Home
California Grand Jury Reports
Mendocino County Grand Jury final report
To link to this object, paste this link in email, IM or document
To embed this object, paste this HTML in website
Mendocino County Grand Jury final report
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
|
|
1999- 2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 1
1999- 2000
MENDOCINO COUNTY GRAND JURY RESPONSE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
City of Ukiah...................................................................................................... 1
City of Ukiah Police Department ....................................................................... 5
Community Development Commission ............................................................. 9
Conflict of Interest ............................................................................................. 30
Mendocino County Adult Probation Department............................................... 32
Mendocino County Child Protective Service ..................................................... 52
Mendocino County Counsel .............................................................................. 58
Mendocino County Department of Social Services........................................... 68
Mendocino County District Attorney Family Support Division ........................... 82
Mendocino County Domestic Violence ............................................................. 89
Mendocino County Grading Ordinance............................................................. 116
Mendocino County In- home Support Services.................................................. 121
Mendocino County Jail Staffing and Facility...................................................... 132
Mendocino County Juvenile Hall....................................................................... 146
Mendocino County Office of the Alternate Defender......................................... 153
Mendocino County Office of Education Court and Community Schools ........... 161
Mendocino Historical Review Board.................................................................. 169
Mendocino- Lake Community College Athletic Facilities.................................... 181
Potter Valley Community Unified School District............................................... 187
Potter Valley Irrigation District ........................................................................... 193
Redwood Valley County Water District ............................................................. 197
Westport County Water District......................................................................... 203
1998- 99 Grand Jury Report Response Review…………………………………... 207
2 1999- 2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report
CITY OF UKIAH
The City of Ukiah ( City), incorporated on March 8, 1876, has an elected mayor and
four Council members. The City serves a population of 15,059, covers 4.6 square
miles and has 52 miles of paved streets.
The City provides planning and inspection services; public safety including police
and fire services; street maintenance; public utilities including electric, sewer,
sanitation and waste disposal; recreation including nine public parks, a golf course,
three public pools, and an array of programs. The City also operates the airport,
Grace Hudson Museum, Ukiah Valley Conference Center, and the Redevelopment
Agency.
Reason for Review
The Grand Jury conducted an oversight review of the finances of the City. The
Grand Jury last reviewed the City in 1988.
Method of Investigation
The Grand Jury interviewed the Finance Director. Documents researched included
the most recent two city budgets, financial statements, 1998- 99 audit, fund
summaries and descriptions, Employees’ Manual, investment schedule and job
descriptions for department heads. To facilitate analysis, spreadsheets were
generated from financial data for the years 1995 through 1999. The Grand Jury
made an on- site visit to City Hall.
Findings
1. The 1998- 99 audit of the City’s financial statements supports our finding that
the City is apparently financially sound and its fiscal affairs are well managed.
Response ( City of Ukiah): Concur with findings
2. The City’s General Fund supports those departments and functions which are
generally not supported by fees for service. Some of the City’s departments
provide services which receive income ( e. g., sports and recreation). Although
these revenues offset some of the operational costs, they do not entirely
support the departments. Special funds are created for special purposes,
government grants and for services that are supported by fees.
Response ( City of Ukiah): Concur with findings
1999- 2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 3
3. The City budget and accounting system, in addition to the General Fund,
include 79 separate funds. Although many of these funds are mandated by
state and federal funding sources, many were created by the City for special
purposes. Several of the funds are no longer active.
Response ( City of Ukiah): Concur with findings
4. As a result of the proliferation of funds, a complete analysis of the total budget
for most City departments requires assembling the data from several funding
categories. For example, there are fifteen separate funds that relate to the
sewer system, sanitation district and the disposal site. A clear financial picture
of the Public Utilities Department is not easily determined. The published City
Budget does not include departmental summaries.
Response ( City of Ukiah): Concur with findings
5. Likewise, the overall revenues and expenditures for the City are not presented
except in pie- chart format ( pages ES- 40 and 41 of the 1999- 2000 Budget).
Response ( City of Ukiah): Overall revenues and expenditures for the
city are presented as totals on the “ Fund Summary” schedules as well
as in the pie- chart format.
6. The City has managed to operate successfully in recent years without the need
to increase its permanent staff, although there has been a marked increase in
temporary, seasonal and part- time employees. The number of permanent staff
has declined from 160 in 1996 to 156 in 2000; during the same time frame the
temporary and part- time staff has risen from 76 to 109. Much of this increase is
accounted for by the expansion of community services offered, especially in
the Day Camp and Sports programs, which are seasonal.
Response ( City of Ukiah): Concur with findings.
7. The City maintains a complete set of job descriptions for all key employees.
Some, however, have not been updated recently ( e. g., the job description for
the Director of Community Development was last revised in March 1978).
Response ( City of Ukiah): Concur with findings.
8. The City’s Employees’ Manual is both current and comprehensive. Although
the Manual’s Harassment Policy includes sexual orientation, it is absent from
the section on Equal Opportunity.
Response ( City of Ukiah): Concur with findings.
4 1999- 2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report
Recommendations
1. To facilitate understanding by the general public and the City Council, the
Finance Director should prepare an Executive Summary that addresses the
overall financial health of the City. This summary could combine the General
Fund with all other funds. In a similar fashion, each department’s budget
should include a summation of all revenue sources and spending categories.
2. All inactive funds should be discontinued.
3. Sexual orientation should be included in the non- discriminatory wording in the
Equal Opportunity section of the Employees’ Manual.
Response ( City of Ukiah): The City of Ukiah will add “ sexual
orientation” to the non- discriminatory elements currently listed in
Section 2.02 Equal Employment Opportunity of its Employee’s Manual.
Sexual orientation is currently included in the City’s Harassment Policy
and in the Equal Opportunity Employment statement at the bottom of
each vacancy recruitment the City posts.
4. All job descriptions should be reviewed periodically.
Response ( City of Ukiah): City of Ukiah job descriptions are reviewed
periodically in a number of instances, which include: recruitment to fill a
job vacancy; request for reclassification of a specific position; when
duties of a job change; or when legal changes occur. The Personnel
Department is staffed by one employee, therefore other duties and
responsibilities take priority over the review of job descriptions until one
of the above instances occurs, or as time allows.
Comment
Although the number of temporary, seasonal and part- time employees ( 109) seems
unusually high at first glance, all of these positions may well be justified.
Response Required
Ukiah City Council
Response Requested
Ukiah City Manager
1999- 2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 5
CITY OF UKIAH POLICE DEPARTMENT
The Ukiah Police Department ( UPD) is the law enforcement agency serving the city
of Ukiah. The Grand Jury's investigation focused on the UPD training program,
medical marijuana policy, and the impact of the new Chief on UPD operations.
Reason for Investigation
The Grand Jury received a citizen's complaint
Method of Investigation
The Grand Jury interviewed the Chief of Police and four Sergeants, the Director of
the Mendocino County Department of Mental Health ( MCMHD), and a
representative of the Ad Hoc Committee of Community Concern ( AHCCC).
Documents reviewed: the Peace Officers Standards and Training Manual ( POST),
information from the MCMHD, ( including mental health and developmental training
information), UPD medical marijuana procedure, domestic violence training material,
interoffice memoranda and the Policy and Procedures Manual. The Grand Jury
toured the UPD facilities and the new state of the art dispatch center.
Operations
Findings
1. The UPD personnel consist of 41 employees. There are 26 sworn staff, 11
civilian staff, two Community Oriented Policing ( COPS), one Community
Coordinator and one Major Task Force personnel.
Response ( City of Ukiah): The department currently has 26 sworn
officers. This includes the Community Oriented Policing personnel.
One ( 1) officer assigned to the Major Crimes Task Force. 11 1/ 2
civilian employees, which include public safety dispatchers, front office
staff, vehicle mechanic and parking enforcement officers. Public
Safety dispatchers and vehicle mechanic are actually shared costs
with other City departments. Total UPD Personnel: 37 1/ 2.
2. In the last two years the UPD received a grant and has invested approximately
$ 500,000 to install a Windows NT network. This computer supports all divisions
of Public Safety from emergency medical services to fire and police services.
This system includes software for medical, fire, and police incident reporting
and computer- aided dispatch software to track and assist in the deployment of
emergency personnel. Peace officers, firefighters, and dispatchers now share
a central database of information, which provides for enhancement and better
use of their database.
6 1999- 2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report
The UPD also received a grant from the State of California for a computer
controlled 9- 1- 1 telephone and radio system. This computer is tied directly to
the UPD computer- aided dispatch system and provides immediate information
to dispatchers in emergency situations. Also installed was an emergency
medical dispatching software package, which is now assisting dispatchers to
provide immediate medical information on the phone as personnel respond to
the scene. The UPD has also received a number of federal grants, which have
provided the UPD with computer crime- mapping programs, digital cameras,
laptop computers, and information access.
Response ( City of Ukiah): Concur with findings.
3. The morale seems high in the UPD and the entire staff has great esteem for
the new Chief.
Response ( City of Ukiah): Concur with findings.
4. The turnover rate remains consistently low. The staff shows no indication of
discontent with the management or the manner in which the UPD is
functioning.
Response ( City of Ukiah): Concur with findings.
5. In response to a police shooting in July 1998, a group of concerned citizens
formed the AHCCC to address racial issues and law enforcement. In 1999, the
UPD and AHCCC signed a statement of mutual understanding.
Response ( City of Ukiah): Concur with findings.
6. The UPD adheres to a 1999 countywide medical marijuana policy issued by the
District Attorney's Office and administered by the Sheriff's Department.
Response ( City of Ukiah): Concur with findings.
Training
Findings
7. Effort is made to ensure that all peace officers comply with the mandatory
training required by POST. This compliance has been certified by POST
inspectors.
Response ( City of Ukiah): Concur with findings.
8. Currently there is no system for monitoring compliance with minimal POST
1999- 2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 7
standards and additional UPD internal standards. A new computer program
has been ordered to improve the tracking of the training requirements for the
UPD.
Response ( City of Ukiah): P. O. S. T. regulates and monitors
adherence to P. O. S. T. standards with an internal record keeping
system and on – site audit by P. O. S. T. personnel.
Recommendations
1. The Grand Jury urges the UPD to continue to make training one of their top
priorities.
Response ( City of Ukiah): Concur with recommendation. The
department will keep training a top priority for all department
personnel.
2. The UPD should install the computer program and get the training- monitoring
program up and operational as soon as possible.
Response ( City of Ukiah): The computer program that was
purchased to manage our training records has been received and
installed. Three department employees are scheduled to received
training to properly use the program. Training scheduled for July
2000.
Findings
9. Peace officers are trained in domestic violence response, leadership, hostage
negotiations, parolee contact, missing persons, field evidence, firearms
instruction, civil liability, internal affairs, ethics, accident investigation,
supervision, background investigation, sexual assault investigation, narcotics,
canine, pepper spray restraint devices, crime- scene control and security, high-speed
stops, and other training as offered.
Response ( City of Ukiah): Concur with findings.
10. Although not required by POST, there were four formal training sessions with
the MCMHD in the fall of 1999.
.
Response ( City of Ukiah): Concur with findings.
Recommendation
Training from the MCMHD should be established on a regularly scheduled
basis.
8 1999- 2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report
Response ( City of Ukiah): Concur. The department will continue to
explore training opportunities with MCMHD. Regular scheduled
training should be based on the needs of both departments and in
conjunction with other law enforcement agencies. Additionally, U. P. D.
invested in the training of two officers in mental health issues to enable
them to return and provide ongoing training to U. P. D. employees.
Finding
11. Training is sometimes restricted as a result of the budget restraints for
reimbursement of pay as many of the classes require overtime. The UPD ran
out of overtime in February 2000 and has since curtailed the training program.
POST is responsible for setting training standards for the hiring of police
officers. POST requires 24 hours of training per year, which is discretionary
with each department. POST will reimburse local districts for up to 80 hours of
training per officer per year, but does not include reimbursement for overtime.
Response ( City of Ukiah): Concur with finding. However, P. O. S. T.
does reimburse associated overtime for some specific training
courses.
Recommendation
The Ukiah City Council should establish a separate training budget for the UPD
that includes an adequate provision of necessary overtime.
Response ( City of Ukiah): The Ukiah City Council did increase the
overtime budget for fiscal year 2000- 20001. This should help with
providing for some additional training.
Response Required
Ukiah City Council
Response Requested
Ukiah Police Department
1999- 2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 9
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
The Community Development Commission ( CDC) provides and maintains housing
for low- income people. Funds are provided by Housing and Urban Development
( HUD) and by various state and federal grants. Because of the Congressional
desire to provide housing for the homeless, CDC is the only agency that does not
require proof of citizenship or a birth certificate to receive benefits. In Mendocino
County, CDC is a public body created pursuant to the California Health and Safety
Code. The Board of Supervisors ( BOS) established the CDC in 1975 to provide
Mendocino County citizens the option of operating and governing its own Housing
Authority under a single entity and a Board of Commissioners. This also provided a
Redevelopment Agency and community development programs. Although CDC
derives its powers from the state legislature, the BOS appoints the commissioners
for CDC.
Reason for Investigation
The Grand Jury received a citizen’s complaint.
Method of Investigation
The Grand Jury interviewed several past and present employees of the CDC, the
Executive Director ( ED), a Commissioner from the CDC Board, and representatives
from other county- wide organizations working with CDC in the Homeless Services
Planning Group ( HSPG). The HSPG is a collaborative representing twenty county
agencies and organizations providing services and shelter to the county’s homeless.
Documents reviewed consisted of financial statements, 1998 Audit, payroll
information, purchase orders, personnel manual, minutes of the Board of
Commissioners ( BOC) meetings, Memorandum of Understanding, Procurement
Handbook for Public and Indian Housing Authorities and other HUD regulations,
CDC’s Mission Statement and other relevant data furnished by CDC and other
witnesses.
The CDC main office was visited.
Relevant Law
Code of Federal Regulations ( 24CFR85.36)
California Government Code, Section 54950 et seq. ( The Brown Act)
Findings
1. There were no Request for Proposals ( RFPs) on the many computers
purchased during 1998- 1999, totaling approximately $ 30,000 and there were
no Purchase Orders on some. These computers were not purchased through
10 1999- 2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report
competitive bidding. There was no justification found for this non- competitive
purchase which is required by law ( see HUD Procurement Handbook
( Handbook), Section 4- 29) and 24CFR85.36. Purchases of several computers
in 1998 did not include a background check of the manufacturer, which went
into bankruptcy after CDC purchased the computers. However, CDC did buy
extended warranties at the time of purchase, thereby retaining the warranty
coverage on those computers.
Response ( Community Development Commission): The CDC
purchased a total of twelve computers during the year, six in January,
1999, and six in April, 1999, at a total cost of less than $ 25,000. Both
purchases were based on a competitive bidding process in full
compliance with the procedures and policies adopted by the
Department of Housing and Urban Development. Although not
required, the competitive bids were presented to and the
Commissioners approved the purchases.
Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Community Development
Commission is appointed by the Board of Supervisors to administer
state and federal programs available for low income housing
development, purchase assistance, and renovation. The Commission,
although appointed by the Board of Supervisors, functions
independently in the management of said program responsibilities.
Inasmuch, the Commission and its staff are responsible for the
operational decisions, and compliance with laws and/ or procedures
that govern their activities, including purchasing and bidding. In
granting program responsibilities to the Commission, the Board of
Supervisors expects careful oversight over all administrative actions,
and compliance with all laws and applicable regulations.
2. Some employees reported excessive down time on these new computers.
Response ( Community Development Commission): The CDC
cannot respond to this Finding No. 2 because it is non- specific as to
time, duration and details of any computer problems. CDC has not
experienced any significant down time on the twelve new computers.
The vendor has been prompt and cooperative in resolving any
reported problems.
Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Community Development
Commission is appointed by the Board of Supervisors to administer
state and federal programs available for low income housing
development, purchase assistance, and renovation. The Commission,
although appointed by the Board of Supervisors, functions
independently in the management of said responsible for the
operational decisions, and compliance with laws and/ or procedures
that govern their activities. In granting program responsibilities to the
1999- 2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 11
Commission, the Board of Supervisors expects careful oversight over
all administrative actions, and compliance with all laws and applicable
regulations.
3. Further study reveals that in the purchase of their computers during 1998 and
1999, they violated Section II B 1, 2, 4, 5 & 6, and Section III B 4 of CDC’s
Procurement Policy. These sections require annual planning processes,
written contracts, documentation on the history of the procurement, solicitation
procedures consistent with federal regulation 24CFR85.36, independent cost
estimates, cost and price analysis of the bid responses ( no bids were
solicited), and the requirement for three or more bids. Handbook Chapter 3- 2
explains that the BOC is responsible for establishing the Housing Authority’s
( HA) procurement policy and that the BOC should designate the ED as the
person responsible for carrying out its policy. This action should be stated in
the minutes of the Board meeting. Handbook Chapter 3- 3 explains the
responsibilities of the ED.
Response ( Community Development Commission): The Board of
Commissioners approved the Procurement Policy on June 27, 1995.
The Board of Commissioners review and approve policies as
necessary.
Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Community Development
Commission is appointed by the Board of Supervisors to administer
state and federal programs available for low income housing
development, purchase assistance, and renovation. The Commission,
although appointed by the Board of Supervisors, functions
independently in the management of said program responsibilities.
