next year's Grand Jury.

4. Upon order of the Board of Supervisors, studied the issue of compensation for

Supervisors and presented the Board with a recommendation that reflects the full- time

nature of the job.

5. Surveyed Grand Juries throughout the state regarding stipends and mileage

reimbursement.

6. Worked with the Board of Supervisors to amend the County ordinance regarding

Grand Jury stipends and mileage reimbursement.

We appreciate the cooperation we received from you, the Board of Supervisors, and the District

Attorney in these actions.

The Court, especially Tania Ugrin- Copobianco, was instrumental in securing parking permits for all

jurors, including Grand Jurors.

The Court has also been cooperative in updating the Grand Juror selection system, and we suggest ( as

did the 1993 Grand Jury) that the selection process begin earlier in the year.

We acknowledge the value of your role as advisor to the Grand Jury, and thank you for ordering

Special Counsel when it was necessary due to conflicts of interest between County Counsel, the District

Attorney's Office, and the agencies under investigation.

Respectfully,

Jo Ann Henrie, Foreman

.

Preface

Several common themes emerged from Grand Jury investigations this year.

• Employee turnover and understaffing affects several departments, thus wasting scarce

resources and depriving the most disenfranchised in our community of needed services;

see, for example, the Jail reports.

• Training is inadequate in many agencies. Several reports indicate the need for training; see,

for example, the report of the police shooting in Ukiah. It is easy to state that training is a

goal, but much more difficult to provide the actual training. The Grand Jury is encouraged

that a part of department directors evaluations will include their accomplishments of training

their personnel.

• Both elected and appointed boards seem to have a problem functioning as they should. In

some cases, the appointing bodies have not filled the positions. A May 1999 Board of

Supervisors agenda listed 77 open positions. Boards lack adequate policies and

procedures and members often lack training which can result in manipulation and

intimidation by the very departments that they oversee; see for example the Mental Health

Board report.

• County operations are centered inland. Coastal residents appear to have a more difficult

time in obtaining services, and at the same time, the County does not adequately perform

its oversight functions; see for example, the Transient Occupancy Tax and Environmental

Health reports.

• Some departments do not have written policies and procedures; One department director

stated that he does not have the staff necessary to write policies, but he also did not feel

that written policies were necessary.

The Grand Jury, mandated to provide oversight to public agencies, has been described as a " watchdog

with no teeth," since in most instances, the Grand Jury can only recommend solutions and there are no

obvious penalties for an agency not responding or adopting recommendations.

However, the " teeth" can be 1) ensuring that information regarding agencies is public and 2) citizens

informing officials and boards of concerns.

The State has mandated many public commissions and also firmly states that the public should be

involved in the operation of public agencies. The Brown Act states:

. . . . the public commissions, board and councils and the other public agencies in this State exist to

aid in the conduct of the people's business. It is the intent of the law that their actions be taken

openly and that their deliberations be conducted openly.

The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The

people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good

for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining

informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created.

Public agencies need to realize that they exist for the good of the public. Citizens need to realize that

they can participate in the decision- making process.

Dog Licensing and Rabies Vaccinations

Two of the responsibilities of the Mendocino County Animal Control Department ( Animal Control) are

licensing and ensuring rabies vaccinations of dogs throughout the County.

Reason for Review

The Grand Jury received a complaint regarding penalty notices sent to dog owners based on

veterinarian's reports of rabies vaccinations submitted to the Animal Control. While investigating the

complaint, the Grand Jury found other problems within the administration of the department.

Method of Investigation

The Grand Jury interviewed the complainant and the Director of Animal Control. The Grand Jury

reviewed licensing and notice documentation, a draft policy and procedure manual, the codes relating to

licensing, and a newly instituted licensing procedure.

Dog Licensing Procedures

Findings

1. Dog owners are responsible for licensing their dogs within 10 days of the dog coming

into their possession or 10 days after the dog reaches four months of age. Dog licenses

can be purchased at the Animal Control Office in the Courthouse or at the Animal

Shelter.

2. The Board of Supervisors in Resolution 96- 106 established the license fees for a female

or male dog is $ 20.00; an altered dog fee is $ 10.00/

3. The delinquent penalty fee is $ 15.00 for each individual dog license. Animal Control

interprets this to mean that if a dog is not licensed for a period of two years, the penalty

would be $ 30.00 plus two years license fees.

4. The Animal Control Director stated that a goal of the department is to license dogs and

ensure rabies vaccinations, not collect penalty fees. He stated that he has no record of

what penalty fees might be due the County.

Recommendation

The Board of Supervisors should institute an amnesty period during which all owners of

unlicensed dogs can obtain licenses by meeting the rabies requirement and paying the

current year fee only, waiving any past yearly fees or penalties.

" Penalty Notices"

Findings

1. When Animal Control receives a record of vaccination from veterinarians pursuant to

Mendocino County Ordinance 10.16.030, staff checks to see if the dog has been

licensed. If the dog is not licensed, a notice is sent to the dog owner stating the license

fee that is due. The dog owner must obtain a license within 10 days. During 1997 and

1998, Animal Control sent out a variety of notices labeled " Payment Notice," " Late

Notice," or " Penalty Notice." Many mistakes were made in sending these notices to

owners of dogs that were licensed. The current form is now labeled " Pet License

Statement."

2. The California Public Records Act ( Govt. Code 6250) requires that the public have

access to records, stating: " the Legislature finds and declares that access to information

concerning the conduct of the people's business is a fundamental and necessary right of

every person in this state."

A citizen's group requested information regarding notices sent. The County

Administrator informed the group that Animal Control would provide documentation,

but when representatives met with Animal Control they were told that the information

was in the computer and that a copy could not be printed. The Grand Jury requested

and received the information.

The Grand Jury is greatly disturbed that citizens were not able to access their public

records.

3. The computer printout ( provided by Animal Control) of notices sent during this time

period indicates that all areas of the County received notices. It does not appear that

any one area was targeted for " penalty notices."

Policy and Procedures Manual

Finding

The Grand Jury requested the Animal Control policy and procedures manual to verify

procedures for licensing and rabies vaccination reporting. The Director provided a manual

written in 1992, which he stated was a draft compiled by an intern. The Director stated that the

department follows the State and County codes regarding licensing and that a manual was not

necessary. However, even the County Code Section 10.12.010 does not reflect the current

practice of licensing. On June 4, 1996, the Board of Supervisors authorized DMV style of

licenses expiring on the dog's vaccination date but the County Code has not been revised, and

after that date owners still received notices that their dog's licenses expired on the last day of the

calendar year.

The " draft" manual contained a list of goals for Animal Control. Numbers one and two

concerned licensing dogs and rabies vaccinations, yet no policies or procedures were in the

manual concerning these two topics. The license section was a statement regarding kennel

licensing.

Recommendations

1. The Department of Animal Control should develop and implement a policy and

procedure manual that is consistent with County ordinances and State regulations.

2. The Board of Supervisors should order a report on licensing procedures from the

Animal Control Director and amend the County Code.

Comment

The 1991 Grand Jury reported on the lack of a policy and procedures manual and recommended that

one be written. The 1992 Grand Jury noted that Animal Control was in the process of developing a

manual. It now appears that nothing has been done in regard to this manual since 1992.

" Advisory Committee"

Finding

County Code Section 10.04.030( 4- 7) establishes an " Animal Control Advisory Committee" but

the duties outlined are those of a appeal and administrative hearing board.

Recommendation

The Board of Supervisors should amend the code to either specify duties of an advisory

nature, or change the name of the committee to reflect its actual duties.

Final Recommendation

The Grand Jury finds that more time needs to be spent examining these issues. Either the Board of

Supervisors or the Grand Jury should conduct both management and fiscal audits of Animal Control

during 1999- 2000.

Response Required

Mendocino County Board of Supervisors

Response Requested

Mendocino County Animal Control Director

Brooktrails Township Community Services District

Brooktrails is a seven- square- mile subdivision with 5,000 lots and 1,398 homes. The Brooktrails

Township Community Services District ( BTCSD), established in 1962 as the Brooktrails Resort

Improvement District, has a five- member elected board, a full- time general manager, and staff. The

board meets each month in the community center to act on matters pertaining to water/ sewer service,

fire protection, emergency services, recreation, and community planning. The BTCSD includes the fire

department which has a full time chief and assistant chief.

Reason for Review

The Grand Jury received a citizen's complaint regarding the hazards abatement program.

Method of Investigation

The Grand Jury interviewed the complainant, BTCSD staff, made two on- site inspections of abated

lots, attended a BTCSD board meeting, reviewed fire abatement lists for the last five years, abatement

billings, BTCSD financial records, and contacted the California Department of Forestry ( CDF).

Hazard Abatement Program

Findings

1. The Brooktrails Hazard Abatement Program started in 1991 as a response to the threat of

rapidly spreading wildfires in the wake of the Oakland Hills fire, under the authority granted

the BTCSD by California Government Code Sections 61623.4 and 61623.5.

2. All testimony supported the overall goals of the program: to reduce the risk of a large and

fast moving fire through the Brooktrails area. Hazards on 1,000 to1,500 properties are

cited and abated each year.

Program Implementation

Findings

1. In 1991, there was wall- to- wall brush and dead and dying debris throughout the steep

hillsides of Brooktrails. BTCSD established standards in 1993, including removal of

brush and trees under six inches in diameter at the base and thinning of trees to 10 to 12 feet

apart. Clearing to this standard results in a park- like look. Natural regeneration requires

periodic clearing to maintain this standard.

Recommendation

The Grand Jury encourages the BTCSD to involve property owners in a process which

looks at the current abatement standards and determines whether these standards need

to be maintained or refined.

2. Since 1993, almost every property has been on the abatement list once and many have

been listed twice or more. Contrary to allegations in the complaint, the Grand Jury found

no evidence of fraud or kick- backs or of selective enforcement in the abatement process.

Non- resident owners were most often cleared through the BTCSD and the costs ( plus fees)

added to their tax bills.

3. The cost to property owners has ranged from $ 280 to $ 1,000 per lot ( lots average 6,000

square feet in size). The BTCSD encourages land owners to contract privately for the work

but in about 25% of the cases, work has been put up for public bid because nothing has

been done.

Greenbelt Areas

Finding

The privately- owned lots have been cleared much more thoroughly than the commonly- owned

greenbelt. ( Over one- third of Brooktrails is greenbelt.) Only limited low- cost clearing in

cooperation with the California Conservation Corps, CDF, and conservation camp inmates has

been done in the greenbelt. Most areas where the Grand Jury observed the conditions that

inspired the Hazard Abatement Program were on greenbelt properties.

Recommendation

The Grand Jury recommends that the BTSCD adopt a more systematic hazard removal

program in the greenbelt area, allocating additional fire suppression funds if needed.

Response Required

Brooktrails Township Community Services District Board of Directors

Certification of Part- time Athletic Coaches in High Schools

The law requires that part- time athletic coaches have certain qualifications. They must have training; they

must show negative results on tuberculosis tests ( no more than four years old); and they must pass a

background check for possible criminal history. School districts that fail to ensure that persons hired as

part- time coaches meet those qualifications are exposed to liability in the event of preventable accidents,

exposure to tuberculosis, or victimization of students through unlawful activity on the part of temporary

coaches.

Reason for Review

The 1997- 98 Grand Jury found deficiencies in the certification of part- time coaches in Mendocino

County high schools and recommended that this year's Grand Jury do a follow- up survey.

Method of Investigation

The Grand Jury asked the principals of each of the nine high schools in the County to provide rosters

and certified records of the qualifications of all of the part- time coaches they employed during the past

academic year.

Legal Requirement

The California Code of Regulations, Title 5, Section 5592, sets out requirements for use of non-certificated

temporary athletic team coaches; Section 5593 lists the required qualifications and

competencies for those coaches.