Inasmuch, the Commission and its staff are responsible for the
operational decisions, and compliance with laws and/ or procedures
that govern their activities. In granting program responsibilities to the
Commission, the Board of Supervisors expects careful oversight over
all administrative actions, and compliance with all laws and applicable
regulations.
4. The CDC Procurement Policy specifies any purchase of $ 100,000 or less is a
“ small purchase” and any amount up to $ 500 may be processed through petty
cash. Purchases up to $ 25,000 do not need approval of the BOC. This allows
sizable expenditures without BOC knowledge or approval.
Response ( Community Development Commission): All of the
procurement policies of the CDC are in full compliance with the
requirements established by the Department of Housing and Urban
Development.
Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Community Development
Commission is appointed by the Board of Supervisors to administer
12 1999- 2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report
state and federal programs available for low income housing
development, purchase assistance, and renovation. The Commission,
although appointed by the Board of Supervisors, functions
independently in the management of said program responsibilities.
Inasmuch, the Commission and its staff are responsible for the
operational decisions, and compliance with laws and/ or procedures
that govern their activities. In granting program responsibilities to the
Commission, the Board of Supervisors expects careful oversight over
all administrative actions, and compliance with all laws and applicable
regulations.
5. Instead of taking advantage of “ cooperative purchasing” with the County as
authorized in Section III H of CDC’s Procurement Policy, CDC acts
independent of the County.
Response ( Community Development Commission): The CDC has
and will continue coordinate and consult with the County on
appropriate purchases.
Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Community Development
Commission is appointed by the Board of Supervisors to administer
state and federal programs available for low income housing
development, purchase assistance, and renovation. The Commission,
although appointed by the Board of Supervisors, functions
independently in the management of said program responsibilities.
Inasmuch, the Commission and its staff are responsible for the
operational decisions, and compliance with laws and/ or procedures
that govern their activities. In granting program responsibilities to the
Commission, the Board of Supervisors expects careful oversight over
all administrative actions, and compliance with all laws and applicable
regulations.
Recommendations
1. The BOC should insure that their Procurement Policy, which according to CDC
complies with all applicable federal regulations, is strictly followed. The
Handbook should be used as a reference for the BOC to insure that the
Procurement Policy follows appropriate federal regulations.
Response ( CDC): Refer to response to Finding # 1.
Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Board of Supervisors
agrees.
Time Frame for Implementation: Pursuant to CDC, already
implemented.
1999- 2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 13
2. The BOC should review Handbook Chapters 3- 2 and 3- 3, plus other pertinent
chapters in the Handbook and 24CFR85.36, to insure that they have taken all
required steps in the procurement process.
Response ( CDC): Refer to response to Finding # 3.
Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Board of Supervisors
agrees.
Time Frame for Implementation: Pursuant to CDC, already
implemented.
3. The Grand Jury recommends that the limits for “ Petty Cash” and the $ 25,000
limit not needing BOC approval be reevaluated and possibly lowered. The
limits which are stated in the Handbook are maximum limits and can be
lowered by the HA. The BOC should periodically audit Petty Cash. Handbook
Chapter 4- 4 outlines procedures for Petty Cash.
Response ( CDC): Refer to response to Finding # 4.
Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Community Development
Commission is appointed by the Board of Supervisors to administer
state and federal programs available for low income housing
development, purchase assistance, and renovation. The Commission,
although appointed by the Board of Supervisors, functions
independently in the management of said program responsibilities.
Inasmuch, the Commission and its staff are responsible for the
operational decisions, and compliance with laws and/ or procedures
that govern their activities. In granting program responsibilities to the
Commission, the Board of Supervisors expects careful oversight over
all administrative actions, and compliance with all laws and applicable
regulations.
Time Frame for Implementation: Pursuant to CDC, already
implemented.
4. The CDC should coordinate with the County on significant purchases ( as
authorized in the CDC Procurement Policy) and draw upon County expertise
in appropriate areas.
Response ( CDC): Refer to response to Finding # 5.
Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Board of Supervisors
agrees.
Time Frame for Implementation: Pursuant to CDC, already implemented.
14 1999- 2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report
Finding
6. The Personnel Manual needs updating and many employees were not sure
there was one that was actually followed by management. Neither
management nor employees were sufficiently familiar with the manual.
Response ( Community Development Commission): In 1996, the
Personnel Manuel was substantially incorporated into and replaced by
a comprehensive Memorandum of Understanding between the CDC
and the employees’ union which then represented and now represents
most of the CDC employees. The CDC acknowledges that the
Personnel Manual needs to be revised as a comprehensive document
separate and apart from the MOU. The CDC will revise the Personnel
Manual within the next year.
Response ( Board of Supervisors): Response: The Community
Development Commission is appointed by the Board of Supervisors to
administer state and federal programs available for low income
housing development, purchase assistance, and renovation. The
Commission, although appointed by the Board of Supervisors,
functions independently in the management of said program
responsibilities. Inasmuch, the Commission and its staff are
responsible for the operational decisions, and compliance with laws
and/ or procedures that govern their activities. In granting program
responsibilities to the Commission, the Board of Supervisors expects
careful oversight over all administrative actions, and compliance with
all laws and applicable regulations.
Recommendation
The BOC should immediately insure that the Employee Manual is updated and
that both management and staff are made aware of its existence. This
manual should be used as a training tool for all staff.
Response ( CDC): Refer to response to Finding # 6.
Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Community Development
Commission is appointed by the Board of Supervisors to administer
state and federal programs available for low income housing
development, purchase assistance, and renovation. The Commission,
although appointed by the Board of Supervisors, functions
independently in the management of said program responsibilities.
1999- 2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 15
Inasmuch, the Commission and its staff are responsible for the
operational decisions, and compliance with laws and/ or procedures
that govern their activities. In granting program responsibilities to the
Commission, the Board of Supervisors expects careful oversight over
all administrative actions, and compliance with all laws and applicable
regulations.
Time Frame for Implementation: The CDC will revise the Personnel
Manual within the next year ( 12 months).
Findings
7. The CDC has been generally uncooperative with the “ Core Group” of the
HSPG in the homeless program. HSPG finds it difficult to coordinate with
CDC and to meet with the CDC Director.
Response ( Community Development Commission): The CDC
participates in the “ Core Group” of the HSPG Program and has
supported the homeless effect by doubling the grant award for the
Shelter Plus Care Grant to provide over 100 united of homeless
housing assistance for Mendocino County residents.
The Executive Director has been actively involved and has been
available for meetings with any member of the group.
Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Community Development
Commission is appointed by the Board of Supervisors to administer
state and federal programs available for low income housing
development, purchase assistance, and renovation. The Commission,
although appointed by the Board of Supervisors, functions
independently in the management of said program responsibilities.
Inasmuch, the Commission and its staff are responsible for the
operational decisions, and compliance with laws and/ or procedures
that govern their activities. In granting program responsibilities to the
Commission, the Board of Supervisors expects careful oversight over
all administrative actions, and compliance with all laws and applicable
regulations.
8. Relations are poor between management and many staff personnel, with
reports of frequent occasions of verbal abuse from management, retaliatory
action directed towards agency employees, along with mistrust of
management, by staff.
Response ( Community Development Commission): The CDC
takes strong exception to this Finding. For several years prior to the
hiring of the current executive director, the CDC had experienced
substantial and recurring problems in the relationships between the
16 1999- 2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report
prior executive director and staff The Commissioners, both individually
and collectively, are extremely sensitive to this issue and have made a
special effort to monitor the relationships between and among the
executive director, management and staff. Some tension among
these groups will always exist. However, the Commissioners believe
that relationships among the executive director, management and staff
are generally very good. In the event of any problem, the employees
have a broad and explicit grievance procedure and a strong and
responsive union. No grievances have been filed nor has the union
regarding any inappropriate conduct presented any complaints by the
current executive director and/ or management.
The CDC cannot respond more specifically to this Finding because no
details of any perceived problems were presented. The
Commissioners will immediately investigate any specific instances and
will protect the privacy of any employee who may raise a complaint.
Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Community Development
Commission is appointed by the Board of Supervisors to administer
state and federal programs available for low income housing
development, purchase assistance, and renovation. The Commission,
although appointed by the Board of Supervisors, functions
independently in the management of said program responsibilities.
Inasmuch, the Commission and its staff are responsible for the
operational decisions, and compliance with laws and/ or procedures
that govern their activities. In granting program responsibilities to the
Commission, the Board of Supervisors expects careful oversight over
all administrative actions, and compliance with all laws and applicable
regulations.
9. Needed information from management is frequently slow in being
disseminated and is limited to select personnel, indicating poor internal
communication.
Response ( Community Development Commission): The CDC
disagrees with this statement. Information is disseminated quickly and
is distributed to all appropriate staff. Monthly staff meetings are held
within each department as well as an agency wide staff meeting. It is
necessary for staff to attend the meetings to receive the information.
Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Community Development
Commission is appointed by the Board of Supervisors to administer
state and federal programs available for low income housing
development, purchase assistance, and renovation. The Commission,
although appointed by the Board of Supervisors, functions
independently in the management of said program responsibilities.
Inasmuch, the Commission and its staff are responsible for the
operational decisions, and compliance with laws and/ or procedures
1999- 2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 17
that govern their activities. In granting program responsibilities to the
Commission, the Board of Supervisors expects careful oversight over
all administrative actions, and compliance with all laws and applicable
regulations.
10. Favoritism was a frequent complaint by many employees in many areas,
including salaries and promotions.
Response ( Community Development Commission): All salaries are
set by a fixed salary schedule adopted by the Commissioners after
negotiation with the employees’ union. It is impossible for the
executive director and/ or management to play favorites in setting
salaries. All job openings are well advertised within the agency and
every effort is made to hire and promote from within the agency.
Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Community Development
Commission is appointed by the Board of Supervisors to administer
state and federal programs available for low income housing
development, purchase assistance, and renovation. The Commission,
although appointed by the Board of Supervisors, functions
independently in the management of said program responsibilities.
Inasmuch, the Commission and its staff are responsible for the
operational decisions, and compliance with laws and/ or procedures
that govern their activities. In granting program responsibilities to the
Commission, the Board of Supervisors expects careful oversight over
all administrative actions, and compliance with all laws and applicable
regulations.
10. Many employees state that they are afraid to speak out on issues and are
fearful for their jobs.
Response ( Community Development Commission): The
employees are well represented by their union, which, in prior years,
has not been reluctant to bring complaints and problems to the
Commissioners. In past years, employees have also brought their
concerns directly to the Commissioners in private communications.
The identity and privacy of the employees was always protected.
Neither the union nor any employees have brought any complaints to
the Commissioners regarding the conduct of management and/ or the
executive director.
If the Grand Jury will provide specific information about employees
who are afraid to speak out on important issues, the Commissioners
will interview them and will protect their identity and privacy. Because
so many employees have spoken out in the past without any type of
retribution, the Commissioners find it difficult to believe that any
employees are truly reluctant to bring their concerns directly to the
Commissioners.
18 1999- 2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report
Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Community Development
Commission is appointed by the Board of Supervisors to administer
state and federal programs available for low income housing
development, purchase assistance, and renovation. The Commission,
although appointed by the Board of Supervisors, functions
independently in the management of said program responsibilities.
Inasmuch, the Commission and its staff are responsible for the
operational decisions, and compliance with laws and/ or procedures
that govern their activities. In granting program responsibilities to the
Commission, the Board of Supervisors expects careful oversight over
all administrative actions, and compliance with all laws and applicable
regulations.
Recommendation
Management needs to receive training in personnel relations, anger
management, inter- agency cooperation, internal communication, avoiding
favoritism, and team building.
Response ( CDC): Refer to response to Findings 10 & 11.
Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Community Development
Commission is appointed by the Board of Supervisors to administer
state and federal programs available for low income housing
development, purchase assistance, and renovation. The Commission,
although appointed by the Board of Supervisors, functions
independently in the management of said program responsibilities.
Inasmuch, the Commission and its staff are responsible for the
operational decisions, and compliance with laws and/ or procedures
that govern their activities. In granting program responsibilities to the
Commission, the Board of Supervisors expects careful oversight over
all administrative actions, and compliance with all laws and applicable
regulations.
Time Frame for Implementation: On- going. This is an issue
addressed between the Union representatives and the BOC.
Finding
12. The CDC is publicly funded. The ED has been authorized to use an Agency
vehicle, which happens to be a GMC sports utility vehicle. The ED stated she
had to use it as she had no other vehicle. Use includes commuting to work
between Ukiah and Willits, personal shopping, transportation of family
members, plus business purposes. During the period June 1998 to January
2000, there were 23,700 miles put on the vehicle ( based on CDC data).
During that same period, commuting alone would have used approximately
1999- 2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 19
17,000 miles, or well over 60% of the total mileage. This would leave little for
other personal errands and normal business use.
The CDC’s new policy is that the value of the percentage of personal use of
the vehicle is listed as a fringe benefit on the ED’s IRS W2 Form. This still
would not reimburse the Commission for use of the vehicle.
The personal use of this or other vehicles is a questionable use of public
funds.
Response ( Community Development Commission): As part of the
compensation package negotiated with the executive director, the
Commissioners agreed to provide her with a vehicle for official and
non- official use. Employees also use the vehicle during office hours as
needed. This fringe benefit to the executive director is reported on her
W- 2 form and the vehicle is fully insured.
The use and mileage computations stated in the report are inaccurate.
The report calculates that 60% of the 23,700 miles driven from June,
1998, to January, 2000, were driven in the executive director’s Willits-
Ukiah commute. In fact, the executive director did not even move to
Willits until October, 1999.
Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Community Development
Commission is appointed by the Board of Supervisors to administer
state and federal programs available for low income housing
development, purchase assistance, and renovation. The Commission,
although appointed by the Board of Supervisors, functions
independently in the management of said program responsibilities.
Inasmuch, the Commission and its staff are responsible for the
operational decisions, and compliance with laws and/ or procedures
that govern their activities. In granting program responsibilities to the
Commission, the Board of Supervisors expects careful oversight over
all administrative actions, and compliance with all laws and applicable
regulations.
Recommendations
1. The Board of Commissioners should immediately consider its liability on the
personal use of Agency vehicles.
Response ( CDC): Refer to response to Finding # 12.
Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Community Development
Commission is appointed by the Board of Supervisors to administer
state and federal programs available for low income housing
development, purchase assistance, and renovation. The Commission,
20 1999- 2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report
although appointed by the Board of Supervisors, functions
independently in the management of said program responsibilities.
Inasmuch, the Commission and its staff are responsible for the
operational decisions, and compliance with laws and/ or procedures
that govern their activities. In granting program responsibilities to the
Commission, the Board of Supervisors expects careful oversight over
all administrative actions, and compliance with all laws and applicable
regulations.
Time Frame for Implementation: BOC determines reasonable
compensation package and vehicle needs for Director and staff.
Board of Supervisors will communicate by February 2001 to BOC that
they carefully consider Grand Jury concerns regarding the use of
public funds for personal vehicle use when developing compensation
package for staff.
2. If the CDC Board of Commissioners wishes to enhance the ED’s
compensation, the Grand Jury recommends that a more direct and visible
approach through salary increases be used.
Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Community Development
Commission is appointed by the Board of Supervisors to administer
state and federal programs available for low income housing
development, purchase assistance, and renovation. The Commission,
although appointed by the Board of Supervisors, functions
independently in the management of said program responsibilities.
Inasmuch, the Commission and its staff are responsible for the
operational decisions, and compliance with laws and/ or procedures
that govern their activities. In granting program responsibilities to the
Commission, the Board of Supervisors expects careful oversight over
all administrative actions, and compliance with all laws and applicable
regulations.
Time Frame for Implementation: BOC determines reasonable
compensation package and vehicle needs for Director and staff.
Board of Supervisors will communicate by February 2001 to BOC that
they carefully consider Grand Jury concerns regarding the use of
public funds for personal vehicle use when developing compensation
package for staff.
Findings
13. The stated mission of CDC is “... working vigorously toward providing
Mendocino County residents the opportunity for an affordable home in a
suitable living environment.”
1999- 2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 21
Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Board of Supervisors
agrees.
14. In early 1998 two CDC units at their South Dora Street, Ukiah, location were
destroyed by fire. Shortly thereafter CDC received an insurance payment of
approximately $ 200,000. To this date the units have not been replaced or
rebuilt. The insurance proceeds remain idle.
Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Community Development
Commission is appointed by the Board of Supervisors to administer
state and federal programs available for low income housing
development, purchase assistance, and renovation. The Commission,
although appointed by the Board of Supervisors, functions
independently in the management of said program responsibilities.
Inasmuch, the Commission and its staff are responsible for the
operational decisions, and compliance with laws and/ or procedures
that govern their activities. In granting program responsibilities to the
Commission, the Board of Supervisors expects careful oversight over
all administrative actions, and compliance with all laws and applicable
regulations.
15. There is a significant shortage of low cost housing units in Mendocino County.
Response ( Board of Supervisors): The word significant is
ambiguous, but the Board of Supervisors agrees that addition low and
moderate income housing is needed.
16. A program for the construction of additional affordable housing units is now in
its early stages and has yet to be presented to the BOC.
Response to Findings # 13- 16 ( Community Development
Commission): The CDC has worked aggressively to increase
affordable housing within the county. Since December, 1997 over 160
new housing units have been added:
Seventy- five new vouchers for Family Unification
Fifty additional certificates for the Shelter Plus Care Program
Fifteen new units of Public Housing opened in Ukiah
Fifteen new units of Public Housing opened in Fort Bragg
Seven new units of affordable housing opened in Ukiah
The two particular units that were destroyed by fire in March, 1998,
were not replaced in- kind because HUD de- funded the construction of
additional public housing units.
22 1999- 2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report
Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Board neither agrees or
disagrees with this finding.
Recommendation
The CDC should take immediate steps to initiate purchase and construction
projects to replace the destroyed units and expand the inventory of affordable
rental units.
Response ( CDC): Refer to response to Finding # 16.
Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Community Development
Commission is appointed by the Board of Supervisors to administer
state and federal programs available for low income housing
development, purchase assistance, and renovation. The Commission,
although appointed by the Board of Supervisors, functions
independently in the management of said program responsibilities.
Inasmuch, the Commission and its staff are responsible for the
operational decisions, and compliance with laws and/ or procedures
that govern their activities. In granting program responsibilities to the
Commission, the Board of Supervisors expects careful oversight over
all administrative actions, and compliance with all laws and applicable
regulations.
Time Frame for Implementation: On- going.
Finding
17. The BOC is charged with overseeing and making critical decisions concerning
the administration of a highly complex housing program. They are further
challenged to grasp the mass of regulations promulgated by HUD. In
response to this need, the National Association of Housing and
Redevelopment Officials sponsors a series of seminars and workshops,
specifically designed for commissioners whose background is not in housing.
Unfortunately, not all of the Commissioners have taken advantage of this
important training.
Response ( Community Development Commission): The majority of
the Commissioners have attended conferences and training sessions
in an effort to remain current with the complex housing issues and
seemingly ever changing policies and regulations. The executive
director regularly circulates among Commissioners descriptions of
available training sessions.
1999- 2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 23
Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Community Development
Commission is appointed by the Board of Supervisors to administer
state and federal programs available for low income housing
development, purchase assistance, and renovation. The Commission,
although appointed by the Board of Supervisors, functions
independently in the management of said program responsibilities.
Inasmuch, the Commission and its staff are responsible for the
operational decisions, and compliance with laws and/ or procedures
that govern their activities. In granting program responsibilities to the
Commission, the Board of Supervisors expects careful oversight over
all administrative actions, and compliance with all laws and applicable
regulations.
Recommendation
Training in HUD regulations and community development should be mandated
for all members of the BOC. The BOC should be more aware of the business
transactions conducted by the Commission and of personnel morale.
Response ( CDC): Refer to response to Finding # 17.
Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Community Development
Commission is appointed by the Board of Supervisors to administer
state and federal programs available for low income housing
development, purchase assistance, and renovation. The Commission,
although appointed by the Board of Supervisors, functions
independently in the management of said program responsibilities.
Inasmuch, the Commission and its staff are responsible for the
operational decisions, and compliance with laws and/ or procedures
that govern their activities. In granting program responsibilities to the
Commission, the Board of Supervisors expects careful oversight over
all administrative actions, and compliance with all laws and applicable
regulations.
Time Frame for Implementation: On- going.
Finding
18. As required by HUD, personnel authorized to draw down money from their
HUD account are issued an individual password code. No other person is
authorized to use that code. The password code used to draw down money
from HUD and restricted to specific users was reported by several employees
to be loosely controlled. At this time, there is no authorized alternate person
available.
24 1999- 2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report
Response ( Community Development Commission): Control over
the HUD account password ( LOCCS) is regulated by a designated
Commissioner, currently Commissioner Henderson. The only person
with authority to use the password is the executive director. The CDC
will implement the recommendation of the Grand Jury and designate a
second person with access authority.
Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Community Development
Commission is appointed by the Board of Supervisors to administer
state and federal programs available for low income housing
development, purchase assistance, and renovation. The Commission,
although appointed by the Board of Supervisors, functions
independently in the management of said program responsibilities.
Inasmuch, the Commission and its staff are responsible for the
operational decisions, and compliance with laws and/ or procedures
that govern their activities. In granting program responsibilities to the
Commission, the Board of Supervisors expects careful oversight over
all administrative actions, and compliance with all laws and applicable
regulations.
Recommendation
Necessary steps should be taken to insure that there is an authorized
alternate and the control of password codes is strictly enforced.
Response ( CDC): Refer to response to Finding # 18.
Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Community Development
Commission is appointed by the Board of Supervisors to administer
state and federal programs available for low income housing
development, purchase assistance, and renovation. The Commission,
although appointed by the Board of Supervisors, functions
independently in the management of said program responsibilities.
Inasmuch, the Commission and its staff are responsible for the
operational decisions, and compliance with laws and/ or procedures
that govern their activities. In granting program responsibilities to the
Commission, the Board of Supervisors expects careful oversight over
all administrative actions, and compliance with all laws and applicable
regulations.
Time Frame for Implementation: Immediately.
Finding
19. There were many reports of improper hiring and promotion practices. Job
announcements were not always posted. Also, according to testimony,
temporary employees were hired and then assigned to permanent jobs without
posting.
1999- 2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 25
Response ( Community Development Commission): The CDC
disagrees with this statement. All employment opportunities are posted
internally so those interested employees may apply. All employment
opportunities are advertised in the local newspaper.
Since this finding is non- specific, the CDC is unable to provide specific
information.
Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Community Development
Commission is appointed by the Board of Supervisors to administer
state and federal programs available for low income housing
development, purchase assistance, and renovation. The Commission,
although appointed by the Board of Supervisors, functions
independently in the management of said program responsibilities.
Inasmuch, the Commission and its staff are responsible for the
operational decisions, and compliance with laws and/ or procedures
that govern their activities. In granting program responsibilities to the
Commission, the Board of Supervisors expects careful oversight over
all administrative actions, and compliance with all laws and applicable
regulations.
Recommendation
If the BOC does not now have a formal procedure to critically evaluate the ED
and staff morale; a comprehensive procedure should be developed.
Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Community Development
Commission is appointed by the Board of Supervisors to administer
state and federal programs available for low income housing
development, purchase assistance, and renovation. The Commission,
although appointed by the Board of Supervisors, functions
independently in the management of said program responsibilities.
Inasmuch, the Commission and its staff are responsible for the
operational decisions, and compliance with laws and/ or procedures
that govern their activities. In granting program responsibilities to the
Commission, the Board of Supervisors expects careful oversight over
all administrative actions, and compliance with all laws and applicable
regulations.
Time Frame for Implementation: Not applicable. Recommendation of
Grand Jury is not consistent with Finding # 19 which is directly
applicable to the hiring process and not the evaluation of Executive
Director and staff morale.
Finding
26 1999- 2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report
20. It was reported that the ED recommends to the BOS people to be appointed
as commissioners to CDC.
Response ( Community Development Commission): All
Commissioner appointments are made by the Board of Supervisors.
The individual Commissioners, the executive director and employees
may make recommendations to the Board of Supervisors as can any
member of the public. The CDC believes that the Board of
Supervisors, both individually and collectively, have sufficient interest,
intelligence and independence to make appointments that are in the
best interests of the public, regardless of the recommendations
received from the executive director and/ or anyone else associated
with the CDC. In any event, only a single Commissioner has been
appointed during the term of the current executive director.
Response ( Board of Supervisors): The County Administrative Office
is not aware of this practice. It is the practice of the County to properly
notice vacancies to all boards and commissions. The Board of
Supervisors then makes appointments based upon information
included in the application.
Recommendation
The BOS should appoint commissioners without getting recommendations
from the ED, which is allowing the “ employee” to recommend who their
“ supervisor” should be.
Response ( CDC): Refer to response to Finding # 20.
Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Board of Supervisors agrees.
Time Frame for Implementation: Already implemented.
Findings
21. BOC meeting notices are posted only at the North State Street main office.
Response ( CDC): The CDC disagrees with this statement. The Board
of Commissioner” meetings are posted at the CDC offices in Willits,
Fort Bragg, and Ukiah.
Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Community Development
Commission is appointed by the Board of Supervisors to administer
state and federal programs available for low income housing
development, purchase assistance, and renovation. The Commission,
although appointed by the Board of Supervisors, functions
independently in the management of said program responsibilities.
1999- 2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 27
Inasmuch, the Commission and its staff are responsible for the
operational decisions, and compliance with laws and/ or procedures
that govern their activities. In granting program responsibilities to the
Commission, the Board of Supervisors expects careful oversight over
all administrative actions, and compliance with all laws and applicable
regulations.
22. Board minutes are frequently not clear to anyone who was not present at the
meeting. Discussions are frequently reported without mention of what the
subject is about.
Response ( Community Development Commission): The CDC
disagrees with this statement. The Board minutes are clear and
concise. All minutes are approved by the Board of Commissioners.
Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Community Development
Commission is appointed by the Board of Supervisors to administer
state and federal programs available for low income housing
development, purchase assistance, and renovation. The Commission,
although appointed by the Board of Supervisors, functions
independently in the management of said program responsibilities.
Inasmuch, the Commission and its staff are responsible for the
operational decisions, and compliance with laws and/ or procedures
that govern their activities. In granting program responsibilities to the
Commission, the Board of Supervisors expects careful oversight over
all administrative actions, and compliance with all laws and applicable
regulations.
Recommendations
1. While the posting of BOC meetings meet legal requirements, the Grand Jury
recommends that CDC consider using county wide news media to post
meeting notices. For example, BOS meetings are posted at numerous other
public places besides the Court House.
Response ( CDC): Refer to response to Finding # 21.
Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Community Development
Commission is appointed by the Board of Supervisors to administer
state and federal programs available for low income housing
development, purchase assistance, and renovation. The Commission,
although appointed by the Board of Supervisors, functions
independently in the management of said program responsibilities.
Inasmuch, the Commission and its staff are responsible for the
operational decisions, and compliance with laws and/ or procedures
that govern their activities. In granting program responsibilities to the
Commission, the Board of Supervisors expects careful oversight over
28 1999- 2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report
all administrative actions, and compliance with all laws and applicable
regulations.
Time Frame for Implementation: Not applicable. CDC meets legal
noticing requirements.
2. Minutes of BOC meetings need to be more specific as to what is discussed. A
person not attending the meeting should be able to readily understand what
the subject of discussion was by reading the minutes. The BOC should also
ensure that all decisions, and the specifics of those decisions, be included in
the minutes.
Response ( CDC): Refer to response to Finding # 22.
Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Community Development
Commission is appointed by the Board of Supervisors to administer
state and federal programs available for low income housing
development, purchase assistance, and renovation. The Commission,
although appointed by the Board of Supervisors, functions
independently in the management of said program responsibilities.
Inasmuch, the Commission and its staff are responsible for the
operational decisions, and compliance with laws and/ or procedures
that govern their activities. In granting program responsibilities to the
Commission, the Board of Supervisors expects careful oversight over
all administrative actions, and compliance with all laws and applicable
regulations.
Time Frame for Implementation: Not applicable.
Comment
There is the appearance of a lack of planning in purchasing of some items.
A long range planning program for housing has now been started, but is still in its
infancy stage.
There are other procurement requirements for the BOC to act on as specified in
Chapter Three, of the Handbook, which the Grand Jury did not review due to time
constraints. The BOC has serious responsibilities in the area of procurement.
A common goal exists; funds are provided; and it is reasonable to expect that the
various agencies involved be able to work together in a state of harmony. It is the
responsibility of all publicly funded agencies to see that public funds are properly
and effectively administered. All persons involved, regardless of agency, should be
able to “ meet and confer” in a friendly, business- like atmosphere, to determine the
proper application of these public funds to achieve the goals set forth.
1999- 2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 29
All employees have the right to expect to be treated in a professional manner in the
work place and to act in a professional manner, as well. Vigilance and discipline is
necessary when administering public funds. Anyone in a position of public trust has
the responsibility to protect public funds and faithfully pursue the Agency’s mission
to serve the public interest.
Response Required
Mendocino County Board of Supervisors
Board of Commissioners, Mendocino County Community Development Commission
30 1999- 2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
In 1997, a citizen was arrested and in the process of the arrest and arraignment, the
complainant alleged conflict of interest, corruption- misuse of office, and conspiracy
to defraud on the part of the former Deputy District Attorney.
Reason for Investigation
The Grand Jury received a citizen's complaint.
Method of Investigation
The Grand Jury interviewed the complainant and five past and present members of
the District Attorney's Office, as well as defense attorneys and Probation Court
Officers. All attorneys interviewed were questioned for their familiarity with conflict
of interest rules and guidelines and were also presented with a standard set of
hypothetical scenarios to determine the consistency of responses.
The Grand Jury reviewed the case file of arrest and court proceedings and all
documentation including video tapes provided by the complainant. The Grand Jury
also reviewed the California Code of Ethics, the District Attorney's Policy and
Procedures Manual, and the Attorney General's Conflict of Interest guidelines.
Newspaper archives were searched back to 1996 for reports of conflict of interest
issues.
Findings
1. The Grand Jury found, based on all the information presented, no evidence of
conflict of interest, misuse of office, nor conspiracy to defraud by the former
Deputy District Attorney who prosecuted the case.
Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Board neither agrees or
disagrees with this finding.
2. Based on the documents and official records reviewed, the account of the
arrest, trial and conviction offered by the complainant was not supported.
Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Board neither agrees or
disagrees with this finding.
3. The new Policy and Procedures Manual developed by the District Attorney in
1999, contains specific conflict of interest guidelines that are understood by
Deputy District Attorneys.
Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this
finding.
1999- 2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 31
4. State standards and Code of Ethics were in place in 1997 and were well known
and understood by those Deputy District Attorneys interviewed. Both in 1997
and currently when questions of ethics or conflict of interest arise, Deputy
District Attorneys seek guidance from senior staff members.
Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this
finding.
Recommendations
1. The District Attorney's Office continues to maintain a high level of awareness
regarding conflict of interest.
Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this
recommendation. The District Attorney has developed a Policy and
Procedures Manual that details the Conflict of Interest Code.
2. The quality and utility of the District Attorney's Policy and Procedures manual
are exemplary; all County Departments should have current, active manuals.
Response ( District Attorney): The District Attorney’s Office agrees
with this response. Under this administration all prosecutors are held
to a high standard of professional ethics. For this reason, a Policy and
Procedures Manual was developed. Furthermore, any case for which
there is a question or an appearance of a conflict is referred to the
Attorney General. If that agency feels a conflict exists, it will take over
the prosecution.
This office thanks the Grand Jury for the written compliments.
Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this
recommendation and will encourage all departments to update and/ or
develop a comprehensive policy and procedures manual.
Response Required
Mendocino County District Attorney
Mendocino County Board of Supervisors
32 1999- 2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report
MENDOCINO COUNTY ADULT PROBATION DEPARTMENT
The duty of the Mendocino County Probation Department, as an integral part of the
criminal justice system, is to promote public safety by reducing criminal behavior
and its impact on the community. Supervision and court services are the primary
functions of the adult Probation Department. The Probation Department provides
services to the Mendocino County Superior Court through the preparation of adult
pre- sentence recommendation reports, violation of probation petitions and
supplemental reports including bail and release recommendation studies. Probation
officers appear in court on adult sentencing, pre- trial hearings, and arraignments.
Specific court probation officers are assigned to each court in Mendocino County.
On occasion the Court may determine at arraignment that a person is marginally
acceptable for release and may set specific conditions for release under the tight
supervision of a probation officer. The Probation Department also monitors
compliance and progress of persons in court- directed diversions to drug programs,
counseling, or educational services.
The Department’s supervision unit enforces court- ordered terms and conditions of
probation by providing supervision of offenders. This is accomplished by regularly
scheduled contacts, urine analysis, victim contacts, monitoring treatment, and
verifying the collection of restitution and fines. Often, the terms of probation include
mandatory counseling. The Probation Department certifies each program and
monitors these programs for compliance with guidelines and standards. Probation
also provides advocacy for victims and is involved in the community by the
development and support of a system of prevention, intervention and treatment
programs.
The Department has offices in Ukiah ( Stanley Street and Low Gap Road), Fort
Bragg, and Willits. The Probation Department also has jurisdiction and important
responsibilities on all juvenile matters including the administration of Juvenile Hall.
However, this investigation is restricted to the Department’s adult functions.
Reason for Review
The Grand Jury conducted an oversight review of the adult portion of the Mendocino
County Probation Department. It was last reviewed by the Grand Jury in 1988.
Method of Investigation
The Grand Jury interviewed fourteen past and present members of the Probation
Department, including all first- line supervisors. The Chief Probation Officer was
interviewed at three stages of the investigation. Deputy District Attorneys, Public
Defenders, a Service Employees International Union ( SEIU) representative and the
Mendocino County Administrative Officer were also interviewed. Documents
reviewed included salary and benefit surveys, retirement provisions, union
bargaining packets, the Probation Department Administrative Manual, Department
1999- 2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 33
policies and procedures, interoffice memoranda, case load trend data, probation
annual reports, County budgets, the County Policy and Procedures Manual, and
relevant sections of the California Penal and Welfare and Institutions Codes.