Findings

1. High schools in Mendocino, Point Arena, Ukiah, and Willits provided rosters and

complete certification forms.

2. Potter Valley High School provided a roster and certification forms, but one certification

form was incomplete.

3. Anderson Valley High School did not submit a roster, but did provide certification

forms.

4. Fort Bragg High School submitted no roster, but provided certification forms, not all of

which were complete.

5. Laytonville High School submitted no roster and no certification forms, but sent a

declaration stating that " Non- credentialed coaches receive regular supervision at

practices and home games to assure proper practice and good game management."

There was no mention of tuberculosis testing.

6. Round Valley High School submitted incomplete certification forms. There was no

roster, only spotty documentation and no mention of tuberculosis testing.

7. There is no standard certification form being used by all districts.

Recommendations

1. Given the potential for injury or liability, district school boards must ensure that

proper certification of part- time coaches takes place, including adequate

documentation which is readily available.

Response Required

Anderson Valley Unified School District Board of Trustees

Fort Bragg Unified School District Board of Trustees

Laytonville Unified School District Board of Trustees

Potter Valley Unified School District Board of Trustees

Round Valley Unified School District Board of Trustees

Mendocino County District Attorney

2. The Mendocino County Superintendent of Schools should recommend to the

district superintendents a standard, County- wide form for part- time coach

certification and all high schools in the County should use it in the hiring process.

Response Required

Mendocino County Superintendent of Schools

Anderson Valley Unified School District Board of Trustees

Fort Bragg Unified School District Board of Trustees

Laytonville Unified School District Board of Trustees

Mendocino Unified School District Board of Trustees

Point Arena High School District Board of Trustees

Potter Valley Unified School District Board of Trustees

Round Valley Unified School District Board of Trustees

Ukiah Unified School District Board of Trustees

Willits Unified School District Board of Trustees

Mendocino County Public Defender

The Mendocino County Office of the Public Defender ( Office) is charged with providing legal defense

for persons lacking the resources to provide their own. Judges in criminal trials determine when

defendants qualify for assignment of a public defender. The Public Defender ( PD), ten Deputy

Defenders, plus clerical staff make up the Office.

Reason for Review

The Grand Jury received a complaint.

Method of Investigation

The Grand Jury interviewed the complainant, past and present employees of the Office, the PD, the

County Administrative Officer, Risk Manager, Personnel Director, a Judge, a probation officer, a

Mental Health Department worker, and personnel from the Sheriff's Department. The Grand Jury also

made an on- site visit to the Office facility in Ukiah.

Staff Turnover

Findings

1. All of the Deputy Defenders employed at the time of the present PD's appointment have

either been dismissed, quit, or have transferred to other County departments.

2. When the independent Alternate Public Defenders Office began in 1997, several Deputy

Defenders chose to move to that office.

3. One Deputy Defender went out on disability and some took higher paying jobs in other

counties.

4. Two of the former Deputy Defenders are now working in the District Attorney's office.

Staff Morale

Findings

1. Former employees interviewed commented on unhappiness and low morale among staff

members under direction of the new PD. They complained of verbal attacks by the Public

Defender as well as lack of teamwork and support within the office.

2. The PD is looked on by current staff as very qualified, knowledgeable in law, with good

connections. He is praised for having modernized the office, using technology in a way

which allows attorneys to immediately access case law.

3. The Grand Jury found considerable dissatisfaction among both past and present employees

with management of the Office. There are current complaints of overbearing management

styles of the PD and the Assistant PD. These complaints include the micro- managing of

staff and the lack of teamwork from the top down. With some exceptions, staff morale in

the Office is low, and there is an indication that a good number of the incumbents, while not

seeking other employment, would leave if an opportunity came up. There is concern that

Deputy Defenders are treated as " less than professional" by supervisors.

Recommendation

The County Personnel Office should conduct a teamwork/ leadership sensitivity

workshop for all Office personnel to address management style and the morale

issues in the Office.

Possible Misuse of County Funds

Findings

1. The PD, at County expense and with the assistance of department staff, prepared, copied

and mailed an friend of the court brief to the U. S. Supreme Court involving a case which

did not originate in Mendocino County. The PD traveled to Washington, D. C., to take part

in hearings on the case. The PD testified that he felt that his involvement was justified

because the outcome of the case would have an impact on all counties, including

Mendocino. Expenses associated with the Supreme Court appearance were paid for by

the California Public Defenders Association and the travel was authorized by the Board of

Supervisors.

2. The PD prepares and distributes to deputies and to attendees at training sessions material -

under the title " Law Notes" - on various cases which come from other publications.

3. Two former Deputy Defenders told the Grand Jury that the " Law Notes" material is easily

accessed in its original venues and that republication of the material is an unnecessary use

of County resources.

4. The PD told the Grand Jury that the material makes up a useful adjunct to the training

sessions and to seminars he holds from time to time and that it includes articles culled from

other sources which have direct bearing on topics under discussion.

5. Funds collected for attendance at the seminars go to an account which pays costs involved

in preparation of the seminar materials.

Recommendation

The PD has a responsibility to avoid the appearance of impropriety in the expenditure of

public funds. The PD and/ or the County Auditor- Controller should provide an

accounting, including staff time, of expenses associated with seminars or other activities

having no direct bearing on County business. This information should be made available

to the Office staff and the public.

Response Required

Mendocino County Auditor- Controller

Working Environment

The complainant commented that the physical office was dirty and crowded and that boxes and other

materials blocked aisles and posed an unsafe environment for employees.

Findings

1. The Grand Jury toured the offices of the Public Defender and found them in a generally

clean and adequately- maintained condition.

2. The Grand Jury found that there are numerous boxes of files on the floor and in some of the

aisles. File shelves appear to be overloaded and could cause safety problems. However,

archived files are being removed from the work area for storage in the basement of the

building. That should reduce some of the potential hazard. The PD commented that he

does not have funding his budget to obtain a newer, more secure filing system.

3. The rear staircase to the second floor is narrow and could be a problem in case of fire. At

the time of the interview with the PD, there had been no fire or other safety drills conducted

to train staff on proper exit procedures or to determine if the rear staircase is in fact a

hazard. The PD said that he will initiate fire and safety training and drills.

4. The entryway area has a counter, but no other means of protecting clerical staff from risks

associated with angry or hostile clients entering the facility.

Recommendations

1. The County Safety Officer should work with the PD to identify health or safety

issues and take corrective action where needed, with particular attention to the

filing arrangement and to staff training for emergencies.

2. The PD should look into the need for better security at the entryway counter.

Workers Compensation Claim

Findings

1. The PD filed a Workers Compensation claim on behalf of an injured employee without that

employee's knowledge.

2. The employee was denied access to and the opportunity to review information in the

workers compensation file. However, according to County Counsel's September 15,

1998 Opinion, employees are not allowed access to their Workers Compensation files

( Workers Compensation Act as codified in Labor Code Section 3200).

3. According to a September 15, 1998 opinion from County Counsel, the claim filing was not

permissible as an injured party must be notified of rights and benefits accorded by

California Labor Code Section 5402, be provided with the proper forms, and personally

sign the claim.

Recommendation

1. The PD must comply with all relevant Labor Code requirements.

2. The District Attorney should investigate the improper filing of workers

compensation claims by the PD.

Overtime Requirements

Findings

1. Most Deputy Defenders are exempt employees and do not qualify for extra payment for

overtime, though they are sometimes required to work overtime. Most overtime occurs

when the Deputy Defender is involved in court proceedings and has no control over the

court's schedule. In such cases, the employee is there at the will of the court and must

remain on duty past scheduled work hours. The employee has no way of knowing when

that might happen and the PD does not have the advance awareness necessary to authorize

the overtime.

2. Deputy Defenders are also required to work unpaid overtime when attending weekend

seminars put on from time to time by the PD.

3. Testimony supports the fact that the PD instructed deputies not to record overtime on their

time sheets; however the County does not require entry of overtime hours for exempt

employees.

4. The Office has a flex- time policy which allows employees to take time off, by

arrangement, to compensate for extra time worked. The County does not have a flex time

policy; department heads establish their own policies.

Recommendations

1. The Office should keep a record of all overtime hours worked.

2. The BOS should establish a policy allowing conditional approval of

overtime in situations, such as court proceedings, where employees have

no control over work schedules.

3. The BOS should establish a uniform flex- time policy.

Potential Conflict of Interest

Findings

1. The County established an Alternate Public Defender in 1997 to handle cases in which the

PD has a conflict of interest.

2. The PD has no control over the Alternate Public Defenders Office in regard to personnel

or operations. The Public Defender however, prepares and presents the Alternate Public

Defenders' budget for the Board of Supervisors. This budgetary control presents the

possibility for a conflict of interest.

Comment

The County must maintain the current separation between the Public Defender and the Alternate Public

Defender.

Response Required

Mendocino County Board of Supervisors

Mendocino County District Attorney

Mendocino County Auditor- Controller

Response Requested

Mendocino County Public Defender

Mendocino County Chief Administrative Officer

Mendocino County Personnel Director

Citizen Complaint of the Environmental Health Division

The Environmental Health Division ( EHD) is a division of the Public Health Department ( PHD). The

EHD stated mission is to safeguard the public from diseases, health hazards and lack of well- being

related to air, water, food, sewage, hazardous materials, solid waste and other environmental factors. It

does this by investigating and reporting on violations, real or alleged, which come to its attention.

Violations can be corrected by the authority the Division has and if necessary through court action by

the County Counsel and or District Attorney.

The stated vision of the EHD is that the public understands and supports environmental compliance. In

order to do this, there must be a fully staffed division functioning as a team. This team relies on

education and/ or its power of legal enforcement in order to protect the health and well- being of the

citizens of Mendocino County. Where observed violations lie outside the purview of the Division, they

are obligated to refer the problem to appropriate agencies.

Reason for Review

The Grand Jury investigated the complaint resolution process of the EHD as a result of receiving a

complaint from numerous individuals in a neighborhood.

Method of Investigation

In order to determine the effectiveness of the complaint handling procedures utilized by the EHD the

Grand Jury focused its inquiry on complaints involving liquid waste which are representative of all

complaints. Interviews were conducted with the Environmental Health Director, Environmental Health

Specialist ( EHS), and the complainants. Liquid waste complaints received by the EHD for the years

1978 through 1998 were reviewed. With a detailed review of unresolved complaints for the year 1997

and through October 1998.

The Grand Jury reviewed working documents of the Public Resources Council ( PRC) relating to the

proposed county wide standard complaint process for public health and safety issues.

The Grand Jury conducted four site inspections in Fort Bragg and Willits.

EHD and Citizen Complaints

During 1997 and through October 1998, the EHD received a total of 908 citizen complaints, 226

remain open, uncompleted and unresolved. Of this total 197 complaints involved liquid waste and 49

remain open. Many complaints remain unresolved, one for as long as ten years and another one for over

20 years. In each of these two instances, there is documentary evidence in the files of activity as

recently as 1998.

Findings

1. The EHD lacks written policies and procedures or guidelines for resolving citizen complaints.

Without guidelines, each EHS interprets state and local statutes and department policy. This

results in infrequent, inadequate, and unlawful conduct regarding complaint resolution in citizen

complaints.

2. The EHD lacks written policies and procedures or guidelines for ongoing review of the

citizen complaint process, thus perpetuating and exacerbating the current poor practices.

3. EHD states that its policy requires that the complainant conduct a follow up inspection

within ten days and report back. If the complainant does not report in ten days the complaint is

considered closed. Many of the specialists interviewed were unaware of or not clear regarding

this " policy".

4. The Grand Jury's extensive review of complaint records revealed that of EHD does not

adequately communicate with complainants.