Courtroom hearings both in Ukiah and Willits were attended to observe Probation
Court Officers. The Grand Jury also toured the Standley Street facility.
Relevant Law
The activities of probation officers are governed by numerous California Code
sections. Penal Code Sections 1191 through 1209.5 specifically stipulate the main
requirements for county Probation Departments.
Staffing
Findings
1. Turnover in the department has been chronically high ( 8% per annum) and
had increased to 16% during 1999.
Response ( Probation): Agree with this finding.
Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this
finding.
2. The causes of this high turnover, reported by those interviewed, included:
a. low salary
b. lack of safety retirement benefit
c. low morale
d. dissatisfaction with management
e. lack of opportunity for advancement
Response ( Probation): Agree with the finding in that those
interviewed may have indicated the listed reasons. The Chief
Probation Officer believes staff was justified in their perceptions of the
turnover. However, the Department has performed exit interviews with
most of the staff that departed. Low salary, safety retirement, and lack
of promotional opportunities were the primary reasons given. Low
morale was not mentioned, nor was dissatisfaction with management.
These two were probably the result of the restructuring of the
Department that occurred during that year, but was abandoned later
because of various reasons which will be discussed in subsequent
sections of this response.
34 1999- 2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report
Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with the
response provided by the Chief Probation Officer. Each area is either
being dealt with by the Department or the County in general.
3. The high turnover rate has resulted in chronic under- staffing, thereby
increasing case load and job stress.
Response ( Probation): Highly agree with this finding.
Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this
finding and has taken steps such as the Compensation and
Classification Study to eliminate low salaries.
4. In January 1999, the Mendocino County Courts restructured the Ukiah court
system to assign cases to courtrooms alphabetically according to the last
name of the defendant . The introduction of this “ vertical” system has
exacerbated Probation Department under- staffing. Recognizing this hardship,
the Courts are now accepting written reports from Probation Court Officers in
certain circumstances.
Response ( Probation): Agree with this finding. The Courts were
cooperative in assisting the Department in staffing for the different
judicial department assignments. However, Probation Court Officers
are still required to spend an inordinate amount of time in court, due to
delays or intervening cases, making it difficult for the officers to find
time to prepare the required written court reports.
Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with the
response of the Chief Probation Officer. The Board appreciates the
Courts willingness to cooperate with Probation and to look for
alternative solutions.
5. A 1998 survey of Probation Department salaries in 50 of California’s 59
counties , conducted by Kern County, indicated that salaries are a direct
function of the population of the county. For example, Mendocino County
ranked 34th in population among the 50 counties. Deputy Probation Officer I
salaries ranked 33rd and Deputy Probation Officer II ranked 32nd.
Response ( Probation): Agree with this finding. The survey is
prepared biennially for and on behalf of the Chief Probation Officers of
California ( CPOC) association, with information derived from each of
the participating county probation departments.
Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with the
response provided by the Chief Probation Officer.
1999- 2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 35
6. Most Deputy Probation Officers ( DPO’s) interviewed felt they were underpaid.
However, the County- financed January 2000 Slavin Report reveals those
salaries for DPO’s are on a par with other sample counties.
Response ( Probation): Agree with this finding. The disparity comes
in the higher level positions.
Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this
finding. Salary issues were found at the higher level positions.
7. However, both the Slavin Report and the Kern County study reveal that the
salary of Mendocino County’s Chief Probation Officer ( CPO) is substantially
less than CPO’s in other comparable counties.
Response ( Probation): Agree with this finding. The CPO has
researched this issue independently and came to the same
conclusion.
Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this
finding.
8. The Probation Department has, for a number of years, experienced great
difficulty in its ability to recruit qualified staff.
Response ( Probation): Agree with this finding. This is a statewide
problem that has been discussed at many CPOC meetings.
Educational requirements are the biggest stumbling blocks, although
many applicants do not pass the background investigations, because
of criminal records or fabricated information in the applications. A
combination of education and experience has been our measuring
tape for the last several years. The Chiefs are mounting a media
campaign to make the public more aware of probation services and
our roles in the community.
A sharing of employment applications throughout the State has also
been discussed.
The Department is working with the Mendocino College to start
internship and work- experience programs, which should increase
interest in this field.
Also impacting our recruitment are the issues mentioned in item 2 of
this section. We are hopeful that increased salaries and safety
retirement will entice more applicants. Internal incentives, such as
adjusted professional hours ( a current practice), may also have an
impact.
36 1999- 2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report
Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this
finding. This issue occurs in almost all California counties. The Chief
Probation Officer is fully aware of this concern and has taken steps, in
cooperation with Mendocino College, to develop an internship
program. The Board is also in the final stages of implementation of
the Slavin Study, which will increase salaries.
9. Despite recommendations from the CPO and proposals from the SEIU, Local
707, the Board of Supervisors ( BOS) has rejected offering Probation Officers
Safety retirement. Twenty- eight of the 46 counties surveyed offer this benefit.
The Union volunteered to pay for half the cost of an actuarial study.
Response ( Probation): Agree with this finding in part. The issue of
safety retirement has been discussed at meet and confer sessions
during MOU negotiations. The request for an actuarial study was
presented by the Union and reportedly rejected by the BOS. I have
met with the Union representative and our staff, and are in the process
of preparing a presentation for safety retirement for the BOS. As of
this time, no formal discussion between the BOS and the CPO has
taken place. The Department highly encourages the County to
implement it, both for officer safety consideration and as a recruitment
incentive.
Response ( Board of Supervisors): The issue of safety retirement for
Probation Officers is still in discussions and will be reviewed this fiscal
year. The Board’s goal this year is the implementation of the Slavin
Study with other issues moved to future review.
10. A number of those interviewed voiced complaints concerning the lack of
opportunity for advancement. However, it is clear that promotion from within the
department is commonplace.
Response ( Probation): Agree with this finding. This is a small
department with few chances for promotion. The Department has
recently acquired several mid- management positions through court
funding, grants, and inter- agency agreements, allowing for internal
advancement. However, there are many qualified officers competing
for these few positions. Safety retirement might encourage upper
management officers to retire earlier, but until then there do not
appear to be many promotional opportunities.
Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with the
response provided by the Chief Probation Officer.
Recommendations
1999- 2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 37
1. The BOS should determine the cost of high Probation Department turnover,
including recruitment, training, and loss of experience.
Response ( Probation): Agree with this recommendation and would
fully cooperate in this determination. As the problems with recruitment
were discussed earlier, the issues of retention are also important to
explore. The State ( through the Board of Corrections) and the County
contribute to the cost of training deputized staff. To lose staff for any
reason is fiscally painful due to the high investment for this early
training. The loss of experienced staff creates liability issues, while
increasing demands on seasoned staff to train and support newer
officers during the initial probationary periods.
As stated earlier, this is not unique to Mendocino County Probation,
and efforts are being made on a statewide basis to reduce turnover.
Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Board understands the high
cost of turnover and we have taken steps to reduce the problem with
the Classification and Compensation Study ( Slavin), reviewing safety
retirement and encouraging the Chief Probation Officer to examine
and modify internal issues that may affect an employees willingness to
continue employment with the Department.
Time Frame for Implementation: Anticipated completion of cost
estimate of the high turnover is April, 2001. This will include
recruitment, training costs, clerical time, etc.
2. The BOS should review Probation Department salaries to determine if an
increase would likely reduce turnover, increase job satisfaction and facilitate
recruitment.
Response ( Probation): Agree with this recommendation. The CPO
believes the Slavin Study is the first step in this direction.
Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Board believes that the
Slavin Study will address this recommendation.
Time Frame for Implementation: Slavin Study will be implemented
effective November 26, 2000. The determination of any appreciable
difference should be completed by December, 2001.
3. The BOS should seriously re- evaluate the cost and benefit of making Safety
Retirement available to all qualified employees of the Probation Department.
An actuarial study should be conducted.
Response ( Probation): Agree with this recommendation.
38 1999- 2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report
Response ( Board of Supervisors): This issue will come forward in
the next several months. The Board will take a critical look and this
recommendation based on our financial abilities and with a need to
retain our valuable employees.
Time Frame for Implementation: The Department anticipates
presenting a recommendation to the Board in April, 2001.
4. New staff positions should be established to satisfy the burden of the vertical
court system.
Response ( Probation): Agree with this finding. With a limited overall
county budget, it is difficult to implement new positions. I have been
seeking grants and other funding streams to enhance staffing.
Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Board authorized one new
probation officer during the Final Budget process. The Chief Probation
Officer is seeking grants to reduce the impact on the County’s General
Fund and thus still address the expanding needs of our communities.
Time Frame for Implementation: On- going through grant applications
and seeking other funding streams to enhance staffing.
Organization and Facilities
Findings
11. Line staff was not adequately prepared for the reorganization of the Probation
Department in December 1998. Their views were not solicited and as a result
they were antagonistic to the new organization from its inception.
Response ( Probation): Highly disagree with this finding. It may be
the perception of some line staff that the reorganization was imposed
upon them with little of their input, but input from all staff was solicited
at every step of the reorganization. Management level staff was
instructed to consult line staff for suggestions and criticism, which is
verified in administrative staff meeting minutes. The unit supervisors
reported that there was very little input from their line staff, and that
which was received was considered and used or rejected after
extensive discussion.
Management “ retreats” were held to compile staff input and to design
the new organization. Many line and management issues for the
improvement of operations were thoroughly discussed. No policy,
procedure, or change of operation was implemented without
agreement from the entire group. Once the reorganization plan was
1999- 2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 39
published, there was plenty of time for input for modifications and
corrections. It was emphasized all along that the reorganization was
not set in concrete, and that the plan was open to constructive criticism
and modification.
Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Board disagrees with this
finding and agrees with the response provided by the Chief Probation
Officer. The Chief Probation Officer took several steps to include all
staff in the preliminary discussions and reviews before any
modification took place. Change is difficult for everyone. Some
employees may have felt left out but did have an opportunity to share
their opinions at various stages of the process.
12. Prior to December 1998, the juvenile and adult units were separated. The new
organization created court and supervision units that encompassed both the
adult and juvenile functions, which seriously restricted communication. The
new organization also had inherent supervision problems ( e. g., one supervisor
had 22 DPO’s reporting to him).
Response ( Probation): Disagree with this finding, which appears to
place the failure of the reorganization on restricted communications
and staffing patterns. As probation departments in general are finding
that many members of families are on probation at the same time
( parents and siblings alike), supervision of the family unit as a whole is
becoming more and more essential to community corrections. The
new model recognized this as a new and innovative way of dealing
with this trend. The model also retained juvenile/ adult practices, but
required staff to learn practices with which they were not familiar. This
created a feeling of being overburdened with the learning process,
while trying to deal with burgeoning caseloads.
To add to the dilemma, the turnover of staff may have been indicative
of the staff’s dislike for the reorganization, but it also exacerbated the
problems of implementing the new design. To their credit, the officers
made valiant efforts to learn both adult and juvenile laws, courtroom
procedures, and supervision requirements, assisting each other in this
process.
Restricted communications resulted from two unexpected areas, the
shift from the juvenile/ adult paradigm that had been practiced for
years, and having staff in more than one location. The difficulty in
adapting to the new model was evident in the territorial protectiveness
that staff was not willing to give up. This impacted sharing of
information.
Complaints that court officers were not leaving adequate and
appropriate information in the files for the supervision officers, and vice
versa, exemplified the discontent with the reorganization. However,
40 1999- 2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report
these complaints pre- date the restructuring and are again expressed
by staff today. There seemed to have been a reluctance to simply
communicate by telephone and e- mail ( Jalan), which would have
simplified the process.
Not being under one roof is, and will be, a problem for communications
among the staff, but a willingness to communicate is imperative. As
just noted, there still seems to be an inability or reluctance to share
information in a timely manner. Management staff is cognizant of this
and has worked to eliminate communication problems.
The issue of supervisor/ staff ratio was in the process of being rectified
by creating more DPO III ( mid- management) positions.
Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Board disagrees with this
finding and agrees with the response provided by the Chief Probation
Officer. The Department was finding that several family members are
on probation at the same time, thus supervision of the family unit
became essential to community corrections. This new model retained
juvenile/ adult practices, but did require staff to learn practices
unfamiliar to them. This did create a feeling of being overburdened
with the process since Probation was experiencing staff concerns at
the time. Communication was a concern before this restructuring and
is being addressed by staff. Staff is addressing the supervision issue
by creating more mid- management positions.
13. To the credit of the CPO, recognizing the widespread dissatisfaction and
inherent problems, he rescinded the new organization in October 1999. It was
replaced by an organizational structure that reinstated many, but not all, of the
features of the 1998 form.
Response ( Probation): As much as the Department appreciates the
comment, the CPO disagrees with the finding. The CPO did not
rescind the reorganization due to dissatisfaction or inherent problems.
The believed and still believes that the restructuring would have been
effective in delivering better service. Many felt it was for the good of
the department and participated fully. However, the CPO received
many comments from outside sources that several staff were openly
critical of the reorganization and expressed their negative views and
reluctance to participate loudly in the public forum. These staff
members did not come directly to the CPO with their concerns or
comments or suggestions as to how to improve service delivery.
Further, there were outside influences that impacted the reorganization
in a negative way. The vertical calendar model for the courts changed
the staffing pattern for the adult courts. Domestic violence caseloads
increased dramatically, causing a shift in supervision priorities. The
1999- 2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 41
reassignment of judges and the creation of new therapeutic courts
shifted demands for court services. In a memorandum presented to
staff and the courts, the CPO compared the situation to Sebastion
Junger’s book, The Perfect Storm, where several smaller storms from
various areas combined to create a super storm that sunk an
unsuspecting boat. Significant issues combined suddenly to make the
new model difficult to implement at the time.
Considering the loss of staff during this period and the new DPOs
having to be trained, along with the above- noted problems, the CPO
decided that the reorganization would not work at that time, and
therefore, returned to a modified form of the previous organization.
This pleased most, if not all, staff mainly because it relieved the
tension that surrounded the project. Many staff members have
commented that they learned many things from the experiment: the
roles and responsibilities of those whose positions were different
and/ or misunderstood, a greater appreciation of the amount of work
performed by others, new and exciting information and techniques not
previously shared between the units, a willingness to look at whole
families and not individuals, and a better understanding of the
problems inherent in remaining in a position so long that the tasks
become routine and personal pride gets eroded.
The reorganization was based on a model used in other county
probation departments throughout the nation. Given a different time
and more favorable circumstances, the CPO would again reorganize
along the same lines.
Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with the
response provided by the Chief Probation Officer. Because of staff
shortages such as loss of line staff, supervisors must perform non-supervisory
roles on a limited basis. The department is attempting to
reduce this concern through additional mid- management staff.
14. The current organization continues to have managerial problems in that
supervisorial units are extremely large and one of the most experienced
supervisors is assigned a non- supervisory role.
Response ( Probation): Agree in part with this finding. Supervision
caseloads are large, but cannot be compared to court responsibilities
in terms of workload. Each task requires specialized abilities that can
be measured qualitatively and quantitatively. Unit supervisors are
often required to perform line duties because of loss of staff through
termination, loss of line staff to training, increased work assignments
generated by the courts, and inexperienced staff not being able to
perform complex duties. These supervisors are burdened with
supervising large staffs. We have attempted to alleviate some of this
problem through additional mid- management positions.
42 1999- 2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report
The unit supervisor who is not in a supervising role is assigned to
coordinating training for the entire department, seeking and procuring
grants and other funding prospects, and preparing guardianship
reports for the civil court. The training function is easily a half- time
position, requiring scheduling, monitoring, fiscal control, and evaluation
of internal and state- required training. Deputized officers attended
4086 hours of state- mandated instruction during the last fiscal year.
The department was required to perform guardianship investigation
reports about two years ago, with no additional staff. What started as
a trickle of requests has expanded into an almost full- time task. And
this supervisor has been instrumental in obtaining grants and
monitoring the TANF/ IVE allocations.
Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with the
response provided by the Chief Probation Officer. Because of staff
shortages such as loss of line staff, supervisors must perform non-supervisory
roles on a limited basis. The department is attempting to
reduce this concern through additional mid- management staff.
15. The split of the organization between the Standley Street and Low Gap Road
facilities burdens operations and causes communication problems. Having the
Department under one roof was recommended in the 1999 Ross- Drulis
Criminal Justice Facility Master Plan, funded by the BOS.
Response ( Probation): Agree with this finding.
Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this
finding. Limited resources dictate logistic problems, which the Board is
aware of.
Recommendations
1. The CPO should solicit and listen to line staff views, when making decisions
that directly affect them.
Response ( Probation): Agree with this recommendation and the CPO
staunchly maintains that that is his practice. Each employee is
requested to present complaints and suggestions through the chain of
command, but in a department of this size, communications frequently
happens on an informal basis. The CPO appreciates the input from all
levels of staff and solicit it on issues that will affect those involved.
Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this
recommendation and refers the Grand Jury to the Chief Probation
Officers’ response.
1999- 2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 43
Time Frame for Implementation: On- going.
2. With input from all members of the Department, the current organization chart
should be the subject of a thorough review.
Response ( Probation): Agree with this recommendation. The
organization was reviewed and restructured, with input from staff. The
current organization is what the staff seems to have desired.
Evaluation of service is an on- going process.
Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this
recommendation. The Chief Probation Officer assures us, through his
response, that this process is ongoing.
Time Line for Implementation: On- going.
3. The BOS should establish a time line for the implementation of the Criminal
Justice Facility Master Plan which consolidates Probation Department services
in one location.
Response ( Probation): Agree with this recommendation. It would be
ideal to have the department in one location.
Response ( Board of Supervisors): Given the limited resources
available to local government, the County of Mendocino developed a
Capital Improvement Plan that prioritizes facilities issues. The Board
adjusts this plan on a yearly basis and uses the Criminal Justice
Facilities Master Plan as a component to that review.
Job Performance
Findings
16. Competency, job knowledge, and dedication were high at all levels in the
department. Line staff demonstrated a deep commitment to their work.
Response ( Probation): Highly agree with this finding. We have a
well- trained and competent staff, eager to learn new techniques and
procedures. This staff is dedicated and very committed to serving and
protecting the community. The community as a whole should be proud
of their efforts.
Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this
finding and thanks the Grand Jury for their comments.
44 1999- 2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report
17. Outside obligations and commitments have caused the current CPO and his
predecessor to be out of the office over 40% of the time, seriously limiting his
availability to staff and knowledge of the day- to- day running of the department.
Having his already overburdened supervisors stand in for him does not ease
the situation.
Response ( Probation): Since the Chief Probation Officer is the
administrator of the department, it is necessary for him to spend a
great deal of time in meetings with other agencies throughout the
county and state, seeking collaborations for services, funding sources,
and up- to- date legislative programs. Time is spent in consultation with
the county administration, other chief probation officers, and training
providers. The CPO attends commission and committee meetings by
appointment from the BOS; represents the department and county at
speaking engagements, national conferences ( National Community
Sentencing Association), and community based activities ( such as the
Community Forum on Hate Crime, the Ukiah Valley Culture and
Recreational Center) and sits on boards of directors ( Ford Street
Project, Mendo- Lake Alternative Services Program). With annual
personal leave, which after 30 years of service is substantial and
difficult to use, but encouraged by county BOS policy, the CPO indeed
spend time away from the office.
The CPO believes this time away from the office is essential to
operating the Department efficiently. The CPO does not believe that it
is necessary to be involved in every aspect of the operations. As an
analogy, the ship’s captain is responsible for getting to port, but is not
involved in ordering the uniforms for the crew or managing the galley
on the trip. Unit supervisors have been appointed because of their
management abilities and leadership skills, and are expected to
monitor the day- to- day operations of their units. They are expected to
keep me informed of issues within their units, especially those that
affect the other units. All management level staff ( CPO, SDPOs, DPO
IIIs, Superintendent, Asst. Superintendent, and Administrative
Manager) meet twice per month ( recently changed from once a week)
to discuss operational and personnel issues. The CPO meets almost
daily with each of the unit supervisors. When he is away for an
extended period, the CPO appoints one of the supervisors to be in
charge, rotating the responsibility among the SDPOs and the Juvenile
Hall Superintendent. The CPO views this practice as a chance to
enhance leadership skills.
The CPO does not leave the office without leaving a contact number,
and am available at all times by pager, even during his personal leave.
As noted below, the CPO has the desire to have an assistant chief
probation officer, but that position was eliminated by a resolution from
the Board of Supervisors in the early 1980’ s, when the department
1999- 2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 45
was smaller. In place of the Assistant position, the Supervising Deputy
Probation Officer position was created to supervisor each unit. The
CPO has concentrated on adding new positions in the lower levels of
the probation officer series, not upper management. As the need for
an assistant has become apparent for many reasons, the CPO intends
to request this position next year.
Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with the
response provided by the Chief Probation Officer. Local and State
obligations do sometimes take a manager away from the office but
with current technology, physically remaining in the office is sometimes
not necessary. The Chief Probation Officer must prioritize his time
between his outside obligations and his need to properly supervise his
staff.
18. Team building efforts have been restricted to senior staff members and have
not been provided to line staff, leaving them with a feeling of being left out.
Response ( Probation): Agree with this finding, but not the underlying
message. The original team building effort was a product of the past
administration and was effective in modifying many internal problems
in communications. The group was limited to the management team,
because of the nature of the communication problems existed at that
level of the organization. When it was decided to implement an overall
departmental quality and continuous improvement program, several
general staff meetings were held to work out the program. Very little
participation from line staff undermined the effort. The chosen model,
“ Simply Better,” had been used in other local agencies and was well
accepted. When there are players that do not want to play as a team,
it is futile to press it upon the whole. Team building was offered as a
departmental program, but not supported by all. The
Clerical/ Accounting Unit has begun to implement this program on a
smaller scale. It has improved workflow and communications within
that unit.
Since there was sufficient improvement in communication in the
management team, that team building program was discontinued
about a year ago.
Response ( Board of Supervisors): The team building program was
discontinued a year ago and did include only management since the
focus was managerial communication.
19. The Court appoints the CPO and performs an annual review of the Probation
Department. However, the Court does not specifically evaluate the CPO’s
performance; nor is his performance reviewed by the Chief Administrative
Officer or the BOS.
46 1999- 2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report
Response ( Probation): Disagree with this finding. The CPO receives
an annual evaluation of his performance from the presiding judge,
prepared in consultation with the other judges. The CPO provides a
statement of accomplishments and operations for the year. The CPO
also meets regularly with the judges, both in the courtroom and at
meetings. Although they are not directly involved in the county budget
process, they are kept apprised of the operations. The CAO and BOS
do not evaluate the CPO’s performance, but are kept informed about
program and operations issues.
Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with the
response provided by the Chief Probation Officer.
Recommendations
1. The CPO should consider filling the allocated position of Assistant Chief
Probation Officer as a solution to the problem of CPO’s outside obligations.
However, the operation of the Probation Department should always be the
primary focus of the CPO.
Response ( Probation): Agree with this recommendation. The CPO
intends to request an Assistant CPO position for the next fiscal year,
but it should be noted that the position has not been allocated since
the early 1980s and will require a BOS resolution to re- establish it.
The overall operation of the Department is the CPO’s primary focus.
Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Board welcomes the Chief
Probation Officer’s review of this recommendation. Since the position
has not been allocated for a number of years, the Department must
make a strong case that the position is essential to the ongoing
operations and the delivery of services to our citizens.
Time Frame for Implementation: The CPO will address the issue of
an Assistant CPO with the Board during the 2001/ 02 budget
conferences/ hearings.
2. Priority should be given to team building that would include all department
employees. Management should place department morale as an important
objective.
Response ( Probation): Agree with this recommendation. “ Simply
Better,” an effective team building program, was presented to staff last
year, but was not supported by all staff. Without support, the program
was not implemented department- wide. Team building requires a
1999- 2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 47
team whose members will commit to each other and the overall focus
of the group.
This administration has been very cognizant of morale, having
experienced several periods of “ discontent.” For the past several
years, the department actually has had a Morale Committee that
organizes activities and lunches. Management has held a “ staff
appreciation picnic” for many years, with management members
personally paying for the picnic grounds and the main barbecue
dishes.
Morale is also an issue in assigning and monitoring workload, and in
hiring and promoting. Not everyone is happy with assignments and
the inability to promote in a small department.
The CPO feels it should be noted that, according to staff, morale has
greatly improved since the Department has hired new staff with new
ideas and attitudes. Just having all positions filled has relieved
pressure and made the work environment less hostile. The CPO has
received many comments from staff that “ things really are getting
better.”
Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this
recommendation.
Time Frame for Implementation: On- going process.
3. The BOS, with Court approval, should include the CPO in its annual evaluation
of County Department Heads.
Response ( Probation): The CPO cannot comment on this
recommendation. It is a political issue that is pending legislation.
Please see CPO’s previous comments about annual evaluations.
Response ( Board of Supervisors): The evaluation of the Chief
Probation Officer is done by the Courts.
Arming Probation Officers
Findings
20. Many DPO Supervisors have experienced dangerous encounters in the
performance of their duties. All line staff interviewed felt they should be armed.
Response ( Probation): Agree with this finding. Many, not all, of the
deputy probation officers feel a need to be armed.
48 1999- 2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report
Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with the
response provided by the Chief Probation Officer.
21. The Probation Department is seeing more violent behavior and armed
offenders. Probation supervisors are required to travel to remote areas of the
County in the performance of their duties. Often these areas are where
methamphetamine labs and marijuana cultivation are prevalent. Armed
defenders are usually present at these establishments.
Response ( Probation): Agree with this finding.
Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this
finding.
22. The decision to arm DPO’s is solely at the discretion of the CPO. He is hesitant
to arm his officers for fear that arming may, in fact, increase the overall risk to
their safety. Another concern mentioned by the CPO is the potential for
increased liability exposure to the County.
Response ( Probation): Agree with this finding.
Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this
finding.
Recommendation
An independent evaluation of the wisdom of arming DPO’s should be made.
Response ( Probation): Disagree with this recommendation. Chief
Probation Officers throughout the state are split on this issue. Shasta
County prepared a survey and report on arming, which was released in
June 2000. Forty- six county probation departments responded. Only
seven counties have department- wide arming, while thirty- two have
specialized arming like us. Fourteen counties are contemplating
arming, while seven have no intention of arming.
This department has two armed officers, one assigned to the Major
Crimes Task Force, and one to the Gang Suppression Unit. Both
positions involve contact with clients known to be more dangerous
than the usual probationer, by nature of the criminal activities. In both
cases, the officers are expected to provide back up to other law
enforcement officers with whom they work, in case of armed
confrontations. Each officer receives forty hours of initial arms
training, sponsored by the CPOC, and must qualify quarterly with a
certified range master.
1999- 2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 49
To quote from that report, “ The work performed by probation officers is
continually changing. We must adapt our methodology to efficiently
approach our mission. It would appear, through the results of our
survey, that most counties in California have embraced the idea that
field work, in partnership with other community law enforcement
agencies, is an integral component to achieving our mutual goal of
preserving public safety. In order to evaluate risk to our community,
supervision is taking place beyond the office and within our
neighborhoods. Probation Officers are evaluating the probationer’s
lifestyle, those with whom they reside, those with whom they socialize
and the elements that surround them. Consequently, this results in
more diverse, and potentially dangerous, situations that officers will
encounter. It appears, through this survey, that each county
recognizes the necessity to maintain a sense of officer and public
safety and each has developed a different approach in dealing with
those issues.”
The cost of arming a single officer is not an issue, when compared to
officer safety. Recognizing the ever- changing complexion of the
offender population, the CPO has requested the staff to present
documentation for the need for carrying arms. Until the CPO is
satisfied that there is an overwhelming need to arm, he will continue to
consider liability issues, safety to the officers and the community, and
individual needs dictated by assignments.
Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Board of Supervisors agrees
with the response provided by the Chief Probation Officer. Officer
safety and community need must be balanced in this discussion.
Certain Probation Officer are armed when it is known they may
encounter clients that are more dangerous that the usual. Field work
for Probation Officers is changing and the Chief Probation Officer
stands ready to examine these influences as it relates to arming his
officers.
Department Manual
Finding
23. The Probation Department Administrative Manual has not been updated in
over ten years. Its contents are not well known by the staff and it is rarely
referred to. There are more than a dozen sections that address subjects
covered by the County Administrative and Policy and Procedures Manuals
( e. g., Affirmative Action, Use of County Vehicles, Sexual Harassment, Seat
Belts, Political Activity, among others). The Probation Administrative Manual
does not include job descriptions for the court DPO’s nor supervision DPO’s.
50 1999- 2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report
Response ( Probation): Agree with this recommendation. An effort to
update the manual was started by the previous chief, but stalled along
the way. About a year ago, the CPO restarted the process and am
currently working on the update. Duplication of sections with other
manuals may occur when there are special needs or variations within
the departments ( e. g. use of vehicles for overnight transportation or
on- call activities).
Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this
finding.
Recommendation
The Manual should be updated and made into an active, useful handbook well
known to the staff and used for the training of new employees. Sections
duplicating the County manuals should be deleted. Detailed job descriptions
should be added to the job standards. Each page should bear a revision date.
Response ( Probation): Agree with this recommendation. An effort to
update the manual was started by the previous chief, but stalled along
the way. About a year ago, the CPO restarted the process and is
currently working on the update. Duplication of sections with other
manuals may occur when there are special needs or variations within
the departments ( e. g. use of vehicles for overnight transportation or
on- call activities).
Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this
recommendation. The Department is currently working on the update.
Time Frame for Implementation: Completion of updated manual in
its entirety is anticipated by June 30, 2002. Each division will also
have working manuals.
Comments
Throughout this complex investigation, the Grand Jury was extended every courtesy
and received the full cooperation of the entire Probation Department. The Chief
Probation Officer was especially helpful in facilitating the investigation.
Response ( Probation): The Grand Jury made a sincere effort to
gather information intended to improve the operation of this
Department. Their approach was positive and from the outset very
courteous and professional.
The Grand Jury investigated this Department during a period when we
had changed from a tried and true service model, to another that
provided a different approach to services. It was new and unfamiliar
1999- 2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 51
to staff and very challenging. It was an attempt to improve internal
communications and service delivery. At this time, some staff
members were feeling pressured and demoralized because of these
changes. Since returning to the previous, but modified, model, the
CPO has been told and has observed morale has greatly improved.
Communication within and amongst the units is still problematic, but
this is an on- going issue. Personnel feelings that they were not
consulted about changes that affected them, is duly noted, but
disputed by the CPO. The CPO values his staff’s input, and although
not all ideas and concerns are addressed to the benefit of the
individual, the overall operation and well- being of the department is his
daily concern and focus.
The CPO appreciates the concerns and recommendations offered by
the Grand Jury.
Response Required
Mendocino County Board of Supervisors
Response Requested
Mendocino County Chief Probation Officer
52 1999- 2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report
MENDOCINO COUNTY CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICE
EMERGENCY RESPONSE UNIT
Child Protective Service ( CPS) is a division of County of Mendocino Department of
Social Services. The Emergency Response ( ER) Unit of CPS responds to reports of
abuse, neglect or exploitation of children under the age of 18. CPS has offices in
Ukiah, Fort Bragg, and Willits.
The investigating Social Worker of the Emergency Response Team is responsible
for intake, assessment, and investigation of allegations, cross reporting to law
enforcement and placement in Emergency Shelter. Currently the Emergency
Response Social Worker is also responsible for the initial court work.
Reason for Review
The Grand Jury conducted an oversight of the Emergency Response Unit.
Method of Investigation
The Grand Jury interviewed the Deputy Director of CPS, the Court Social Worker
Supervisor, Licensing Supervisor, Emergency Response Supervisor, two Social
Workers, and two Aides. Documents reviewed: Child Welfare Services Program
Requirements, Intake Guidelines; Emergency Response Investigating Worker
Protocol, Shelter Placement Summary; Family and Children's Services Division
Mission Statement , Policies and Procedures, Suspected Child Abuse Report Form,
On- Call training outline; Ukiah Emergency Response Search Checklist; Child
Welfare Services/ Case Management System ( CWS/ CMS) Off- line Intake Screening
Form; Law Enforcement Cross- Report and Two Day On- Call Training Outline for
Social Workers. The Grand Jury visited the CPS office.
Relevant Law
Penal Code Part 4, Title 1, Chapter 2, Article 2.5, The Child Abuse and Neglect
Reporting Act. Welfare and Institutions Code section 300.
Findings
1. Some Social Workers ( SWs) responding to a referral lack CWS training and
skills in ER.
Response ( Social Services): Agree in part. The Department has a
training program for new staff and review training for existing staff.
The overall shortage of staff with prior Children’s Services experience
and the need to move new staff into active duty rapidly can lead to
social workers with less than optimal training and skills being on- call to
receive referrals.
1999- 2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 53
Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Board and Department
agree with this finding in part and recognize that it is a critical issue
throughout rural counties. The overall shortage of staff with prior
Children’s Services experience, coupled with the urgent need for more
staff, can lead to social workers with less than optimal training. The
Department has a training program for new staff and continually
reviews the need for on- going training for existing staff.
2. CPS administrators and staff indicate it is difficult to hire and retain
experienced SWs due to stressful job demands and the resulting burnout.
Response ( Social Services): Agree. In the past six months, out of 16
social workers who left Children’s Services, 12 left to enter private
practice or other less demanding positions.
Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees based on
information supplied by the Department which indicates that 12 of 16
Social Workers who left Child Protection Services in a six month
period, did so to go into private practice or to take less demanding
assignments elsewhere within County service.
3. Top administrators stated that it is difficult to find SWs with experience in CWS.
Response ( Social Services): Agree. Finding Social Workers with
direct Child Welfare Services experience is a statewide problem, that
is of special concern in rural counties. The problem is so acute that
the County Welfare Director’s Association, in cooperation with State
Merit System, has established a standing committee to address the
issues of recruitment and retention of staff.
Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Board and the Department
agree with this finding and note that it is a frequent topic of discussion
among rural counties statewide.
4. CPS has recently hired a new training supervisor to provide information about
State and Federal guidelines on Child Welfare Services. The training will also
include the Department Policies and Procedures, Court procedure and case
management process. The department plans that new SWs involved in ER
will participate in Emergency Response investigations during the training
period. The University of California Davis has been contracted to provide
Mendocino County specific training in Ukiah.