5. Management review of complaints is cursory and inadequate. Complaints are left

unresolved without adequate management attention being given to solve the problems

satisfactorily. For example:

A complaint was filed in 1988 regarding open sewage standing in and/ or flowing through

neighborhood front and back yards. It took the EHD approximately four years to respond

and then only after repeated complaints by the citizens living in the neighborhood. As of

April 1, 1999 the EHD has failed to mitigate this health hazard.

The PHD made the following determinations on April 19, 1993 regarding this complaint:

a. " At that time I put dye in your toilet and determined that there was evidence that the

ponding in your back yard contained sewage."

b. " The discharge of sewage to the surface of the ground is a threat to the health of

visitors and neighbors."

c. " You are directed to take such action as necessary to discontinue the practice."

d. " The situation is worsened by the moderately heavy fly population. The flies can

pick up the sewage on their bodies and transport to the foods of persons in the

area"

e. " I have scheduled this for review on 31 May, 1993. At that time you should have

made progress in correcting this situation."

The review on May 31, 1993 was not conducted and no further action was taken by the

EHD until 1996.

In April 1996, the complainants further complained and then again in December 1996.

After the December complaint the Supervising EHS requested a report , from the EHS, on

the status of the complaint. That request was not complied with, the Supervising EHS did

not follow up.

In January 1997, the following determination was made regarding the complaint.

a. " After inspection of the septic system at referenced property it was determined by this

department that the system is not working properly, allowing sewage to back up into the

residence."

b. " This constitutes a risk to health of the residents when this occurs."

In October 1998 the EHD responded to the complainants, but only after an investigation

was begun by the Grand Jury. In its response the division stated " However, the Division of

Environmental Health will not take legal action to improve drainage because we have no

legal recourse." In addition it was recommended to the neighborhood that " Children and

adults should be advised to not enter or play in the ponded water...".

On May 12, 1999, the Grand Jury requested a written response from the EHD to explain

its failure to act, on this complaint, using enforcement authority under Penal Code Sections

370, 372, and 373a. On May 20, 1999, the EHD issued a Notice of Violation to the

offending property owner citing Penal Code Sections 370, 372, and 373a as its legal

authority.

Testimony supports the fact that EHD failed to act because doing so may cause a hardship

on the offending property owner.

As a further example of inadequate complaint review, a complaint was filed in 1979

regarding sewage being discharged on the ground at a multi- family complex. A review of

this complaint by the Grand Jury revealed that the complaint is still unresolved and that the

engineering consulting firm engaged by the owner to design a septic system made misleading

statements to both the EHD and the Community Housing Development Commission in an

apparent attempt to gain favorable determinations by these two regulating agencies. A

report stating the true condition of the septic system was, however, provided by the

consultants to the property owner and the EHD.

On May 14, 1999, the EHD conducted an inspection of the septic system and noted that

repairs were being undertaken. The report failed to note that the required County permits

had not been obtained for these repairs.

The lack of policies and guidelines directly contributes to the inability of the EHD to correct

this situation.

6. California Penal Code Section 370 provides the authority for the EHD to abate a public

nuisance. Staff testified that they were unaware of their authority to abate public nuisances.

Penal Code Section 372 states that "... anyone who willfully omits to perform any legal duty

relating to the removal of a public nuisance, is guilty of a misdemeanor."

7. The EHD fails to complete and/ or resolve 25% of citizen complaints. The EHD claims

16% are uncompleted but is unable to substantiate this claim. Whichever figure is accepted,

25% or 16%, that is unacceptable performance by any reasonable community standard.

8, The Public Resources Council has submitted recommendations regarding compliant

response to department managers and the Board of Supervisors. These have not been

implemented.

Recommendation

Unresolved complaints should not merely be noticed and flagged. They should be

thoroughly settled, within a specific time frame because of possible threats to the public

health and potential liability to the County. Written policies and procedures must be put

in place to ensure at a minimum:

1. Timely acknowledgment of complaints.

2. Progress reports to the complainant and PHD management.

3. Complaint management escalation with complaint age.

4. Resolve all complaints in 90 days or less.

Additionally, the uneven and inconsistent application of local and state statutes leaves

any attempt at enforcement easily challenged and leaves the County vulnerable to

litigation.

Environmental Health Specialist

The EHD relies upon two Environmental Health Specialists ( EHS), six Registered Environmental Health

Specialists ( REHS) one of whom is a supervisor. The job description for each of these positions states

that they receive "... supervision within a broad framework of standard policies and procedures." The

EHS and REHS are assigned to a specific geographical area of the county. According to the EHD their

activities include oversight of permitted uses such as building, construction and food handling

concerning public health matters. They are also responsible for the inspection, follow- up, and resolution

of the citizen complaints, including legal action if warranted, in their assigned geographical area.

Findings

1. The Grand Jury is impressed by the dedication and commitment of the EHS and REHS in

working with a sometimes hostile public.

2. The EHS do not receive any organized training in building and construction, food handling,

quarantine procedures for rabid animals, and investigating citizen complaints concerning public

health matters to insure consistency in the application of their day to day responsibilities.

Training consists of on- the- job training by more senior EHS and, according to testimony, lacks

a central theme or objective. On- the- job training is not consistent, frequently does not occur

and more often than not promulgates inadequate and unlawful work practices relating to citizen

complaints. Training records are not maintained.

3. In the absence of written policies and procedures each EHS must make up policy, a

practice which further ensures that 25% of all complaints remain uncompleted and/ or

unresolved and hazardous conditions continue, some for years. In addition, this results in

uneven application of the law and leaves the county vulnerable to litigation. This was

particularly evident during the interviews with the EHS and supported by the overwhelming lack

of documented evidence.

Conclusion

The EHD is falling short of meeting its stated goals and vision. The Grand Jury is concerned that in

regard to citizen complaints concerning liquid waste, the EHD does not adequately protect the public

health. It does not adequately use its enforcement powers to protect the public when it clearly has the

authority.

Citizen complaints of environmental hazards are, for the most part, processed in a haphazard and

unfocused manner without any guidelines. This failure to adequately document, review and otherwise

manage complaints prevents, for the most part, any follow up enforcement action. Furthermore the

uneven and at times arbitrary application of law, ordinances or other regulations by the division leaves

the County vulnerable to citizen lawsuits.

The EHS job descriptions do not accurately reflect the training and duties of the EHS. They must

operate without any written guidelines and receive inadequate on- the- job training contrary to EHD

stated policy and contrary the EHS job descriptions.

The Grand Jury was unable to find any significant evidence, written or in testimony, that the EHD

measures its performance relative to its stated goals and vision or in any other way measures its

performance.

Recommendations

1. The BOS should direct the Public Health Department to establish written Policy and

Procedures for the processing of citizen complaints.

2. The BOS should direct the Public Health Department to establish written policy and

procedures for training and continuing education of Environmental Health

Specialists.

3. The BOS should direct the Public Health Department to establish written policy and

procedures for the frequent review and reporting of the complaint process.

4. The BOS should direct the Public Health Department to conduct a third party

audit, comprised of County representatives and citizen volunteers, of the complaint

process within the Environmental Health Division of the Public Health Department.

5. The Grand Jury directs the District Attorney to investigate the Environmental Health

Division complaint process.

6. The BOS should direct the Public Health Department to revise the position

descriptions of Environmental Health Specialist I, II, and IV to more accurately

reflect the responsibilities, duties and training as actually practiced by the division.

7. The BOS should direct the County Administrator to provide a written report,

quarterly, on the status of citizen complaints filed by all County departments. This

must be institutionalized by the BOS through policy and procedures, using the

Public Resources Council recommended guidelines.

Response required Response requested

Mendocino County Board of Supervisors Mendocino County Public Health Department

Mendocino County District Attorney Mendocino County Public Health Advisory Board

How to Build a 55- foot- high Hotel in a 35- foot- high Zone in

Fort Bragg

On August 19, 1992, the City of Fort Bragg ( City) approved the issuance of Coastal Permit 10- 92 for

demolition of an existing restaurant and the construction of a 40- unit resort hotel between Highway One

and the Pacific Ocean adjacent to the north end of the Noyo River Bridge. The project site slopes

steeply downward toward the Noyo River from the approximate level of Highway One at the north end

of the site to approximately 55 feet below Highway One at the southern limit of construction. The

elevation of the roof of the hotel as approved by the City in Coastal Permit 10- 92 stepped down so as

to follow the ground level. At its highest point, near the north end of the Noyo River Bridge, the hotel

roof height was to be 55 feet above grade, 24 feet above Highway One. As approved in 1992, the

southern most approximately 100 feet of the hotel was never to be more than 24 feet above grade and

never above the level of the Noyo River Bridge.

In addition, on August 19, 1992, the City approved the issuance of a scenic corridor review permit No.

2- 92 ( Corridor Permit 2- 92) which was required by the City's Local Coastal Plan ( LCP) for projects in

particularly sensitive view corridors. The project as approved in the corridor permit is identical to that

approved in the coastal permit.

On February 14, 1996, upon request of the developer, the City approved an amendment to Corridor

Permit 2- 92. The project approved in Corridor Permit 2- 96 was significantly different from that

approved in Coastal Permit 10- 92 and Corridor 2- 92. The building plan was changed from the

multilevel stepped plan to a more rectangular shape with a more uniform height. The height of the hotel

roof on the southern end of the building was increased to 55 feet.

The hotel was constructed during 1997 and 1998. The finished hotel, however, did not comply with the

terms of Coastal Permit 10- 92.

Reason for Review

The Grand Jury reviewed this issue as one of significant importance confronting the citizenry.

Method of Review

The Grand Jury questioned past and present planning commissioners, board members, City Manager,

and City Planner, either by interview or by letter. The Grand Jury reviewed much of the material

contained in the chronology prepared by the Assistant City Manager. Interviews also included

concerned citizens.

Findings

1. The Planning Director is expected to know the Codes and Regulations.

2. The past planning commission was inexperienced and too dependent on the City

Planner.

3. The City Manager is responsible for the Planning Director.

4. The California Environmental Quality Act ( CEQA) requires that decision makers review

the project to see that it is in conformation with local law and publish a " Notice of

Determination."

a. The 1992 Fort Bragg Planning Commission never conducted the CEQA review.

There was no notice, no hearing, and no opportunity for public review.

b. The information on the CEQA " Notice of Determination" dated August 19,

1992, and filed with the County Clerk on September 1, 1992, is inaccurate and cannot

be verified, yet it was relied upon during the permitting process.

5. No coastal development permit for changes in the project was requested by the

applicant nor approved by the City.

6. The Coastal Commission never received notice of formal action on the coastal

development permit from the City.

7. Chapter 18.26.004 of the City LCP states the maximum height for buildings within its

jurisdiction is 35 feet.

8. The project does not conform with Section 18.72.050 of Fort Bragg Municipal Code:

" The height of buildings and structures shall be measured vertically from the average

ground level of the ground covered by the building to the highest point of the roof."

9. No variance was ever applied for to increase the height limitations.

10. Evidence is lacking that the past City Planning Commission knew the details of what it

was approving: ie. height.

11. The 1996 hotel plans did not in any way resemble the original 1992 approved plans.

There were also a new owner, a new architect, and different plans.

13. There was no easy way to read indication of height on the plans.

14. The architect for the project acknowledged in an open meeting that the project was at

least 44 feet high; the architect has a responsibility to know the codes that would limit

the height to 35 feet.

15. At least one member of the Planning Commission knew the same to be true. At least

some past and present members of the City Council consider this " minutia" and have

various rationalizations regarding the project.

16. Information supplied by the City Planning Director to various involved agencies was in

many cases insufficient and inaccurate, thereby significantly contributing to the current

maelstrom.

17. The Coastal Commission never reviewed the 1996 plans because the Planning Director

decided the design change was " minor."

18. At least one planning commissioner believes they were intentionally " misled."

19. In May 1998 when problems with the project surfaced, the City Manager hesitated and

did not issue a stop work order. Pressure from the developer is alleged.

20. The City Attorney July 8, 1998 memo to the developer noted problems and advised the

developer that if he chose to continue construction, he would be liable for expenses.

21. It appears the original Coastal Permit 10- 92 was in conformity with the City LCP.

22. The hotel as ultimately constructed is not in conformity with the City LCP.

Recommendations

1. The Fort Bragg City Council should order creation of a checklist of the review

process for the Planning Commission to refer to in its reviews.

2. The Fort Bragg City Council should conduct an immediate performance

evaluation of the Planning Director.

3. The City of Fort Bragg Planning Commission should conduct a self- evaluation.

4. The City of Fort Bragg planning and building regulations, codes, and laws

should be equally applied and complied with or repealed.

5. The Grand Jury recommends that the building be modified to be brought into

compliance with the LCP.

Response Required

Fort Bragg City Council

Response Requested

Fort Bragg Planning Commission

Grading Ordinance Requirements of the Mendocino County

General Plan

California Government Code 65300 states that each planning agency shall prepare and the legislative

body of each county and city shall adopt a comprehensive, long- term general plan for the physical

development of the county or city, and any land outside its boundaries which in the planning agency’s

judgment bears relation to its planning. The Mendocino County Board of Supervisors adopted the

General Plan in 1991 and amended it in 1993 ( General Plan). Provisions are made in the plan for

possible annual amendments. As a legislative act, the general plan’s provisions are subject to the

initiative and referendum processes.

Mendocino County does not have a grading ordinance.

Reason for Review

A review was conducted as the result of a complaint.

Method of Investigation

Interviews were conducted with the complainant, Planning Department staff, a member of the Board of

Supervisors, and District Attorney staff. Documents reviewed included the General Plan, the Uniform

Building Code, Chapter 70 ( UBC 70), five- county salmon conservation consortium timelines, and an

opinion from the District Attorney' Office

Findings

1. The Mendocino County General Plan adopted in 1991 and amended in 1993 states: " A

grading ordinance, compatible with Chapter 70 of the Uniform Building Code and

exempting regulated lands, shall be adopted and implemented."

2. Even though ordinances related to grading have been drafted by the Department of

Planning and Building and have been considered by previous Boards of Supervisors, the

County still does not have an ordinance which would give guidelines and regulations for

the movement of soils.

The County relies on the provision of UBC 70 to regulate grading activity in the County.

However, the General Plan states: " Construction- related erosion is not regulated--

Grading activities related to building come under the jurisdiction of Chapter 70 of the

Uniform Building Code as part of the building permit process. The standards described

are mainly engineering standards and do not address erosion prevention or water quality

protection." There seems to be little enforcement of UBC 70 which states that a permit

is necessary for the movement of more than two cubic yards of soil.

3. On June 22, 1998, the Mendocino County Board of Supervisors passed order 1/ 182,

which states: " IT IS ORDERED that the Board of Supervisors directs county staff not

to pursue a grading ordinance in light of the 5- county salmon conservation planning

effort."

4. Two Mendocino County Supervisors and several County staff representatives have

been participating in the 5- county meetings.

Mendocino, Humboldt, Del Norte, Trinity, and Siskiyou Counties have been meeting

during the past year to develop plans for protecting salmonid habitats.

One of many issues the group is addressing is that of grading which affects fisheries.

The timeline for the group indicated that a draft plan would be completed by May 1,

1999. In June 1999, the lead planner in the effort indicated that it would be at least six

more months before the draft would be ready. The current strategy is that Trinity

County prepare a grading ordinance and " test" it before a group decision is made. This

process could go on indefinitely. Del Norte County is the only county in the group with

a grading ordinance, and Humboldt County is developing its own grading ordinance.

5. The failure of the Board of Supervisors to enact a grading ordinance may leave the County

vulnerable to citizen lawsuits.

Recommendation

Since the 5- County salmon conservation planning effort has fallen behind its timeline, and is now relying

on at least one other county to develop its own grading ordinance before adopting 5- county

recommendations, the Board of Supervisors should order the Department of Planning and Building to

move forward on previous efforts to develop a proposed grading ordinance which the Board of

Supervisors halted in 1998.

Comment

It will take courage for the Board of Supervisors to act in adopting a grading ordinance because there

are many special interest groups that have blocked past efforts in this direction. Should the Board of

Supervisors fail to take action on a grading ordinance, the citizens have the right to amend the General

Plan through the initiative process.

Response required

Mendocino County Board of Supervisors.

Jail Staffing and Facilities

The Grand Jury’s review of the Mendocino County Adult Detention Facilities ( Jail) revealed continuing

deficiencies in staffing levels, with consequences as noted.

Reason for Investigation

The Grand Jury conducted an oversight review of County detention facilities.

Method of Investigation

The Grand Jury interviewed personnel and conducted site visits of the Jail in Ukiah, Fort Bragg

Sheriff’s substation and holding facility at the Courthouse. The Grand Jury also interviewed members of

the Sheriff’s command staff, Corrections Deputies and supervisors and other County officials and

reviewed Jail and Board of Corrections ( BOC) documents, including Jail inspection reports.

Staffing

Findings

1. Jail staffing as of June 1999:

Corrections Deputies

Meets minimum BOC

requirements

Required by BOC 56.9

County budget allocation 1999- 2000 44 No

County budget funded 1999- 2000 40 No

Actual 32 No

2. As shown above, staffing levels are too low and do not meet minimum State standards.

Corrections Deputies are required to put in overtime and will soon be going on five- day,

twelve- hour shifts. Field deputies are now being used for transport duty and the prospect is

for loss of more Corrections Deputies with no replacements in sight. According to a

January, 1999 BOC inspection, staffing is adequate for hourly checks of Jail areas, but

is not at a level sufficient for close attention to inmate activities, periodic searches and

maintenance of overall facility appearance.

3. Staff turnover remains high and is a significant problem. The 1997- 98 Grand Jury noted

that the County loses Corrections Deputies to jurisdictions which are able to pay higher

salaries. As well, Corrections Deputies, in the interest of professional advancement, take

advantage of opportunities to move into what they see as more challenging, regular law

enforcement.

4. The 1997- 1998 Grand Jury found that the County had to return $ 150,000 state grant

because of Jail understaffing.

5. County administrative staff told the Grand Jury that the County doesn’t allocate positions if

there is little likelihood that they will be filled because to do so ties up funds for those

positions.

6. A peace office with corrections experience told the Grand Jury that service as a Corrections

Deputy is excellent training for officers who then go on to street duty, as it provides officers

with experience in interacting face to face with often hostile persons and in dealing at times

with ticklish situations where resorting to force might be inappropriate.

7. The 1998- 1999 budget states ".. the Sheriff and his staff remained committed to

accomplishing the goal of filling all 39 funded Corrections Deputy positions, which was

achieved on April 27,1998. The Sheriff and his staff continue to recruit and hire additional

Corrections Deputies to meet staffing levels of 44 Corrections Deputies committed to by the

Board of Supervisors during Fiscal Year 1997- 98 and Fiscal Year 98- 99." The

commitments made by the Board of Supervisors ( BOS) and the Sheriff appear to be

nothing more than public posturing to placate critics. Instead of increasing staffing, the

County has actually lost personnel, leaving staff at 32 Corrections Deputies.

Recommendations

1. The Board of Supervisors and the Sheriff have been unable or unwilling to

address the staffing problems in a solutions orientated way. The lack of leadership

has resulted in the Jail having fewer Correction Deputies this year than last year.

The time has come to take bold and imaginative steps to deal with the chronic

staffing problem at the Jail. The problem is at crisis level and can no longer be

ignored. The BOS must establish a citizens blue- ribbon panel comprised of both

citizens and Jail personnel and and utilizing professional resources develop and

deliver no later than January 1, 2000, a meaningful, result- oriented plan to deal

with this chronic staffing problem.

2. The Sheriff’s Department should consider requiring newly hired officers to spend

a minimum period working as corrections officers before “ graduating” to street

duty.

3. The Grand Jury recommends that the County allocate the required positions and

take steps to enhance recruiting efforts, in the interest of assuring that grants

applied for are not lost to the County on grounds of short staffing.

4. The Board of Supervisors and the Sheriff must publicly explain to the citizens of

this County why they have not fulfilled their commitment and legal obligation to

adequately staff the Jail. The continued excuse of higher salaries elsewhere is no

longer an acceptable explanation.

Physical Plant

Findings

1. Jail personnel report that the electronic security control panel for communication and

movement in the Jail is old and often breaks down. At the time of the Grand Jury’s site

visit, the main panel in the control room was only partially functional; the control room

operator could receive indications that a prisoner in a cell needed to speak with an officer,

but could not communicate directly with the individual inmate and had to send an officer

into the module to check out the problem. The situation was unchanged at the time of a

second site visit two weeks later. The Grand Jury learned that the control panel had been

repaired and that funds for procurement of a new unit will be included in the 1999- 2000

County budget.

2. The main Jail building is not maintained at a minimum acceptable level. An inspection by the

BOC in January 1999, using 1980 and 1988 facility standards, found:

• " The building shows a lack of cleanliness and maintenance which indicates a lack of

staff presence in inmate housing and holding areas, and a lack of maintenance

attention. Several areas are overdue for painting."

• " Broken and inoperative plumbing fixtures ( shower heads, drinking fountains, and

toilet fixtures) were noted throughout the housing units. Rust has eaten completely

through metal plating around several sinks in the housing units."

• " The male intake area was dirty. Holes were observed in the corridor walls."

Recommendations

1. The Sheriff must request and the Board of Supervisors must provide

sufficient funding to make the needed repairs to bring the facility into a

condition that will be serviceable as well as funding that will allow General

Services to assign a full- time maintenance person to the County detention

facilities.

2. The Sheriff must assign responsibility for the cleanliness and maintenance of

the facility to specific staff. This responsibility must be reflected in the

position description and be part of the employee performance evaluation

process.

3. The BOC inspection found that inmates were sleeping on mattresses on the floor, although

there is sufficient bunk space for each inmate. This is contrary to Jail policy but condoned by

Jail staff.

4. The BOC inspection report commented: “ On duty staff indicated there were not enough

personnel to conduct regular searches of cells and housing units.”

5. A County Health Department inspection found that water temperature of the dishwasher in the

facility kitchen does not attain required temperatures. This has been an intermittent and

continuing problem for some time. There are no plans at the present time to provide a

permanent solution. Other kitchen problems reported include a questionable fire extinguishing

system over the stove. Given the past problems, staff cannot be confident that the system will

work in the event of a major fire. This is an extremely hazardous situation.

6. Staff is unable to adequately clean and sanitize kitchen shelving as it is presently arranged. While

new shelves have been purchased which will resolve this problem and improve sanitation, there

are no plans to install them. That is a misuse of scarce County resources as a result of

inadequate management planning.

7. A site visit to the Fort Bragg detention facility found it to be in good condition: clean and well-maintained.

The facility was found to be out of compliance with the California Welfare and

Institutions Code and Title 15 in regard to the holding of minors at the facility. This is confirmed

by a BOC inspection conducted in January 1999:

There are no formal logs or procedures to ensure compliance with Welfare and

Institutions Code Section 207.1( d), or minimum standards for minors held in a

police building that contains a lockup ( California Code of Regulations, Title 15,

Section 1542).

Recommendation

The Sheriff must take immediate steps to correct the Welfare and Institutions

Code and Title 15 violations and issue a public report no later than October 1,

1999.

8. There has been no progress in creating interview space in the holding facility at the County

Courthouse. The 1997- 98 Grand Jury report recommending that Courthouse space

adjacent to the holding facility be used. The BOS response was " to consider this along with

other criminal justice space needs as part of the comprehensive space study currently

underway." A Jail official said they would discourage any arrangement which would require

moving prisoners through public areas. Since the County must meet this requirement, there

has to be some arrangement for doing so.

Recommendation

The Grand Jury insists that the County attain minimum Jail standards by

providing adequate private space for attorney/ inmate interviews.

Comments

1. The Grand Jury found Jail personnel at all levels to be cooperative and helpful. The Jail staff

appears to be competent and generally well- trained. However, it is not acceptable for the

Sheriff and the Board of Supervisors to operate a Jail which does not meet minimum

standards for correctional institutions.

2. Understaffing is the cause of many of the problems found at the Jail. Understaffing creates a

toll on correctional deputies, inmates, and the County as a whole, which no community can

endure for long. It is time for the Sheriff and Board of Supervisors to take whatever steps

are necessary to bring the Jail at least up to and preferably above minimal standards.

Bringing staffing to full level would improve working conditions, reducing or eliminating

mandatory overtime and stress, thus helping to eliminate staff turnover.

3 The Grand Jury is concerned that the Board of Supervisors, Sheriff, and CAO appear to

use the budget as a public relations document to minimize public criticism of their failure to

adequately staff the Jail. They quickly forget or choose to ignore commit- ments made to the

citizens of Mendocino County. This conduct causes the Grand Jury to question their

sincerity and commitment to achieving a solution to the staffing crisis.

4 The Grand Jury wishes to impress upon the Board of Supervisors and Sheriff that they have

a responsibility to protect and maintain the citizens' property, in this instance, the Jail. To

allow the Jail to deteriorate into its current condition makes the Grand Jury question if the

Board of Supervisors and Sheriff fully understand this responsibility.

5 See separate report on medical care at the County’s detention facilities.

Response Required

Mendocino County Board of Supervisors

Mendocino County Sheriff

Response Requested

General Services Director

Mendocino County Juvenile Hall Administrative Practices

Juvenile Hall, under the direction of the Department of Probation ( DOP), provides for the physical and

emotional care of incarcerated youth in Mendocino County pursuant to the California Code of

Regulations, Juvenile Facilities ( Title 15) and Building Standards ( Title 24). The Grand Jury focused on

certain administrative practices which affect the well- being of the youth held in that facility.

Reason for Review

The Grand Jury conducted an oversight investigation of the administration of Juvenile Hall.

Method of Investigation

Methods included site visits, interviews with the Chief Probation Officer, Superintendent of Juvenile

Hall, staff, and a private consultant, as well as review of pertinent state regulations, reports, budgets,

and policies.

Housing

Findings

1. Each youth is isolated in a 60- square- foot cell which has a concrete bed platform, toilet,

and sink.

2. Throughout California, Juvenile Hall housing is provided in single, double- bunk rooms, or

dormitories. In Humboldt County, youths on a suicide alert status are assigned roommates.

In Santa Clara County, a youth must earn the privilege of having a single room.

Recommendation

In future construction, consideration should be given to the use of other than single-occupancy

cells, both for space considerations and to avoid isolation.

Response required Response requested

Board of Supervisors Department of Probation

Classifications

Findings

1. In order to recognize special requirements and security risks for levels of supervision,

allowed activities, and the participation of youths in programs, each youth is evaluated upon

admission to Juvenile Hall. Youths are classified Code III upon admission if they are charged

with committing a violent crime. Administration believes these youths are a higher security

risk for attempted escapes and the safety of other youths and staff. Code I ( maximum

security) includes youths who violate rules within Juvenile Hall. Code II ( medium security) is

a classification used to provide means for a youth to work back into full programming

following a serious violation. Youths who do not meet one of these criteria do not have code

classifications.

This is a discretionary policy and varies among counties. Humboldt County assigns special

" alert status" classifications to youths according to their needs and behavior within Juvenile

Hall; youths are not segregated or isolated from the general population unless their behavior

in Juvenile Hall warrants it.

2. Code III status is reviewed monthly, or when charges are lessened. Code I is reviewed at

daily shift changes.

Code III Isolation

Finding

Until September 21, 1998, Code III youth were kept locked in their cells 22 hours per day,

including meals and schooling; during time outside the cell they were isolated from the general

population. After that date, administration permitted attendance one- half day at school in a

classroom segregated from the general population.

Recommendation

The amount of time these youths spend in isolated conditions is inappropriate. Studies

illustrate the harmful effects of isolation on the human psyche. The Superintendent and

DOP should look at the methods other counties use to prevent excessive isolation of

youths.

Response required Response requested

Board of Supervisors Department of Probation

Comment

The new addition to Juvenile Hall has the potential to alleviate some of these problems, but it

will be the responsibility of the administration to provide direction to these youths and not just detention.

Code III Recreation and Exercise

Finding

Typically, Code III youths participate in one hour of recreation and exercise per day, which

denies them their statutory rights. Title 15, Section 1371 states: " Juvenile facilities shall provide

the opportunity for recreation and exercise a minimum of three hours a day during the week and

five hours a day each Saturday, Sunday or other non- school days."

Recommendation

Juvenile hall should provide the recreation and exercise mandated by Title 15.

Response required Response requested

Board of Supervisors Department of Probation

Educational and Productive Work Programs

Findings

1. Programs provided include Narcotics Anonymous/ Alcoholics Anonymous, one time per

week; Project Sanctuary, two times per month; girls aerobics, one night per week; and

religious services on Sunday.

2. The only work program at this time is the maintenance of the internal grounds and cleaning

the interior living spaces.

3. A vegetable garden program was discontinued.

4. Federal funding provides for foster grandparents.

5. In speaking with other counties, the Grand Jury found work programs that ranged from

folding laundry and kitchen work to training dogs for the handicapped.

Recommendation

Juvenile Hall should implement productive, constructive, and educational programs.

Comment

The Grand Jury believes implementing productive work programs would benefit youths re- entering

society.

Response required Response requested

Board of Supervisors Department of Probation

6. Title 15 Article 6 Section 1370 notes that the County Board of Education or the chief

probation officer may provide classes in:

a. victim awareness

b. conflict resolution

c. anger management

d. parenting skills

e. juvenile justice

f. self- esteem building

g. effective decision making skills; and

h. vocational education and pre- vocational skills.

There are no specific classes offered by the school on these subjects though some are

addressed peripherally.

Recommendation

These subjects should be addressed directly and in a proactive way.

Response required Response requested

Mendocino County Board of Education Department of Probation

County Superintendent of Schools

Board of Supervisors

Hair Care

Findings

1. Title 15, Section 1488 states: " Hair care services shall be available in all juvenile facilities.

Minors shall receive hair care services monthly."

2. As of March 1999, no hair care services were provided in Juvenile Hall.

Recommendation

Juvenile Hall should provide hair care as mandated.

Comment

Juvenile Hall is negotiating with a private provider for hair care.

Response required Response requested

Board of Supervisors Department of Probation

Mental Health Services Funding

Findings

1. The Mental Health Department provides an on- site, half- time mental health clinician at

Juvenile Hall at a cost to Juvenile Hall of $ 45,990 ( Interdepartmental transfer of funds).

2. The Mental Health Department in Humboldt County does not charge Juvenile Hall for

providing mental health services. These services are accepted as part of the Mental Health

Department's overall responsibility.

Recommendation

The Mental Health Department should accept financial responsibility for providing

mental health care to youths in Juvenile Hall.

Response required Response requested

Board of Supervisors Department of Probation

Department of Mental Health

Comment

Adoption of the above recommendation, would make $ 45,990 available for Juvenile Hall to use for its

own programs.

Pay Telephones

Findings

1. A provider contracts to install and maintain pay telephones to make automated collect local

and long distance telephone calls for incarcerated youth. This contract pays the county a

commission in the amount equal to 30% of gross revenue collected by the provider.

2. Policies state that profits are to be used directly for the benefit of the youth.

3. The $ 623.08 profit from 1997- 98 was held in a trust account; $ 364.00 was used to

purchase a ping- pong table; a service organization will reimburse the fund for the ping- pong

table, leaving the total profit unused.

Recommendation

The telephone system should be changed to a non- profit system to lower fees for

families.

Response required Response requested

Board of Supervisors Department of Probation

Comment

Youths should be able to be in contact with their families without their families being penalized by

high telephone rates.

Inspection Reports

Title 15 Section 1313 requires that " on an annual basis, each juvenile facility administrator shall

obtain a documented inspection and evaluation from the following:" ( a) county building

inspector ( b) fire authority ( c) health administrator ( d) county superintendent of schools, and

( e) Juvenile Justice Commission.

"( a) County building inspector or person designated by the Board of Supervisors to approve

building safety;"

Findings

1. The 1997 inspection by the County Department of Planning and Building noted numerous

items requiring correction and attached to that report was an inspection from 1988 that noted

deficiencies still uncorrected in 1997. According to the Superintendent, no inspections were

performed in 1995 or 1996.

2. Complaints were made that the Superintendent failed to follow through with

recommendations made in the annual inspections and that it was a waste of time performing

these.

3. After learning of building inspection discrepancies, the Chief Probation Officer met with

representatives from Planning and Building and General Services Building and Grounds to

establish guidelines.

Recommendations

1. A summary inspection should be made of Juvenile Hall to ascertain if all items from

previous inspections have been corrected.

2. The Board of Supervisors should ensure coordination of inspection reports so that the

Department of Planning and Building does the inspections and the report is shared with the

County Department of General Services so that repairs may be made. A re- inspection

should be done within 90 days to verify corrections.

3. In the event an inspection is not completed or a written report is not made available, the

facility administrator should document the attempts to schedule the inspection and to obtain a

written copy of the inspection report.

Response required Response requested

Board of Supervisors Department of Probation

Department of Planning and Building

Department of General Services

Comment

The coordination between departments to correct deficiencies has begun.

"( b) Fire authority having jurisdiction, including a fire clearance;"

Finding

The City of Ukiah Fire Marshall who has jurisdiction ( and who would respond to fires) has

refused to perform the inspections, instead the State Fire Marshall has done the inspections.

Recommendation

Juvenile Hall administration and the Ukiah Fire Department should cooperate and

inspections should be done locally.

Response required Response requested

Board of Supervisors Department of Probation

Ukiah Fire Department

Department of Probation

"( c) Health administrator, inspection in accordance with Health & Safety Code, Section

101045;"

Finding

The 28- page 1998 inspection was performed by a Public Health Nurse and a Department of

Environmental Health staff member.

"( d) County superintendent of schools on the adequacy of educational services and

facilities;"

Finding

The County Superintendent of Schools has not done inspections at Juvenile Hall as mandated.

Instead, each year the teacher at West Hills Court School ( the Juvenile Hall school) inspects his

own program.

Recommendation

The County Superintendent of Schools should carry out the mandate as per Title 15.

Comment

The Grand Jury feels it inappropriate that a teacher inspect his own program.

Response required Response requested

Mendocino County Board of Education Department of Probation

Mendocino County Superintendent of Schools

"( e) Juvenile court and/ or the Juvenile Justice Commission."

Finding

The Juvenile Justice Commission, a citizen review panel appointed by the Board of Supervisors,

inspects Juvenile Hall annually and makes recommendations to the Board of Supervisors. The

1998 eight- page report covered internal programs offered, youth bilingual counselors, and the

inadequacy of the existing physical plant.

Comment

The Grand Jury recognizes the necessity of inspections by both the Juvenile Justice Commission, and

the Grand Jury, to ensure appropriate facilities for youths.

State Board of Corrections Inspection

Finding

The California Board of Corrections does an inspection every two years. An inspection was

performed on October 14, 1997, and included the facility as well as a thorough examination of

the facility's Policy and Procedure manual. Recommendations were included with the inspection

report.

Staffing Problems

Findings

1. Juvenile Hall has 18 allotted counselor positions with one vacancy in March, 1999. The

budget shows $ 70,000 allotted for extra help and $ 80,000 for overtime.

2. The main causes for staff turnover for counselors are promotion, transfer into probation

work, and resignation for jobs in counties with higher pay.

3. Bilingual and male counselors are difficult to recruit. Low pay is a factor.

Recommendations

1. The Department of Probation should work with the local community colleges to train

and recruit employees.

2. The Board of Supervisors should pay special attention to the Counselor position at

Juvenile Hall when evaluating the county- wide compensation study.

Response required Response requested

Board of Supervisors Department of Probation

Mendocino- Lake Community

College Board of Trustees

College of the Redwoods Board of Trustees

Department of Probation Billing

Finding

DOP bills an average of $ 5,000 per month ($ 10 per day per child); in 1997- 98, $ 13,083 was

collected. Parents' abilities to pay those costs hamper collections efforts.

Recommendation

The Grand Jury feels every effort should be made to obtain reimbursement for the

expenses of each incarcerated youth. DOP needs to be more aggressive in collecting

this lost revenue.

Computer Systems

Findings

1. The JALAN computer program links Juvenile Hall with all the departments in the County

criminal justice system and enables them to share information and statistics. The County

offices that have the system available are: District Attorney, Courts, Sheriff/ Jail, Public

Defender/ Alternate Defender, DOP, and Juvenile Hall.

2. From 1995 to 1998, JALAN cost the Juvenile Hall $ 10,080.00. This program was not

being used at Juvenile Hall except for partial booking information. Due to staff turn- over

and lack of training for new staff, the information was inaccessible for other uses.

3. The County contracted with a private provider to provide computer support services. In

response to County departments' complaints, an audit of the provider was conducted by the

California State University, Chico. In response to the audit, the County created a County

position, Director of Information Services.

4. In 1998, the DOP sent two Juvenile Hall staff for JALAN training at a cost of $ 1,349.12.

5. As of March 1999, Juvenile Hall staff was more capable of using JALAN, but not up to its

full capacity.

Comment

The Grand Jury finds it a poor use of both a costly computer program and support contract for Juvenile

Hall to have been unable to access JALAN for four years.

Final Comments

Based on projections of an increase in violent offenders, a new Intake Center with a special isolation

cell, medical examination room, visiting and interview rooms, and a 12- bed wing for serious violent

offenders is under construction. Two double- bunk rooms will be included in the new Intake Center.

Ground breaking occurred in December, 1998, with completion scheduled for November, 1999. As

part of a violent- offender grant, the State Department of Corrections provided $ 1,572.345 from federal

funding and the County provided $ 174,705 for the facility expansion based on projections of increases

in juvenile arrests between 1990 and 1997. Between 1988 and 1997 violent crimes ( assault, rape,

robbery, and murder) increased from 29 to 74 per year while bookings remained fairly constant during

the same period, 586 to 546 per year.

The County needs to have effective outreach programs to give youth a proper direction in life.

It is clear we will need a new Juvenile Hall facility for the future that will provide space for

comprehensive internal programs. Juvenile Hall should offer more than just detention.

Recommendation

The 1999- 2000 Grand Jury should conduct an investigation of juvenile crime and incarceration in

Mendocino County.

Mendocino County Library System

The voters of Mendocino County established the County Library in 1964. The Mendocino County

Library has fiscal support from the County general fund supplemented by grant funding from the State

Public Library Fund and funds raised by the Friends of Library in the County through three branches -

Ukiah, Fort Bragg and Willits - and two stations, Point Arena and Covelo, and the Bookmobile.

The Bookmobile visits Laytonville, Branscomb, Redwood Valley, Parlin Fork, Wesport, Chamberlain

Creek, Ridgewood, Covelo, Dos Rios, Potter Valley, South Leggett, Leggett School, Piercy,

Comptche ( 2 sites), Floodgate, Philo, Boonville, Stewarts Point, Sea Ranch, Gualala, Anchor Bay,

Point Arena, Manchester, Elk ( 2 sites), Albion, Mendocino, Yorkville, Hopland, Talmage, and Calpella

on a regular schedule.

The system employs 22 workers, 12 of whom are full- time, and benefits from the efforts of 40 to 50

volunteers at each branch and 30 to 40 volunteers at each station.

The Friends of the Library are support groups of dedicated volunteers who raise funds for the library.

Reason for Review

The Grand Jury has a responsibility to review library operations. The most recent review by any Grand

Jury was in 1989.

Method of Investigation

The Grand Jury interviewed the County Library Director about the operation, problems, financing and

goals of the Library system. In addition, the Grand Jury interviewed a library volunteer who serves on

the Library Advisory Board and is an officer with the Ukiah Friends of the Library

Library Funding

Finding

After several years of budgetary problems, the Library is now receiving increased funding, both

from the County and the State, and based on a commitment from the Board of Supervisors

( BOS), expects to receive the same higher level of County funding for at least five years.

Recommendation

The Grand Jury recommends the BOS continue increased library funding.

Diversity of Materials

Findings

1. As part of meeting the Library's goal of providing and improving " accessibility to information

through a variety of means for all library users" ( Library Mission Statement), the Library has

a Spanish language collection amounting to some 5% of the total number of books available

and a fairly large collection of Native American materials, which is housed in Covelo.

2. Many residents throughout the County may not be aware of the availability of library

services, especially of the Spanish language and Native American collections and how to

access them.

Recommendation

The Library should emphasize outreach programs to make County residents, especially

the Spanish- speaking community and those interested in Native American materials,

aware of the resources available and how to access them.

Comments

1. Information technology is changing rapidly, posing a challenge for traditional library operations.

Electronic devices are replacing not only the old 3X5 card file systems, but printed books as well.

The County Library Director is aware of the issue.

2. The Grand Jury commends the BOS for increasing the funding of the Library.

3. The Grand Jury is impressed with the direction the Library is going and the efforts of the Director,

staff, and volunteers.

Response Required

Mendocino County Board of Supervisors

Medical Services at the Mendocino County Adult Detention

Facility

The law requires counties to provide medical, dental and mental health care services to the inmates of

adult detention facilities ( Jails). The County has a ten- year contract with a private firm ( Contractor) to

provide these services according to California Medical Association ( CMA) Standards.. That contract,

which expires in 2001, will pay the Contractor $ 700,000 in 1998- 99 out of which Contractor must pay

for all equipment, supplies and services provided, retaining the remainder as profit.

Reason for Review

The Grand Jury received complaints about medical and mental health care at the Jail. The Grand Jury

investigated these and reviewed Contractor’s performance as part of a review of Jail operations.

Method of Investigation

The Grand Jury reviewed documents from the State, the Sheriff’s office, the California Medical

Association ( CMA), the Board of Supervisors, inmate and former inmate jail files and material from

interested citizens’ groups. The Grand Jury interviewed Contractor principals and medical staff,

corrections personnel, inmates, County Health Department personnel and interested citizens. The

Grand Jury also made several visits to observe Jail operations..

Contractor Staffing

Finding

1. Contractor provides a program manager who is a Registered Nurse ( RN) 40 hours per

week, 24- hour coverage by a Licensed Vocational Nurse ( LVN), a psychiatric technician

for 20 hours per week, a physician for12 hours per week ( on call 24 hours per day) and a

psychiatrist ( on call 24 hours per day).

2. Contractor staffing is adequate to meet requirements of the contract and, according to

professional standards, the staff is qualified. The work load varies from relatively light to

heavy but does not, according to respondents, become overwhelming.

3. The 1997- 98 Grand Jury report called for an increase in physician coverage from three

to five days a week, to meet CMA standards. Since then, CMA standards for physician

coverage have been reduced. Contractor meets the new standard. However, Sheriff’s

Department and Public Health Department officials have recommended that coverage be

increased.

4. Interviews of Contractor staff indicate that morale appears to be good and the individual

workers are pleased with the jobs they do.

Medications

Finding

Questions arise about medication. Procedures are in place which would seem to ensure that

prisoners needing medication do, in fact, get what they need, but prisoners continue to complain

about the lack of or delays in receiving medication. Contractor gives assurances that they make

all possible efforts to determine what medications prisoners require, either by noting what they

have on their person when booked, by contacting personal physicians or by calling pharmacies.

Contractor does comply with legal restrictions on delivery of certain drugs to known drug

abusers, assuming the possibility of potential abuse or use of the drugs as currency; that is

possibly a factor in some of the complaints received.

Recommendation

The Public Health Department should closely monitor provision of medication to ensure

that medication is timely, adequate and appropriate.

Reports

Contractor is required to provide monthly statistical reports of activities to the County and an annual

report summarizing those monthly reports.

The 1997- 98 Grand Jury found that the contractually required annual “ reviewed financial report” of the

cost of the health services provided “ specifically to Mendocino County under this agreement,” had not

been submitted since 1993 and 1994. At that time, only those reports, unaudited, had been submitted

“ in the last seven years.

Findings

1. The Grand Jury determined that County Counsel has issued an opinion nullifying the need

for the financial report on grounds that such information is “ Proprietary,” and need not be

made available to the County.

2. According to the County Administrator’s office, the Board of Supervisors signs and the

Sheriff’s office manages Contractor’s contract.

3. The monthly statistical reports go to the Jail Commander who keeps them on file.

Recommendations

1. As public money is involved, there should be oversight by the Sheriff and BOS of

the financial arrangements of the contract. Financial reports should be made available to

the BOS without regard to any alleged proprietary interest. The public should know the

details of how much is being spent for medical services.

2. The monthly statistical reports should get wider circulation.

Mental Health Care

Contractor is responsible for mental health care as well as medical care. An inmate who expresses a

need for mental health services will see a psychiatric technician, who will, in turn, refer the inmate to the

contract psychiatrist. The psychiatrist makes decisions about treatment or medication. Inmates may

speak with their own physicians if those physicians are willing to come to the Jail or to treat by

telephone. Inmates who are acting out in ways that appear to threaten themselves or others may be sent

to the County Psychiatric Health Facility.

Findings

1. There have been questions about the adequacy of psychiatric coverage. According to

professional standards, the four hours weekly that the staff psychiatrist is on site, ( 24 hour on-call

status) and 20 hour a week coverage by a psychiatric technician, meets minimum CMA

standards. As with medical coverage, the Sheriff’s Department and Public Health Department

officials recommend increased coverage.

2. Most indications of medication problems involved persons suffering mental illness. Letters

to Contractor from friends and relatives of mentally ill incarcerated persons, made available to

the Grand Jury, suggest a breakdown in the recognition of the need for such drugs and their

provision in a timely manner. Observations at the jail and conversations with concerned

individuals outside the jail suggest that the medication issue has seen improvement within the

past year. A private psychiatrist described experience with the medication issue as “ mixed,”

with patients sometimes waiting anywhere from hours to “ a day or two” before getting

medications.

Timeliness of Mental Health Intervention

Finding

Records indicate the psychiatric technician commonly delays from two to five days after

receiving a request before seeing an inmate.

Recommendation

Given the risks to themselves, to medical and corrections staff and to other inmates

associated with persons suffering from mental illness, medical personnel must honor any

request for mental health evaluation or intervention as soon as possible and within 24

hours. Jail procedures must allow for that to happen.

Contractual Remuneration

The Grand Jury finds that contracts that reward service providers for minimizing services are not in the

best interest of the County.

Recommendation

The next County Medical Provider Contract should specify the standard of care, and

not be guided solely by CMA. The Board of Supervisors should direct the County

Administrative Office to begin work on a new request for bid for the future contract

specifying care levels and performance standards, such as psychiatric technician

coverage within 12 hours of request. The Grand Jury recommends that in the next

bidding process local providers be given equal consideration.

Comment

The Grand Jury reviewed a report from the Public Health Officer, " Response to the Board of

Supervisors’ Jail Ad Hoc Committee." The report made several observations about Contractor

performance and recommended options for the Ad Hoc Committee’s consideration. In spite of the fact

that the Ad Hoc Committee originially asked for the report and straff dedicated time and resources to its

preparation, the Ad Hoc Committee never acted on it.

Response Required

Mendocino County Board of Supervisors

Mendocino County Sheriff

Mendocino Coast Health Care District

The Mendocino Coast Health Care District ( District) was created by voters in 1967. Its boundaries

encompass the Fort Bragg Unified and Mendocino Unified School Districts, stretching from Bear

Harbor to Elk as far east as Orr Springs. It is governed by an elected five- person Board of Directors

( Board). The District owns and operates the 51- bed Mendocino Coast District Hospital ( Hospital)

which opened in 1971. With nearly 300 employees, the District is one of the largest employers in the

County.

Reason for Review

The Grand Jury investigated the District as part of its oversight responsibility.

Methodology

The Grand Jury interviewed past and present Board members, past and present Hospital administrators,

Hospital staff, and community members. The Grand Jury observed Board meetings in person and on

videotape, attended community forums, examined financial records, contracts, policy and procedure

manuals, and other documents.

Employee Strike in July 1998

The unionized employees of the Hospital, represented by the United Food and Commercial Workers

Union, negotiates contracts regularly with the Hospital. The 1998 negotiations were unsuccessful;

employees rejected the Board's final offer 155 to 0 and went on strike July 16, 1998. The strike ended

July 29 after the Board reopened negotiations with union representatives and agreed to a new contract.

Findings

1. The strike happened because

a. Board members misjudged the level of employee morale.

b. Board members thought employees would not actually walk out.

c. Board members were not well- advised on the employee union's probable response to a

proposed health care benefit give- back.

2. From the employees' point of view, the strike was about respect.

3. Hospital administrators felt betrayed by the Board's " flip- flop" on resuming negotiations

4. The strike had a positive, cathartic effect.

a. Nearly all the administrative management left after the strike ended.

b. Employee morale improved immediately.

c. A new CEO started work February 1999.

3. The strike cost the District about $ 500,000 in contract termination costs, temporary labor

costs, and lost patient revenue.

Board Responsibilities

Findings

1. Four out of five Board members ( prior to the November 1998 election) had been on the

Board for 12 years or more.

2. Voters have consistently chosen a Board with a health care background. Hospital

employees cannot be on the Board, but former employees and members of the medical

staff have served on a regular basis.

3. Board procedure for resolving of conflict- of- interest questions is inadequate. Clear

guidelines for Board discussion of conflict situations do not exist.

4. The Grand Jury reviewed the Fair Political Practices Act filings for the past seven years of

all current and past Board members. The Grand Jury finds that the two most recent

physician members have not reported their property ownership, medical practices,

partnerships, or contracts with the District on their State required conflict- of- interest forms.

Other Board members appear to be in compliance.

Recommendation

Given the importance of the conflict- of- interest question, the Grand Jury urges

the Board to formally discuss its policy and upgrade it. Members not complying

with State and Board rules should be censured by the Board.

5. Board members described a reluctance to confront other Board members over conflict- of-interest,

day- to- day meddling, or other troublesome issues.

Recommendation

Board members should listen aggressively and ask questions. The question and

answer process is an important way of developing feedback and encourages

everyone to do a better job. It also serves the public by bringing out more

information. The Board should encourage a diversity of views, presented

respectfully, in pursuit of the Board's common goals.

6. The Grand Jury finds the Board members inadequately trained in their responsibilities and

obligations.

Recommendation

The Grand Jury endorses the following definition of a board's role and

responsibility, adapted from the Community College League of California

Trustee Handbook: a board as a unit, sets the policy direction, monitors

institutional performance, employs a chief executive officer as institutional

leader, acts as community bridge and buffer, establishes the climate in which

community health goals are accomplished, assures the fiscal health and stability

of the District, defines standards for good personnel relations, and serves as a

positive agent for change. The Board should improve its training regarding the

Board's role and make this training an annual requirement.

7. Public Board meetings do not convey the thought processes behind Board decisions.

Votes are taken without sufficient discussion for members of the public to understand the

course of action.

Recommendation

The Board, as individuals, should take the time to explain their reasoning before

adopting resolutions. More meeting time should be devoted to discussion,

deliberation, and debate rather than simply listening to reports.

8. Board members are active and very dedicated to the Hospital's success and survival as an

independent entity.

9. The Board gave itself very low marks in its 1997 self- evaluation, especially in the areas of

Board knowledge, Board review and evaluation of itself and the CEO, Board meeting

effectiveness, and Board teamwork. No self- evaluation was conducted in 1998.

Board and Administration

Findings

1. The Grand Jury found substantial evidence that individual Board members were at times

deeply involved in the day to day administration of the hospital.

Recommendation

The Board should establish policies eliminating intrusive behavior by individual

Board members. The Board should deal with the CEO only and only as a

Board.

2. The Board did not set clear and specific goals and objectives for the CEO.

3. The Board evaluation of the CEO was not conducted in a timely manner.

Recommendation

The Board should establish clear parameters and expectations for the Hospital

CEO, and evaluate the CEO annually against these standards.

4. The Grand Jury heard testimony that the Board tolerated abuse of leave and training

programs by Hospital administrators.

5. The strategic planning process stalled in recent years and needs to get a new start.

Without an agreed upon plan, the Board can neither reach its goals nor give competent

direction to the Administrator. The Planning Committee consists of one Board member,

the CEO, the chief of medical staff, and one community member.

Recommendation

The Board should adopt a focused and detailed strategic plan for the Hospital

and the District. The Grand Jury urges broader participation through a larger

Planning Committee with increased community participation.

Board and Doctors

Findings

1. By statute, the Board has little control over the doctors who use the Hospital.

2. The Grand Jury identified several problem areas with conflict or potential conflict between

the District and the medical community:

a. physician on- call responsibility

b. direct competition between Hospital clinics and programs and doctor- provided services

c. doctors' role as patient advocates versus Hospital need to conform to strict mandated

diagnostic and length of stay restrictions

Specific examples from recent history include:

a. The OB/ Gyn clinic was established because local doctors withdrew service but now

doctors are upset because the Hospital is competing with them.

b. Some doctors are taking patients to other hospitals because of perceived problems with

staffing, training, and administration.

c. Some doctors are using their own x- ray equipment for private- paying patients but

sending Medi- Cal patients to the Hospital for x- rays.

3. The District offers incentives for physicians to come to the area; sometimes including loans

and income guarantees. In a few specialties, doctors have actively discouraged newcomers,

leaving the hospital without necessary physician on- call support.

4. The Hospital contracts with some individual doctors for specific services and programs.

Conflict exists between doctors with Hospital contracts and those without.

5. The Grand Jury finds that the Board needs to take an active role in encouraging the Medical

staff to support the Hospital and its mission.

Recommendation

The Board should develop, as a high priority, a plan which involves the medical

community in a combined effort towards addressing these common concerns

and towards creating solutions to the problems.

Board and Hospital Employees

Findings

1. The proposed contract gave employees, community members, and at least one Board

member, the feeling that the Board wanted to have employees bear the brunt of financial

cuts.

2. Most nurses prefer to work part- time; 87 registered nurses on the payroll fill the equivalent

of 42 full- time positions. There is no local nurses' registry and there is a shortage of nursing

staff willing to work full- time. The Hopistal imports temporary employees to fill the shortage

which is an expensive solution.

3. The Grand Jury finds that employees are very devoted to the Hospital and its mission.

Recommendation

The Board should set a positive climate for collective bargaining and dispute

resolution, and should establish policies ensuring that Hospital employees at all

levels are involved in developing new solutions to problems, especially in areas

of staffing and health insurance.

Board and Community

Findings

1. The Grand Jury finds that the Board has not effectively educated its constituents about the

issues facing the District. This past winter's League of Women Voters town meetings filled

the void.

2. Board meetings appear to be expedited for the convenience of its members. Board

members do not explain their positions and decisions.

Recommendation

District Board meetings should be the forum for discussing the issues facing the

Hospital and the District. The Board should set policies that include:

a. informed discussion of issues prior to action.

b. expression of the rationale for positions taken.

c. time for meaningful public input and Board response.

3. The Board feels that the community needs to come to Board meetings to express concerns

and needs. The Grand Jury believes, rather, that the Board should actively solicit input from

the community.

Recommendation

The Board should establish procedures which focus on its role as the link

between the Hospital and the community. The Board must be responsive as it

represents the community to the Hospital and it must also be the advocate of the

Hospital in the community.

4. The controversies regarding contract services, on- call payments, and income guarantees

have been a public relations problem, in part, because the Board has done an inadequate

job of explaining itself to the community.

5. Community use of the Hospital could improve. A Board Planning Committee survey

showed many in the community traveled out the area for medical services that could have

been performed locally. The Board has not developed a program to encourage greater use

of the Hospital.

Recommendation

The Board should take as a priority the need for increased utilization of the

Hospital facilities and services, and develop a plan to encourage greater use.

6. The Mendocino Coast Hospital Foundation, an independent fund raiser for the District, has

done an excellent job of raising large sums of money for special Hospital capital projects.

Most of this money is now raised from sources outside the District.

Hospital Services

Since the opening of the Hospital in 1971, the Hospital has added many services, including

anesthesiology, cardiac stress testing, prenatal clinic, diabetes care, physical therapy, radiology, and a

pulmonary diagnostic lab. The Hospital bought the ambulance service, previously operated by a local

mortuary, because the level of care was sub- standard; it established an OB/ gyn clinic because the local

physicians were planning to terminate obstetric services. There has been discussion of increasing

services to the aging, both through a clinic and a skilled nursing facility.

Finances

Findings

1. The Hospital, like all small, rural hospitals, is under increasing financial strain resulting from

decreasing payments from Medicare, Medi- Cal, and private insurers. A sub- stantial part of

the Hospital's services are provided at no cost to those without the means to pay. A much

larger burden occurs when payments from government programs fail to cover the costs of

providing the services it covers. 51% of Hospital revenue comes from Medicare and these

payments cover only about 94% of the actual cost. 10% of Hospital revenue comes from

Medi- Cal and their reimbursement covers 64% of actual cost. A hospital which has an

average daily census of 15 to 25 patients has a heavy overhead in facilities and staff.

2. The Hospital has had an operating loss for five of the past six years.

3. The District's investment income and tax support has meant that the District as a whole has

shown overall net surpluses in all six years. For the current year, the District anticipates a

loss.

4. The bond issue which supported the original construction of the Hospital has been paid off.

5. Current tax support comes from property owners in the District. Excluding debt service,

which is no longer collected, this amounted to $ 358,217 for the year ended June 30, 1996,

$ 371,136 for the year ended June 30, 1997, and $ 376,546 for the year ended June 30,

1998.

6. The District's largest single financial drain comes from running the ambulance service. The

deficit for the year ending June 30, 1996 was $ 217,750; for the year ending June 30, 1997

it was $ 304,610; and for the year ending June 30, 1998 it was $ 394,081.

7. District expenses are over $ 20 million per year. The District has a balance in its unrestricted

fund ($ 11,055,241 as of June 30, 1998). This is its total reserves for building upgrades,

equipment replacement, and unexpected expenses.

8. The Grand Jury finds that the District is not in immediate financial peril because its current

reserves, investment income, and tax support are adequate in the short term.

Recommendation

Given the trend of decreasing revenues, the reality of an aging building needing

substantial modernization, and the overwhelming need for a community- based

hospital, the Grand Jury supports an increase in the pro- rata tax rate to provide

additional revenue for the District. An additional one- hundredth of one percent

tax on the assessed property value in the District, about the amount collected

for debt service previously, would raise an additional $ 140,000 annually. Any

tax increase would have to be approved in an election by two- thirds of the

voters.

Response Required

Mendocino Coast Health Care District Board of Directors

Mendocino- Lake Community College

The Mendocino- Lake Community College ( College) is a community college serving Mendocino and

Lake Counties.

Reason for Review

The Grand Jury received a complaint about possible violations of freedom of speech based on the status

of the student newspaper, The Eagle., being forced to change from a volunteer student activity to one

under the direct control of the English Department.

Method of Investigation

The Grand Jury interviewed two former faculty advisors of The Eagle, two members of the College

Board of Trustees ( Board), the President of the College as well as the complainant. The Grand Jury

also interviewed a citizen interested in the operation of the College and several members of the staff at

the College.

Freedom of Expression

Findings

1. As mandated by California Education Code, Section 76120- 76121, the Board adopted

Board Policies 509 and 524, which established a comprehensive policy protecting First

Amendment rights throughout the campus.

2. Students were involved in the publication of The Eagle on a voluntary basis, loosely

guided by a faculty advisor( s). The College administration provided assistance to the

project in the form of a $ 200.00 monthly stipend for the advisor( s), space for the work and

use of College equipment. At some point The Eagle established a link to the College's

web site with no objection from the administration.

3. In late 1997, The Eagle received anonymously and published a confidential memo- randum

concerning personnel issues involving administrative evaluations of a Dean of Instruction.

The memorandum also included charges of improper hiring procedures for a specific

administrative position and improper use of certain categorical funds.

4. Following the publication of the memorandum, the Administration took three actions

regarding The Eagle:

First, the Administration cut the previously condoned link between The Eagle and the

college web site on the stated grounds that such linkage, without official college

approval, was unlawful. The " hot link" to The Eagle web site was removed within 36

hours of the posting of The Eagle Extra in October 1997.

Second, the Administration then terminated the existing arrangement of the publi- cation

of The Eagle. The exact date of termination is difficult to determine because there was

no official notice.

Third, the Administration moved the publication of The Eagle into a newly created

journalism class within the English Department. The newly hired instructor of the

journalism class is also the advisor to the presently operating student newspaper.

5. The journalism teacher/ faculty advisor has stated a commitment to ensuring that the

publication meets high standards for quality journalism and to the free expression of ideas

and non- interference in what appears in the newspaper.

Recommendations

1. The Grand Jury recommends vigilance on the part of students and faculty alike to

ensure that the established policies of the College and the First Amendment rights

receive strict adherence.

2. The Grand Jury recommends that the College Administration make no further

changes in the status of The Eagle which might again give the impression of

retaliatory restriction on free speech rights. The Eagle must be free to publish any

information, with due regard for libel and obscenity rules, without fear of

administrative interference or retaliation. The College Administration should

reactivate a link between The Eagle and the College web site.

3. The Eagle should publish the official policies of the College in order that everyone

can be familiar with the College's official, established policy regarding free inquiry

and expression.

4. The Board should institute a colloquium including Board, Administration, faculty,

and student body concerning freedom of expression on the College campus,

including cyberspace issues.

Freedom of Communication

Finding

An administrative official told some staff members that some information " should not be

included" in a departmental status report to the Board. The accuracy, or inaccuracy, of the

information was not given as the reason for eliminating parts of the report.

Recommendations

1. The Board must establish a " whistle- blower protection" policy in order to make

certain that all points of view are available to members of the Board. A wide

breadth of information about the College is necessary in order to enable the

Trustees to make decisions based on a full awareness of all the conditions.

2. All points of view from various constituent groups must be readily available to the

Board because the Board needs to have complete, unfiltered ( and unfettered)

information about all the conditions of the College.

3. The members of the Board must not micro- manage the College. However, they

need to open conduits of information from the entire College in order that their

confidence in the Administration is confirmed. The Board must have an assured

flow of vital information about the College for which they alone bear ultimate

responsibility.

Response Required

Mendocino- Lake Community College Board of Trustees

Mendocino County Mental Health Board 1997– 1998

The California Legislature passed the Bronzan- McCorquodale Act of 1986 which provides for the

authorization and financing of community mental health services for the mentally disordered in every

county through locally administered and locally controlled community mental health programs. The act

further mandates that a Mental Health Board be established. The Mendocino County Mental Health

Board ( MH Board) is a public body that is designed to provide local oversight of the County’s mental

health programs through oversight of the Mental Health Department. ( MH Department)

Mendocino County has established a 15- citizen MH Board plus a Board of Supervisors ( BOS)

representative. The diversity of the MH Board is mandated by the Welfare and Institution Code Section

5604. The Board consists of citizens from a diverse cross section of the county’s population and

represent Consumer- Direct, Consumer- Family, and Public Interest segments of the population.

The Mendocino County MH Department is locally administered. However, the BOS, and MH Board

which are jointly responsible have not provided the essential mechanisms needed for local control of the

mental health system. This has been the situation for several years. The MH Board has failed in its

responsibility to the citizens of Mendocino County to provide citizen oversight of the MH Department.

The Mendocino County MH Board has not been in compliance with state statutes and its own bylaws.

In addition, the previous Chairperson attended only two of seven meetings in 1998 leaving the MH

Board leaderless, unable to conduct lawful business, and vulnerable to manipulation.

In September 1998, a new Chairperson was elected. This new leadership is seen to be aggressively

implementing many of the necessary steps to correct the problems revealed by this investigation. After

several years of neglect, some time will be needed to assess the results and permanency of the new

leadership’s bold revitalization of the MH Board. This revitalization effort will require the support of the

community and the BOS.

Reason for Review

As part of its oversight responsibility the Grand Jury investigated the operation and functioning of the

Mendocino County MH Board.

Method of Investigation

In an effort to ascertain the extent of citizen participation and oversight provided by the MH Board, the

Grand Jury interviewed MH Department members, MH Board members, care providers, consumers,

consumer families and community mental health care advocates. The Grand Jury also attended MH

Board meetings as well as community mental health advocates’ meetings and reviewed MH Board, MH

Department, BOS and State Department of Mental Health records for the years 1997 and 1998.

MH Board Responsibilities

The MH Board meets on the third Wednesday of each month except for the month of August. The

meetings are held in Fort Bragg, Willits and Ukiah. An agenda is prepared and publicly distributed prior

to each meeting.

Finding 1

The stated goals of the MH Board are:

• To promote quality care and attention for people with emotional problems.

• To obtain community input regarding mental health needs.

• To shape, in collaboration with County MH Department staff, the long term values

and goals for the mental health care in the County.

• To monitor changes in County, State and Federal law, regulations and funding that

can affect mental health care in the County.

• To educate the community about emotional problems and mental health services.

There is a specific educational goal regarding the reduction of the stigma associated

with mental health problems and care.

The Grand Jury failed to find any evidence that any of the MH Board goals were realized or

that any effort was made to achieve its stated goals.

Finding 2

Between January 1997 and July 1998, MH Board members did not regularly attend meetings.

• Only four meetings had a quorum ( nine members).

• Overall average MH Board attendance was 34%.

• Only three of 15 MH Board members were present at the January 1998 meeting.

January is the month for the election of officers.

Finding 3

Under new leadership between September 1998 and December 1998, members of the MH

Board regularly attended board meetings. Meetings were conducted in a business- like manner

and conformed to the published agenda.

• All MH Board meetings had a quorum.

• Overall average MH Board attendance was 77%.

Board Autonomy

The MH Board has a history of being manipulated and intimidated by the MH Department. There were

attempts to manipulate and mislead the Grand Jury’s oversight investigation. The MH Department

provided fabricated documents to the Grand Jury and failed to fully disclose essential information

relating to this investigation.

Finding 1

The MH Board is forced to rely on the MH Department for administrative support. This

support is inadequate and for the most part confined to providing a mail drop and transcribing

monthly MH Board meeting minutes.

• The mailing address for the MH Board is the MH Department, it is common practice for the

MH Department to open mail addressed to the MH Board.

• Documents maintained by the MH Department on behalf of the MH Board number less

than 30 for the 12 years the MH Board has been in existence.

• The MH Board must rely on the MH Department to transcribe MH Board meetings; these

transcriptions are frequently lost, and often transcribed in a way that does not reflect the

actual events or votes of a particular meeting. The MH Department lost the minutes of the

particularly contentious September 1998 MH Board meeting regarding the selection criteria

of the replacement MH Department Director.

• The MH Board does not have internet/ e- mail resources with which to communicate with

other MH Board resources or to do basic grant research or stay abreast of legislation

affecting the County’s delivery of mental health services.

• The MH Board does not have office space; its one file cabinet has been relegated to a

hallway in the MH Department. The MH Board lacks any reasonable space with which to

carry out its many administrative responsibilities.

Recommendations

1. The BOS should provide a modest annual budget for the MH Board. A budget at a

minimum level of independence will provide many of the resources needed in order

for the MH Board to function: outside transcription services to insure the timeliness

and accuracy of MH Board meeting minutes, post office box for the exclusive use

of the MH Board, letterhead stationary, and postal expenses.

2. The MH Department has access to numerous Departmental as well as County

resources and has an ethical responsibility to share these resources. The BOS

should insist that the MH Department provide an office for the exclusive use of the

MH Board. This office should be secure and furnished as is customary for the MH

Department. It should be equipped, at a minimum, with a telephone and computer

with e- mail and internet capability.

Finding 2

In the past, the MH Board has not had sufficient independence from by the MH Department to

fulfill its responsibilities properly.

Recommendations

1. The BOS must assure that citizen oversight of the MH Department is free from

existing and future manipulation and interference by the MH Department.

2. The makeup of the MH Board is critical. Having a strong chair is essential to the

MH Board functioning properly. To effect this the BOS must:

a) recruit MH Board members who are able and willing to do the job for their

full term. While this seems obvious, it appears this has not been done well

enough in the past.

b) regularly monitor the performance of the MH Board in general, and the

relationship between the MH Board and the Mental Health Director

specifically.

c) ensure that the relationship does not revert to one where the MH Board is

dominated by the MH Department Director and the MH Department staff.

d) monitor this situation on a regular and continuing basis.

Mandated Advice

The Welfare and Institution Code and MH Board bylaws mandate that the local MH Board shall

advise the BOS as well as the local mental health director as to any aspect of the local mental

health program.

Finding

The Grand Jury found scant evidence that the MH Board is in compliance. The monthly MH

Board meeting does provide for 15 minutes for a report from the MH Department Director.

There are, however, no procedures in place that provide for mutual communications.

Recommendation

Procedures that foster and ensure communications with the BOS need to be

established by MH Board. MH Board bylaws should establish procedures to keep

the BOS informed as to the state of mental health services within the County.

Mandated Annual Report to Board of Supervisors

The Welfare and Institution Code and MH Board bylaws mandate that the local MH Board shall submit

an annual report to the BOS on the needs and performance of the County’s mental health system. This

report is presented in January of the year following the report year.

Finding

The MH Board failed to submit a report for the year 1997. At the September 17, 1997 MH

Board meeting, a MH Board member expressed concern that the annual report was due, and

the MH Board took no action to ensure compliance.

Recommendation

The BOS should institutionalize a protocol which ensures and guarantees

compliance. The MH Board should establish procedures for the preparation, editing,

review and presentation of the annual report to the BOS in a timely manner.

Certification of Annual Mental Health Performance Contract

The MH Department attempted to mislead the BOS and to obstruct the Grand Jury’s investigation of

the MH Board by providing a fabricated document. The Welfare and Institution Code and MH Board

bylaws provide that the proposed annual County mental health services performance contract shall

include the assurance that the local mental health advisory board has reviewed and approved

procedures ensuring citizen and professional involvement at all stages of the planning process. Records

that would support the MH Board assurances were requested from the MH Departm