Response ( Social Services): Agree. The Department has made a
major commitment to expanding the breadth and depth of training for
all staff.
54 1999- 2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report
Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Board and the Department
agree with this finding. The Board commends the Department for its
commitment to expanding the “ breadth and depth” of training for its
staff.
Recommendation
Core Training in CWS should be mandatory for all SWs involved in ER.
Response ( Social Services): Agree. Core Training in CWS is
mandatory for all social workers.
Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Board and the Department
agree with this finding and note that such training is already
mandatory.
Time Frame for Implementaton: Core Training to be provided June
2000 – June 2001.
Findings
5. At the time of our oversight, the screener, classified as an Aide, took the initial
telephone call, recorded pertinent information and assessed the urgency of
the situation.
Response ( Social Services): Agree.
Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this
finding based on the response of the Department.
6. The Child Welfare SW supervisor determines whether an immediate or 10- day
in- person investigation by the ER unit, referral to a community agency or no
action at all is appropriate.
Response ( Social Services): Agree.
Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this
finding based on the response of the Department.
7. The clerks research possible prior complaints and input information into the
CWS/ CMS computer system.
Response ( Social Services): Agree.
Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this
finding based on the response of the Department.
1999- 2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 55
Recommendation
The Grand Jury commends the ER Unit for recently staffing the screener
position with fully qualified SWs who perform these duties on a rotating
schedule.
Response ( Social Services): Agree. The Department appreciates
the understanding and support of the Grand Jury for program changes
that we have implemented.
Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Board and the Department
agree with this recommendation and thank the Grand Jury for
recognizing and supporting these program changes.
Time Frame for Implementation: ER staffing with Social Workers
implemented May 2000.
Finding
8. State standards regulating caseload assignments for Emergency Response
SWs were developed in the early 1980s before the state mandated CWS/ CMS
Data System was implemented. While the information this system makes
available is considered most useful, all staff stated that the current program for
data input is extremely cumbersome and requires extra time for SWs to collect
and enter information.
Response ( Social Services): Agree. It is estimated conservatively
that the CWS/ CMS computer systems increased the workload of social
workers by approximately 10%.
Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Board and the Department
agree with this finding.
Recommendation
On- going training in the use of the CWS/ CMS computer system is necessary.
It would be desirable if the statewide system were more user- friendly.
Response ( Social Services): Agree. Training in the use of
CWS/ CMS is provided. A Help Desk position is also available to
provide assistance to staff. Unfortunately the Department has no
control over the statewide system.
56 1999- 2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report
Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Board and the Department
agree with this finding, noting that training in the use of CWS/ CMS is
provided and a Help Desk position is also available for staff. While the
Board and Department staff have no control over the statewide
system, county officials will continue to provide feedback and be a part
of efforts to improve this system.
Time Frame for Implementation: On- going Training for CWS/ CMS to
be implemented January- June 2001.
Finding
9. Family and Children's Services Division SWs are on- call on a rotating basis to
provide 24- hour coverage to assess children's situations for immediate danger.
Response ( Social Services): Agree. It should be noted that the
stand- by rate is $ 1.25 per hour and has not been increased many
years.
Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Board and the Department
agree with this finding.
10. All changes in placement are made in consultation with the ER Supervisor.
Response ( Social Services): Agree.
Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Board and the Department
agree with this finding.
11. ER in Ukiah has been divided into two separate units: ER which follows the
case through the initial court disposition and the Court Unit which stays with the
case for continuing services, that can end with family services or continue until
the child is 18. If this division proves successful, it will serve as a model for the
remaining CPS offices in the county.
Response ( Social Services): Agree.
Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Board and the Department
agree with this finding.
Comments
The Grand Jury commends Child Protective Services and the Emergency Response
Unit for initiating a reorganization of their department. The aim of this reorganization
is to terminate Emergency Response involvement after initial court action and
assign the case to a single Social Worker throughout the time the case is active with
the Child Welfare System and thereby promote consistency in case management.
1999- 2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 57
Response ( Social Services): Agree. The Department worked with
the Child Welfare League of America in 1999 to develop a strategic
plan to guide the reorganization and continuing improvement of the
Children’s Services Division. Changes will take place over time, but
progress is being made in building a strong and effective continuum of
services to children and their families in Mendocino County.
Response Required
Mendocino County Board of Supervisors
Response Requested
Mendocino County Department of Social Services
58 1999- 2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report
MENDOCINO COUNTY COUNSEL
The County Counsel is charged by State law with the responsibility to defend or
prosecute all civil actions and proceedings which concern the County or any of its
officers. Th
Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.
Description
| Rating | |
| Title | Mendocino County Grand Jury final report |
| Subject | California. Grand Jury (Mendocino County)--Periodicals.; Mendocino County (Calif.)--Politics and government--Periodicals. |
| Description | Description based on: 2003/2004; title from opening screen of PDF.; Harvested from the web on 2/22/07 |
| Creator | California. Grand Jury (Mendocino County) |
| Publisher | Mendocino County Grand Jury] |
| Type | Text |
| Identifier | http://digitalarchive.oclc.org/request?id%3Doclcnum%3A144609924; http://www.co.mendocino.ca.us/grandjury/ |
| Language | eng |
| Format-Extent | 1 web site : digital, HTML, PDF files. |
| Relation-Requires | Mode of access: Internet.; System requirements: Adobe Acrobat Reader. |
| Transcript | 1999- 2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 1 1999- 2000 MENDOCINO COUNTY GRAND JURY RESPONSE TABLE OF CONTENTS City of Ukiah...................................................................................................... 1 City of Ukiah Police Department ....................................................................... 5 Community Development Commission ............................................................. 9 Conflict of Interest ............................................................................................. 30 Mendocino County Adult Probation Department............................................... 32 Mendocino County Child Protective Service ..................................................... 52 Mendocino County Counsel .............................................................................. 58 Mendocino County Department of Social Services........................................... 68 Mendocino County District Attorney Family Support Division ........................... 82 Mendocino County Domestic Violence ............................................................. 89 Mendocino County Grading Ordinance............................................................. 116 Mendocino County In- home Support Services.................................................. 121 Mendocino County Jail Staffing and Facility...................................................... 132 Mendocino County Juvenile Hall....................................................................... 146 Mendocino County Office of the Alternate Defender......................................... 153 Mendocino County Office of Education Court and Community Schools ........... 161 Mendocino Historical Review Board.................................................................. 169 Mendocino- Lake Community College Athletic Facilities.................................... 181 Potter Valley Community Unified School District............................................... 187 Potter Valley Irrigation District ........................................................................... 193 Redwood Valley County Water District ............................................................. 197 Westport County Water District......................................................................... 203 1998- 99 Grand Jury Report Response Review…………………………………... 207 2 1999- 2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report CITY OF UKIAH The City of Ukiah ( City), incorporated on March 8, 1876, has an elected mayor and four Council members. The City serves a population of 15,059, covers 4.6 square miles and has 52 miles of paved streets. The City provides planning and inspection services; public safety including police and fire services; street maintenance; public utilities including electric, sewer, sanitation and waste disposal; recreation including nine public parks, a golf course, three public pools, and an array of programs. The City also operates the airport, Grace Hudson Museum, Ukiah Valley Conference Center, and the Redevelopment Agency. Reason for Review The Grand Jury conducted an oversight review of the finances of the City. The Grand Jury last reviewed the City in 1988. Method of Investigation The Grand Jury interviewed the Finance Director. Documents researched included the most recent two city budgets, financial statements, 1998- 99 audit, fund summaries and descriptions, Employees’ Manual, investment schedule and job descriptions for department heads. To facilitate analysis, spreadsheets were generated from financial data for the years 1995 through 1999. The Grand Jury made an on- site visit to City Hall. Findings 1. The 1998- 99 audit of the City’s financial statements supports our finding that the City is apparently financially sound and its fiscal affairs are well managed. Response ( City of Ukiah): Concur with findings 2. The City’s General Fund supports those departments and functions which are generally not supported by fees for service. Some of the City’s departments provide services which receive income ( e. g., sports and recreation). Although these revenues offset some of the operational costs, they do not entirely support the departments. Special funds are created for special purposes, government grants and for services that are supported by fees. Response ( City of Ukiah): Concur with findings 1999- 2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 3 3. The City budget and accounting system, in addition to the General Fund, include 79 separate funds. Although many of these funds are mandated by state and federal funding sources, many were created by the City for special purposes. Several of the funds are no longer active. Response ( City of Ukiah): Concur with findings 4. As a result of the proliferation of funds, a complete analysis of the total budget for most City departments requires assembling the data from several funding categories. For example, there are fifteen separate funds that relate to the sewer system, sanitation district and the disposal site. A clear financial picture of the Public Utilities Department is not easily determined. The published City Budget does not include departmental summaries. Response ( City of Ukiah): Concur with findings 5. Likewise, the overall revenues and expenditures for the City are not presented except in pie- chart format ( pages ES- 40 and 41 of the 1999- 2000 Budget). Response ( City of Ukiah): Overall revenues and expenditures for the city are presented as totals on the “ Fund Summary” schedules as well as in the pie- chart format. 6. The City has managed to operate successfully in recent years without the need to increase its permanent staff, although there has been a marked increase in temporary, seasonal and part- time employees. The number of permanent staff has declined from 160 in 1996 to 156 in 2000; during the same time frame the temporary and part- time staff has risen from 76 to 109. Much of this increase is accounted for by the expansion of community services offered, especially in the Day Camp and Sports programs, which are seasonal. Response ( City of Ukiah): Concur with findings. 7. The City maintains a complete set of job descriptions for all key employees. Some, however, have not been updated recently ( e. g., the job description for the Director of Community Development was last revised in March 1978). Response ( City of Ukiah): Concur with findings. 8. The City’s Employees’ Manual is both current and comprehensive. Although the Manual’s Harassment Policy includes sexual orientation, it is absent from the section on Equal Opportunity. Response ( City of Ukiah): Concur with findings. 4 1999- 2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report Recommendations 1. To facilitate understanding by the general public and the City Council, the Finance Director should prepare an Executive Summary that addresses the overall financial health of the City. This summary could combine the General Fund with all other funds. In a similar fashion, each department’s budget should include a summation of all revenue sources and spending categories. 2. All inactive funds should be discontinued. 3. Sexual orientation should be included in the non- discriminatory wording in the Equal Opportunity section of the Employees’ Manual. Response ( City of Ukiah): The City of Ukiah will add “ sexual orientation” to the non- discriminatory elements currently listed in Section 2.02 Equal Employment Opportunity of its Employee’s Manual. Sexual orientation is currently included in the City’s Harassment Policy and in the Equal Opportunity Employment statement at the bottom of each vacancy recruitment the City posts. 4. All job descriptions should be reviewed periodically. Response ( City of Ukiah): City of Ukiah job descriptions are reviewed periodically in a number of instances, which include: recruitment to fill a job vacancy; request for reclassification of a specific position; when duties of a job change; or when legal changes occur. The Personnel Department is staffed by one employee, therefore other duties and responsibilities take priority over the review of job descriptions until one of the above instances occurs, or as time allows. Comment Although the number of temporary, seasonal and part- time employees ( 109) seems unusually high at first glance, all of these positions may well be justified. Response Required Ukiah City Council Response Requested Ukiah City Manager 1999- 2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 5 CITY OF UKIAH POLICE DEPARTMENT The Ukiah Police Department ( UPD) is the law enforcement agency serving the city of Ukiah. The Grand Jury's investigation focused on the UPD training program, medical marijuana policy, and the impact of the new Chief on UPD operations. Reason for Investigation The Grand Jury received a citizen's complaint Method of Investigation The Grand Jury interviewed the Chief of Police and four Sergeants, the Director of the Mendocino County Department of Mental Health ( MCMHD), and a representative of the Ad Hoc Committee of Community Concern ( AHCCC). Documents reviewed: the Peace Officers Standards and Training Manual ( POST), information from the MCMHD, ( including mental health and developmental training information), UPD medical marijuana procedure, domestic violence training material, interoffice memoranda and the Policy and Procedures Manual. The Grand Jury toured the UPD facilities and the new state of the art dispatch center. Operations Findings 1. The UPD personnel consist of 41 employees. There are 26 sworn staff, 11 civilian staff, two Community Oriented Policing ( COPS), one Community Coordinator and one Major Task Force personnel. Response ( City of Ukiah): The department currently has 26 sworn officers. This includes the Community Oriented Policing personnel. One ( 1) officer assigned to the Major Crimes Task Force. 11 1/ 2 civilian employees, which include public safety dispatchers, front office staff, vehicle mechanic and parking enforcement officers. Public Safety dispatchers and vehicle mechanic are actually shared costs with other City departments. Total UPD Personnel: 37 1/ 2. 2. In the last two years the UPD received a grant and has invested approximately $ 500,000 to install a Windows NT network. This computer supports all divisions of Public Safety from emergency medical services to fire and police services. This system includes software for medical, fire, and police incident reporting and computer- aided dispatch software to track and assist in the deployment of emergency personnel. Peace officers, firefighters, and dispatchers now share a central database of information, which provides for enhancement and better use of their database. 6 1999- 2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report The UPD also received a grant from the State of California for a computer controlled 9- 1- 1 telephone and radio system. This computer is tied directly to the UPD computer- aided dispatch system and provides immediate information to dispatchers in emergency situations. Also installed was an emergency medical dispatching software package, which is now assisting dispatchers to provide immediate medical information on the phone as personnel respond to the scene. The UPD has also received a number of federal grants, which have provided the UPD with computer crime- mapping programs, digital cameras, laptop computers, and information access. Response ( City of Ukiah): Concur with findings. 3. The morale seems high in the UPD and the entire staff has great esteem for the new Chief. Response ( City of Ukiah): Concur with findings. 4. The turnover rate remains consistently low. The staff shows no indication of discontent with the management or the manner in which the UPD is functioning. Response ( City of Ukiah): Concur with findings. 5. In response to a police shooting in July 1998, a group of concerned citizens formed the AHCCC to address racial issues and law enforcement. In 1999, the UPD and AHCCC signed a statement of mutual understanding. Response ( City of Ukiah): Concur with findings. 6. The UPD adheres to a 1999 countywide medical marijuana policy issued by the District Attorney's Office and administered by the Sheriff's Department. Response ( City of Ukiah): Concur with findings. Training Findings 7. Effort is made to ensure that all peace officers comply with the mandatory training required by POST. This compliance has been certified by POST inspectors. Response ( City of Ukiah): Concur with findings. 8. Currently there is no system for monitoring compliance with minimal POST 1999- 2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 7 standards and additional UPD internal standards. A new computer program has been ordered to improve the tracking of the training requirements for the UPD. Response ( City of Ukiah): P. O. S. T. regulates and monitors adherence to P. O. S. T. standards with an internal record keeping system and on – site audit by P. O. S. T. personnel. Recommendations 1. The Grand Jury urges the UPD to continue to make training one of their top priorities. Response ( City of Ukiah): Concur with recommendation. The department will keep training a top priority for all department personnel. 2. The UPD should install the computer program and get the training- monitoring program up and operational as soon as possible. Response ( City of Ukiah): The computer program that was purchased to manage our training records has been received and installed. Three department employees are scheduled to received training to properly use the program. Training scheduled for July 2000. Findings 9. Peace officers are trained in domestic violence response, leadership, hostage negotiations, parolee contact, missing persons, field evidence, firearms instruction, civil liability, internal affairs, ethics, accident investigation, supervision, background investigation, sexual assault investigation, narcotics, canine, pepper spray restraint devices, crime- scene control and security, high-speed stops, and other training as offered. Response ( City of Ukiah): Concur with findings. 10. Although not required by POST, there were four formal training sessions with the MCMHD in the fall of 1999. . Response ( City of Ukiah): Concur with findings. Recommendation Training from the MCMHD should be established on a regularly scheduled basis. 8 1999- 2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report Response ( City of Ukiah): Concur. The department will continue to explore training opportunities with MCMHD. Regular scheduled training should be based on the needs of both departments and in conjunction with other law enforcement agencies. Additionally, U. P. D. invested in the training of two officers in mental health issues to enable them to return and provide ongoing training to U. P. D. employees. Finding 11. Training is sometimes restricted as a result of the budget restraints for reimbursement of pay as many of the classes require overtime. The UPD ran out of overtime in February 2000 and has since curtailed the training program. POST is responsible for setting training standards for the hiring of police officers. POST requires 24 hours of training per year, which is discretionary with each department. POST will reimburse local districts for up to 80 hours of training per officer per year, but does not include reimbursement for overtime. Response ( City of Ukiah): Concur with finding. However, P. O. S. T. does reimburse associated overtime for some specific training courses. Recommendation The Ukiah City Council should establish a separate training budget for the UPD that includes an adequate provision of necessary overtime. Response ( City of Ukiah): The Ukiah City Council did increase the overtime budget for fiscal year 2000- 20001. This should help with providing for some additional training. Response Required Ukiah City Council Response Requested Ukiah Police Department 1999- 2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 9 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION The Community Development Commission ( CDC) provides and maintains housing for low- income people. Funds are provided by Housing and Urban Development ( HUD) and by various state and federal grants. Because of the Congressional desire to provide housing for the homeless, CDC is the only agency that does not require proof of citizenship or a birth certificate to receive benefits. In Mendocino County, CDC is a public body created pursuant to the California Health and Safety Code. The Board of Supervisors ( BOS) established the CDC in 1975 to provide Mendocino County citizens the option of operating and governing its own Housing Authority under a single entity and a Board of Commissioners. This also provided a Redevelopment Agency and community development programs. Although CDC derives its powers from the state legislature, the BOS appoints the commissioners for CDC. Reason for Investigation The Grand Jury received a citizen’s complaint. Method of Investigation The Grand Jury interviewed several past and present employees of the CDC, the Executive Director ( ED), a Commissioner from the CDC Board, and representatives from other county- wide organizations working with CDC in the Homeless Services Planning Group ( HSPG). The HSPG is a collaborative representing twenty county agencies and organizations providing services and shelter to the county’s homeless. Documents reviewed consisted of financial statements, 1998 Audit, payroll information, purchase orders, personnel manual, minutes of the Board of Commissioners ( BOC) meetings, Memorandum of Understanding, Procurement Handbook for Public and Indian Housing Authorities and other HUD regulations, CDC’s Mission Statement and other relevant data furnished by CDC and other witnesses. The CDC main office was visited. Relevant Law Code of Federal Regulations ( 24CFR85.36) California Government Code, Section 54950 et seq. ( The Brown Act) Findings 1. There were no Request for Proposals ( RFPs) on the many computers purchased during 1998- 1999, totaling approximately $ 30,000 and there were no Purchase Orders on some. These computers were not purchased through 10 1999- 2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report competitive bidding. There was no justification found for this non- competitive purchase which is required by law ( see HUD Procurement Handbook ( Handbook), Section 4- 29) and 24CFR85.36. Purchases of several computers in 1998 did not include a background check of the manufacturer, which went into bankruptcy after CDC purchased the computers. However, CDC did buy extended warranties at the time of purchase, thereby retaining the warranty coverage on those computers. Response ( Community Development Commission): The CDC purchased a total of twelve computers during the year, six in January, 1999, and six in April, 1999, at a total cost of less than $ 25,000. Both purchases were based on a competitive bidding process in full compliance with the procedures and policies adopted by the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Although not required, the competitive bids were presented to and the Commissioners approved the purchases. Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Community Development Commission is appointed by the Board of Supervisors to administer state and federal programs available for low income housing development, purchase assistance, and renovation. The Commission, although appointed by the Board of Supervisors, functions independently in the management of said program responsibilities. Inasmuch, the Commission and its staff are responsible for the operational decisions, and compliance with laws and/ or procedures that govern their activities, including purchasing and bidding. In granting program responsibilities to the Commission, the Board of Supervisors expects careful oversight over all administrative actions, and compliance with all laws and applicable regulations. 2. Some employees reported excessive down time on these new computers. Response ( Community Development Commission): The CDC cannot respond to this Finding No. 2 because it is non- specific as to time, duration and details of any computer problems. CDC has not experienced any significant down time on the twelve new computers. The vendor has been prompt and cooperative in resolving any reported problems. Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Community Development Commission is appointed by the Board of Supervisors to administer state and federal programs available for low income housing development, purchase assistance, and renovation. The Commission, although appointed by the Board of Supervisors, functions independently in the management of said responsible for the operational decisions, and compliance with laws and/ or procedures that govern their activities. In granting program responsibilities to the 1999- 2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 11 Commission, the Board of Supervisors expects careful oversight over all administrative actions, and compliance with all laws and applicable regulations. 3. Further study reveals that in the purchase of their computers during 1998 and 1999, they violated Section II B 1, 2, 4, 5 & 6, and Section III B 4 of CDC’s Procurement Policy. These sections require annual planning processes, written contracts, documentation on the history of the procurement, solicitation procedures consistent with federal regulation 24CFR85.36, independent cost estimates, cost and price analysis of the bid responses ( no bids were solicited), and the requirement for three or more bids. Handbook Chapter 3- 2 explains that the BOC is responsible for establishing the Housing Authority’s ( HA) procurement policy and that the BOC should designate the ED as the person responsible for carrying out its policy. This action should be stated in the minutes of the Board meeting. Handbook Chapter 3- 3 explains the responsibilities of the ED. Response ( Community Development Commission): The Board of Commissioners approved the Procurement Policy on June 27, 1995. The Board of Commissioners review and approve policies as necessary. Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Community Development Commission is appointed by the Board of Supervisors to administer state and federal programs available for low income housing development, purchase assistance, and renovation. The Commission, although appointed by the Board of Supervisors, functions independently in the management of said program responsibilities. Inasmuch, the Commission and its staff are responsible for the operational decisions, and compliance with laws and/ or procedures that govern their activities. In granting program responsibilities to the Commission, the Board of Supervisors expects careful oversight over all administrative actions, and compliance with all laws and applicable regulations. 4. The CDC Procurement Policy specifies any purchase of $ 100,000 or less is a “ small purchase” and any amount up to $ 500 may be processed through petty cash. Purchases up to $ 25,000 do not need approval of the BOC. This allows sizable expenditures without BOC knowledge or approval. Response ( Community Development Commission): All of the procurement policies of the CDC are in full compliance with the requirements established by the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Community Development Commission is appointed by the Board of Supervisors to administer 12 1999- 2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report state and federal programs available for low income housing development, purchase assistance, and renovation. The Commission, although appointed by the Board of Supervisors, functions independently in the management of said program responsibilities. Inasmuch, the Commission and its staff are responsible for the operational decisions, and compliance with laws and/ or procedures that govern their activities. In granting program responsibilities to the Commission, the Board of Supervisors expects careful oversight over all administrative actions, and compliance with all laws and applicable regulations. 5. Instead of taking advantage of “ cooperative purchasing” with the County as authorized in Section III H of CDC’s Procurement Policy, CDC acts independent of the County. Response ( Community Development Commission): The CDC has and will continue coordinate and consult with the County on appropriate purchases. Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Community Development Commission is appointed by the Board of Supervisors to administer state and federal programs available for low income housing development, purchase assistance, and renovation. The Commission, although appointed by the Board of Supervisors, functions independently in the management of said program responsibilities. Inasmuch, the Commission and its staff are responsible for the operational decisions, and compliance with laws and/ or procedures that govern their activities. In granting program responsibilities to the Commission, the Board of Supervisors expects careful oversight over all administrative actions, and compliance with all laws and applicable regulations. Recommendations 1. The BOC should insure that their Procurement Policy, which according to CDC complies with all applicable federal regulations, is strictly followed. The Handbook should be used as a reference for the BOC to insure that the Procurement Policy follows appropriate federal regulations. Response ( CDC): Refer to response to Finding # 1. Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Board of Supervisors agrees. Time Frame for Implementation: Pursuant to CDC, already implemented. 1999- 2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 13 2. The BOC should review Handbook Chapters 3- 2 and 3- 3, plus other pertinent chapters in the Handbook and 24CFR85.36, to insure that they have taken all required steps in the procurement process. Response ( CDC): Refer to response to Finding # 3. Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Board of Supervisors agrees. Time Frame for Implementation: Pursuant to CDC, already implemented. 3. The Grand Jury recommends that the limits for “ Petty Cash” and the $ 25,000 limit not needing BOC approval be reevaluated and possibly lowered. The limits which are stated in the Handbook are maximum limits and can be lowered by the HA. The BOC should periodically audit Petty Cash. Handbook Chapter 4- 4 outlines procedures for Petty Cash. Response ( CDC): Refer to response to Finding # 4. Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Community Development Commission is appointed by the Board of Supervisors to administer state and federal programs available for low income housing development, purchase assistance, and renovation. The Commission, although appointed by the Board of Supervisors, functions independently in the management of said program responsibilities. Inasmuch, the Commission and its staff are responsible for the operational decisions, and compliance with laws and/ or procedures that govern their activities. In granting program responsibilities to the Commission, the Board of Supervisors expects careful oversight over all administrative actions, and compliance with all laws and applicable regulations. Time Frame for Implementation: Pursuant to CDC, already implemented. 4. The CDC should coordinate with the County on significant purchases ( as authorized in the CDC Procurement Policy) and draw upon County expertise in appropriate areas. Response ( CDC): Refer to response to Finding # 5. Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Board of Supervisors agrees. Time Frame for Implementation: Pursuant to CDC, already implemented. 14 1999- 2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report Finding 6. The Personnel Manual needs updating and many employees were not sure there was one that was actually followed by management. Neither management nor employees were sufficiently familiar with the manual. Response ( Community Development Commission): In 1996, the Personnel Manuel was substantially incorporated into and replaced by a comprehensive Memorandum of Understanding between the CDC and the employees’ union which then represented and now represents most of the CDC employees. The CDC acknowledges that the Personnel Manual needs to be revised as a comprehensive document separate and apart from the MOU. The CDC will revise the Personnel Manual within the next year. Response ( Board of Supervisors): Response: The Community Development Commission is appointed by the Board of Supervisors to administer state and federal programs available for low income housing development, purchase assistance, and renovation. The Commission, although appointed by the Board of Supervisors, functions independently in the management of said program responsibilities. Inasmuch, the Commission and its staff are responsible for the operational decisions, and compliance with laws and/ or procedures that govern their activities. In granting program responsibilities to the Commission, the Board of Supervisors expects careful oversight over all administrative actions, and compliance with all laws and applicable regulations. Recommendation The BOC should immediately insure that the Employee Manual is updated and that both management and staff are made aware of its existence. This manual should be used as a training tool for all staff. Response ( CDC): Refer to response to Finding # 6. Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Community Development Commission is appointed by the Board of Supervisors to administer state and federal programs available for low income housing development, purchase assistance, and renovation. The Commission, although appointed by the Board of Supervisors, functions independently in the management of said program responsibilities. 1999- 2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 15 Inasmuch, the Commission and its staff are responsible for the operational decisions, and compliance with laws and/ or procedures that govern their activities. In granting program responsibilities to the Commission, the Board of Supervisors expects careful oversight over all administrative actions, and compliance with all laws and applicable regulations. Time Frame for Implementation: The CDC will revise the Personnel Manual within the next year ( 12 months). Findings 7. The CDC has been generally uncooperative with the “ Core Group” of the HSPG in the homeless program. HSPG finds it difficult to coordinate with CDC and to meet with the CDC Director. Response ( Community Development Commission): The CDC participates in the “ Core Group” of the HSPG Program and has supported the homeless effect by doubling the grant award for the Shelter Plus Care Grant to provide over 100 united of homeless housing assistance for Mendocino County residents. The Executive Director has been actively involved and has been available for meetings with any member of the group. Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Community Development Commission is appointed by the Board of Supervisors to administer state and federal programs available for low income housing development, purchase assistance, and renovation. The Commission, although appointed by the Board of Supervisors, functions independently in the management of said program responsibilities. Inasmuch, the Commission and its staff are responsible for the operational decisions, and compliance with laws and/ or procedures that govern their activities. In granting program responsibilities to the Commission, the Board of Supervisors expects careful oversight over all administrative actions, and compliance with all laws and applicable regulations. 8. Relations are poor between management and many staff personnel, with reports of frequent occasions of verbal abuse from management, retaliatory action directed towards agency employees, along with mistrust of management, by staff. Response ( Community Development Commission): The CDC takes strong exception to this Finding. For several years prior to the hiring of the current executive director, the CDC had experienced substantial and recurring problems in the relationships between the 16 1999- 2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report prior executive director and staff The Commissioners, both individually and collectively, are extremely sensitive to this issue and have made a special effort to monitor the relationships between and among the executive director, management and staff. Some tension among these groups will always exist. However, the Commissioners believe that relationships among the executive director, management and staff are generally very good. In the event of any problem, the employees have a broad and explicit grievance procedure and a strong and responsive union. No grievances have been filed nor has the union regarding any inappropriate conduct presented any complaints by the current executive director and/ or management. The CDC cannot respond more specifically to this Finding because no details of any perceived problems were presented. The Commissioners will immediately investigate any specific instances and will protect the privacy of any employee who may raise a complaint. Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Community Development Commission is appointed by the Board of Supervisors to administer state and federal programs available for low income housing development, purchase assistance, and renovation. The Commission, although appointed by the Board of Supervisors, functions independently in the management of said program responsibilities. Inasmuch, the Commission and its staff are responsible for the operational decisions, and compliance with laws and/ or procedures that govern their activities. In granting program responsibilities to the Commission, the Board of Supervisors expects careful oversight over all administrative actions, and compliance with all laws and applicable regulations. 9. Needed information from management is frequently slow in being disseminated and is limited to select personnel, indicating poor internal communication. Response ( Community Development Commission): The CDC disagrees with this statement. Information is disseminated quickly and is distributed to all appropriate staff. Monthly staff meetings are held within each department as well as an agency wide staff meeting. It is necessary for staff to attend the meetings to receive the information. Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Community Development Commission is appointed by the Board of Supervisors to administer state and federal programs available for low income housing development, purchase assistance, and renovation. The Commission, although appointed by the Board of Supervisors, functions independently in the management of said program responsibilities. Inasmuch, the Commission and its staff are responsible for the operational decisions, and compliance with laws and/ or procedures 1999- 2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 17 that govern their activities. In granting program responsibilities to the Commission, the Board of Supervisors expects careful oversight over all administrative actions, and compliance with all laws and applicable regulations. 10. Favoritism was a frequent complaint by many employees in many areas, including salaries and promotions. Response ( Community Development Commission): All salaries are set by a fixed salary schedule adopted by the Commissioners after negotiation with the employees’ union. It is impossible for the executive director and/ or management to play favorites in setting salaries. All job openings are well advertised within the agency and every effort is made to hire and promote from within the agency. Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Community Development Commission is appointed by the Board of Supervisors to administer state and federal programs available for low income housing development, purchase assistance, and renovation. The Commission, although appointed by the Board of Supervisors, functions independently in the management of said program responsibilities. Inasmuch, the Commission and its staff are responsible for the operational decisions, and compliance with laws and/ or procedures that govern their activities. In granting program responsibilities to the Commission, the Board of Supervisors expects careful oversight over all administrative actions, and compliance with all laws and applicable regulations. 10. Many employees state that they are afraid to speak out on issues and are fearful for their jobs. Response ( Community Development Commission): The employees are well represented by their union, which, in prior years, has not been reluctant to bring complaints and problems to the Commissioners. In past years, employees have also brought their concerns directly to the Commissioners in private communications. The identity and privacy of the employees was always protected. Neither the union nor any employees have brought any complaints to the Commissioners regarding the conduct of management and/ or the executive director. If the Grand Jury will provide specific information about employees who are afraid to speak out on important issues, the Commissioners will interview them and will protect their identity and privacy. Because so many employees have spoken out in the past without any type of retribution, the Commissioners find it difficult to believe that any employees are truly reluctant to bring their concerns directly to the Commissioners. 18 1999- 2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Community Development Commission is appointed by the Board of Supervisors to administer state and federal programs available for low income housing development, purchase assistance, and renovation. The Commission, although appointed by the Board of Supervisors, functions independently in the management of said program responsibilities. Inasmuch, the Commission and its staff are responsible for the operational decisions, and compliance with laws and/ or procedures that govern their activities. In granting program responsibilities to the Commission, the Board of Supervisors expects careful oversight over all administrative actions, and compliance with all laws and applicable regulations. Recommendation Management needs to receive training in personnel relations, anger management, inter- agency cooperation, internal communication, avoiding favoritism, and team building. Response ( CDC): Refer to response to Findings 10 & 11. Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Community Development Commission is appointed by the Board of Supervisors to administer state and federal programs available for low income housing development, purchase assistance, and renovation. The Commission, although appointed by the Board of Supervisors, functions independently in the management of said program responsibilities. Inasmuch, the Commission and its staff are responsible for the operational decisions, and compliance with laws and/ or procedures that govern their activities. In granting program responsibilities to the Commission, the Board of Supervisors expects careful oversight over all administrative actions, and compliance with all laws and applicable regulations. Time Frame for Implementation: On- going. This is an issue addressed between the Union representatives and the BOC. Finding 12. The CDC is publicly funded. The ED has been authorized to use an Agency vehicle, which happens to be a GMC sports utility vehicle. The ED stated she had to use it as she had no other vehicle. Use includes commuting to work between Ukiah and Willits, personal shopping, transportation of family members, plus business purposes. During the period June 1998 to January 2000, there were 23,700 miles put on the vehicle ( based on CDC data). During that same period, commuting alone would have used approximately 1999- 2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 19 17,000 miles, or well over 60% of the total mileage. This would leave little for other personal errands and normal business use. The CDC’s new policy is that the value of the percentage of personal use of the vehicle is listed as a fringe benefit on the ED’s IRS W2 Form. This still would not reimburse the Commission for use of the vehicle. The personal use of this or other vehicles is a questionable use of public funds. Response ( Community Development Commission): As part of the compensation package negotiated with the executive director, the Commissioners agreed to provide her with a vehicle for official and non- official use. Employees also use the vehicle during office hours as needed. This fringe benefit to the executive director is reported on her W- 2 form and the vehicle is fully insured. The use and mileage computations stated in the report are inaccurate. The report calculates that 60% of the 23,700 miles driven from June, 1998, to January, 2000, were driven in the executive director’s Willits- Ukiah commute. In fact, the executive director did not even move to Willits until October, 1999. Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Community Development Commission is appointed by the Board of Supervisors to administer state and federal programs available for low income housing development, purchase assistance, and renovation. The Commission, although appointed by the Board of Supervisors, functions independently in the management of said program responsibilities. Inasmuch, the Commission and its staff are responsible for the operational decisions, and compliance with laws and/ or procedures that govern their activities. In granting program responsibilities to the Commission, the Board of Supervisors expects careful oversight over all administrative actions, and compliance with all laws and applicable regulations. Recommendations 1. The Board of Commissioners should immediately consider its liability on the personal use of Agency vehicles. Response ( CDC): Refer to response to Finding # 12. Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Community Development Commission is appointed by the Board of Supervisors to administer state and federal programs available for low income housing development, purchase assistance, and renovation. The Commission, 20 1999- 2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report although appointed by the Board of Supervisors, functions independently in the management of said program responsibilities. Inasmuch, the Commission and its staff are responsible for the operational decisions, and compliance with laws and/ or procedures that govern their activities. In granting program responsibilities to the Commission, the Board of Supervisors expects careful oversight over all administrative actions, and compliance with all laws and applicable regulations. Time Frame for Implementation: BOC determines reasonable compensation package and vehicle needs for Director and staff. Board of Supervisors will communicate by February 2001 to BOC that they carefully consider Grand Jury concerns regarding the use of public funds for personal vehicle use when developing compensation package for staff. 2. If the CDC Board of Commissioners wishes to enhance the ED’s compensation, the Grand Jury recommends that a more direct and visible approach through salary increases be used. Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Community Development Commission is appointed by the Board of Supervisors to administer state and federal programs available for low income housing development, purchase assistance, and renovation. The Commission, although appointed by the Board of Supervisors, functions independently in the management of said program responsibilities. Inasmuch, the Commission and its staff are responsible for the operational decisions, and compliance with laws and/ or procedures that govern their activities. In granting program responsibilities to the Commission, the Board of Supervisors expects careful oversight over all administrative actions, and compliance with all laws and applicable regulations. Time Frame for Implementation: BOC determines reasonable compensation package and vehicle needs for Director and staff. Board of Supervisors will communicate by February 2001 to BOC that they carefully consider Grand Jury concerns regarding the use of public funds for personal vehicle use when developing compensation package for staff. Findings 13. The stated mission of CDC is “... working vigorously toward providing Mendocino County residents the opportunity for an affordable home in a suitable living environment.” 1999- 2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 21 Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Board of Supervisors agrees. 14. In early 1998 two CDC units at their South Dora Street, Ukiah, location were destroyed by fire. Shortly thereafter CDC received an insurance payment of approximately $ 200,000. To this date the units have not been replaced or rebuilt. The insurance proceeds remain idle. Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Community Development Commission is appointed by the Board of Supervisors to administer state and federal programs available for low income housing development, purchase assistance, and renovation. The Commission, although appointed by the Board of Supervisors, functions independently in the management of said program responsibilities. Inasmuch, the Commission and its staff are responsible for the operational decisions, and compliance with laws and/ or procedures that govern their activities. In granting program responsibilities to the Commission, the Board of Supervisors expects careful oversight over all administrative actions, and compliance with all laws and applicable regulations. 15. There is a significant shortage of low cost housing units in Mendocino County. Response ( Board of Supervisors): The word significant is ambiguous, but the Board of Supervisors agrees that addition low and moderate income housing is needed. 16. A program for the construction of additional affordable housing units is now in its early stages and has yet to be presented to the BOC. Response to Findings # 13- 16 ( Community Development Commission): The CDC has worked aggressively to increase affordable housing within the county. Since December, 1997 over 160 new housing units have been added: Seventy- five new vouchers for Family Unification Fifty additional certificates for the Shelter Plus Care Program Fifteen new units of Public Housing opened in Ukiah Fifteen new units of Public Housing opened in Fort Bragg Seven new units of affordable housing opened in Ukiah The two particular units that were destroyed by fire in March, 1998, were not replaced in- kind because HUD de- funded the construction of additional public housing units. 22 1999- 2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Board neither agrees or disagrees with this finding. Recommendation The CDC should take immediate steps to initiate purchase and construction projects to replace the destroyed units and expand the inventory of affordable rental units. Response ( CDC): Refer to response to Finding # 16. Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Community Development Commission is appointed by the Board of Supervisors to administer state and federal programs available for low income housing development, purchase assistance, and renovation. The Commission, although appointed by the Board of Supervisors, functions independently in the management of said program responsibilities. Inasmuch, the Commission and its staff are responsible for the operational decisions, and compliance with laws and/ or procedures that govern their activities. In granting program responsibilities to the Commission, the Board of Supervisors expects careful oversight over all administrative actions, and compliance with all laws and applicable regulations. Time Frame for Implementation: On- going. Finding 17. The BOC is charged with overseeing and making critical decisions concerning the administration of a highly complex housing program. They are further challenged to grasp the mass of regulations promulgated by HUD. In response to this need, the National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials sponsors a series of seminars and workshops, specifically designed for commissioners whose background is not in housing. Unfortunately, not all of the Commissioners have taken advantage of this important training. Response ( Community Development Commission): The majority of the Commissioners have attended conferences and training sessions in an effort to remain current with the complex housing issues and seemingly ever changing policies and regulations. The executive director regularly circulates among Commissioners descriptions of available training sessions. 1999- 2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 23 Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Community Development Commission is appointed by the Board of Supervisors to administer state and federal programs available for low income housing development, purchase assistance, and renovation. The Commission, although appointed by the Board of Supervisors, functions independently in the management of said program responsibilities. Inasmuch, the Commission and its staff are responsible for the operational decisions, and compliance with laws and/ or procedures that govern their activities. In granting program responsibilities to the Commission, the Board of Supervisors expects careful oversight over all administrative actions, and compliance with all laws and applicable regulations. Recommendation Training in HUD regulations and community development should be mandated for all members of the BOC. The BOC should be more aware of the business transactions conducted by the Commission and of personnel morale. Response ( CDC): Refer to response to Finding # 17. Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Community Development Commission is appointed by the Board of Supervisors to administer state and federal programs available for low income housing development, purchase assistance, and renovation. The Commission, although appointed by the Board of Supervisors, functions independently in the management of said program responsibilities. Inasmuch, the Commission and its staff are responsible for the operational decisions, and compliance with laws and/ or procedures that govern their activities. In granting program responsibilities to the Commission, the Board of Supervisors expects careful oversight over all administrative actions, and compliance with all laws and applicable regulations. Time Frame for Implementation: On- going. Finding 18. As required by HUD, personnel authorized to draw down money from their HUD account are issued an individual password code. No other person is authorized to use that code. The password code used to draw down money from HUD and restricted to specific users was reported by several employees to be loosely controlled. At this time, there is no authorized alternate person available. 24 1999- 2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report Response ( Community Development Commission): Control over the HUD account password ( LOCCS) is regulated by a designated Commissioner, currently Commissioner Henderson. The only person with authority to use the password is the executive director. The CDC will implement the recommendation of the Grand Jury and designate a second person with access authority. Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Community Development Commission is appointed by the Board of Supervisors to administer state and federal programs available for low income housing development, purchase assistance, and renovation. The Commission, although appointed by the Board of Supervisors, functions independently in the management of said program responsibilities. Inasmuch, the Commission and its staff are responsible for the operational decisions, and compliance with laws and/ or procedures that govern their activities. In granting program responsibilities to the Commission, the Board of Supervisors expects careful oversight over all administrative actions, and compliance with all laws and applicable regulations. Recommendation Necessary steps should be taken to insure that there is an authorized alternate and the control of password codes is strictly enforced. Response ( CDC): Refer to response to Finding # 18. Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Community Development Commission is appointed by the Board of Supervisors to administer state and federal programs available for low income housing development, purchase assistance, and renovation. The Commission, although appointed by the Board of Supervisors, functions independently in the management of said program responsibilities. Inasmuch, the Commission and its staff are responsible for the operational decisions, and compliance with laws and/ or procedures that govern their activities. In granting program responsibilities to the Commission, the Board of Supervisors expects careful oversight over all administrative actions, and compliance with all laws and applicable regulations. Time Frame for Implementation: Immediately. Finding 19. There were many reports of improper hiring and promotion practices. Job announcements were not always posted. Also, according to testimony, temporary employees were hired and then assigned to permanent jobs without posting. 1999- 2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 25 Response ( Community Development Commission): The CDC disagrees with this statement. All employment opportunities are posted internally so those interested employees may apply. All employment opportunities are advertised in the local newspaper. Since this finding is non- specific, the CDC is unable to provide specific information. Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Community Development Commission is appointed by the Board of Supervisors to administer state and federal programs available for low income housing development, purchase assistance, and renovation. The Commission, although appointed by the Board of Supervisors, functions independently in the management of said program responsibilities. Inasmuch, the Commission and its staff are responsible for the operational decisions, and compliance with laws and/ or procedures that govern their activities. In granting program responsibilities to the Commission, the Board of Supervisors expects careful oversight over all administrative actions, and compliance with all laws and applicable regulations. Recommendation If the BOC does not now have a formal procedure to critically evaluate the ED and staff morale; a comprehensive procedure should be developed. Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Community Development Commission is appointed by the Board of Supervisors to administer state and federal programs available for low income housing development, purchase assistance, and renovation. The Commission, although appointed by the Board of Supervisors, functions independently in the management of said program responsibilities. Inasmuch, the Commission and its staff are responsible for the operational decisions, and compliance with laws and/ or procedures that govern their activities. In granting program responsibilities to the Commission, the Board of Supervisors expects careful oversight over all administrative actions, and compliance with all laws and applicable regulations. Time Frame for Implementation: Not applicable. Recommendation of Grand Jury is not consistent with Finding # 19 which is directly applicable to the hiring process and not the evaluation of Executive Director and staff morale. Finding 26 1999- 2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 20. It was reported that the ED recommends to the BOS people to be appointed as commissioners to CDC. Response ( Community Development Commission): All Commissioner appointments are made by the Board of Supervisors. The individual Commissioners, the executive director and employees may make recommendations to the Board of Supervisors as can any member of the public. The CDC believes that the Board of Supervisors, both individually and collectively, have sufficient interest, intelligence and independence to make appointments that are in the best interests of the public, regardless of the recommendations received from the executive director and/ or anyone else associated with the CDC. In any event, only a single Commissioner has been appointed during the term of the current executive director. Response ( Board of Supervisors): The County Administrative Office is not aware of this practice. It is the practice of the County to properly notice vacancies to all boards and commissions. The Board of Supervisors then makes appointments based upon information included in the application. Recommendation The BOS should appoint commissioners without getting recommendations from the ED, which is allowing the “ employee” to recommend who their “ supervisor” should be. Response ( CDC): Refer to response to Finding # 20. Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Board of Supervisors agrees. Time Frame for Implementation: Already implemented. Findings 21. BOC meeting notices are posted only at the North State Street main office. Response ( CDC): The CDC disagrees with this statement. The Board of Commissioner” meetings are posted at the CDC offices in Willits, Fort Bragg, and Ukiah. Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Community Development Commission is appointed by the Board of Supervisors to administer state and federal programs available for low income housing development, purchase assistance, and renovation. The Commission, although appointed by the Board of Supervisors, functions independently in the management of said program responsibilities. 1999- 2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 27 Inasmuch, the Commission and its staff are responsible for the operational decisions, and compliance with laws and/ or procedures that govern their activities. In granting program responsibilities to the Commission, the Board of Supervisors expects careful oversight over all administrative actions, and compliance with all laws and applicable regulations. 22. Board minutes are frequently not clear to anyone who was not present at the meeting. Discussions are frequently reported without mention of what the subject is about. Response ( Community Development Commission): The CDC disagrees with this statement. The Board minutes are clear and concise. All minutes are approved by the Board of Commissioners. Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Community Development Commission is appointed by the Board of Supervisors to administer state and federal programs available for low income housing development, purchase assistance, and renovation. The Commission, although appointed by the Board of Supervisors, functions independently in the management of said program responsibilities. Inasmuch, the Commission and its staff are responsible for the operational decisions, and compliance with laws and/ or procedures that govern their activities. In granting program responsibilities to the Commission, the Board of Supervisors expects careful oversight over all administrative actions, and compliance with all laws and applicable regulations. Recommendations 1. While the posting of BOC meetings meet legal requirements, the Grand Jury recommends that CDC consider using county wide news media to post meeting notices. For example, BOS meetings are posted at numerous other public places besides the Court House. Response ( CDC): Refer to response to Finding # 21. Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Community Development Commission is appointed by the Board of Supervisors to administer state and federal programs available for low income housing development, purchase assistance, and renovation. The Commission, although appointed by the Board of Supervisors, functions independently in the management of said program responsibilities. Inasmuch, the Commission and its staff are responsible for the operational decisions, and compliance with laws and/ or procedures that govern their activities. In granting program responsibilities to the Commission, the Board of Supervisors expects careful oversight over 28 1999- 2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report all administrative actions, and compliance with all laws and applicable regulations. Time Frame for Implementation: Not applicable. CDC meets legal noticing requirements. 2. Minutes of BOC meetings need to be more specific as to what is discussed. A person not attending the meeting should be able to readily understand what the subject of discussion was by reading the minutes. The BOC should also ensure that all decisions, and the specifics of those decisions, be included in the minutes. Response ( CDC): Refer to response to Finding # 22. Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Community Development Commission is appointed by the Board of Supervisors to administer state and federal programs available for low income housing development, purchase assistance, and renovation. The Commission, although appointed by the Board of Supervisors, functions independently in the management of said program responsibilities. Inasmuch, the Commission and its staff are responsible for the operational decisions, and compliance with laws and/ or procedures that govern their activities. In granting program responsibilities to the Commission, the Board of Supervisors expects careful oversight over all administrative actions, and compliance with all laws and applicable regulations. Time Frame for Implementation: Not applicable. Comment There is the appearance of a lack of planning in purchasing of some items. A long range planning program for housing has now been started, but is still in its infancy stage. There are other procurement requirements for the BOC to act on as specified in Chapter Three, of the Handbook, which the Grand Jury did not review due to time constraints. The BOC has serious responsibilities in the area of procurement. A common goal exists; funds are provided; and it is reasonable to expect that the various agencies involved be able to work together in a state of harmony. It is the responsibility of all publicly funded agencies to see that public funds are properly and effectively administered. All persons involved, regardless of agency, should be able to “ meet and confer” in a friendly, business- like atmosphere, to determine the proper application of these public funds to achieve the goals set forth. 1999- 2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 29 All employees have the right to expect to be treated in a professional manner in the work place and to act in a professional manner, as well. Vigilance and discipline is necessary when administering public funds. Anyone in a position of public trust has the responsibility to protect public funds and faithfully pursue the Agency’s mission to serve the public interest. Response Required Mendocino County Board of Supervisors Board of Commissioners, Mendocino County Community Development Commission 30 1999- 2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report CONFLICT OF INTEREST In 1997, a citizen was arrested and in the process of the arrest and arraignment, the complainant alleged conflict of interest, corruption- misuse of office, and conspiracy to defraud on the part of the former Deputy District Attorney. Reason for Investigation The Grand Jury received a citizen's complaint. Method of Investigation The Grand Jury interviewed the complainant and five past and present members of the District Attorney's Office, as well as defense attorneys and Probation Court Officers. All attorneys interviewed were questioned for their familiarity with conflict of interest rules and guidelines and were also presented with a standard set of hypothetical scenarios to determine the consistency of responses. The Grand Jury reviewed the case file of arrest and court proceedings and all documentation including video tapes provided by the complainant. The Grand Jury also reviewed the California Code of Ethics, the District Attorney's Policy and Procedures Manual, and the Attorney General's Conflict of Interest guidelines. Newspaper archives were searched back to 1996 for reports of conflict of interest issues. Findings 1. The Grand Jury found, based on all the information presented, no evidence of conflict of interest, misuse of office, nor conspiracy to defraud by the former Deputy District Attorney who prosecuted the case. Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Board neither agrees or disagrees with this finding. 2. Based on the documents and official records reviewed, the account of the arrest, trial and conviction offered by the complainant was not supported. Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Board neither agrees or disagrees with this finding. 3. The new Policy and Procedures Manual developed by the District Attorney in 1999, contains specific conflict of interest guidelines that are understood by Deputy District Attorneys. Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding. 1999- 2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 31 4. State standards and Code of Ethics were in place in 1997 and were well known and understood by those Deputy District Attorneys interviewed. Both in 1997 and currently when questions of ethics or conflict of interest arise, Deputy District Attorneys seek guidance from senior staff members. Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding. Recommendations 1. The District Attorney's Office continues to maintain a high level of awareness regarding conflict of interest. Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this recommendation. The District Attorney has developed a Policy and Procedures Manual that details the Conflict of Interest Code. 2. The quality and utility of the District Attorney's Policy and Procedures manual are exemplary; all County Departments should have current, active manuals. Response ( District Attorney): The District Attorney’s Office agrees with this response. Under this administration all prosecutors are held to a high standard of professional ethics. For this reason, a Policy and Procedures Manual was developed. Furthermore, any case for which there is a question or an appearance of a conflict is referred to the Attorney General. If that agency feels a conflict exists, it will take over the prosecution. This office thanks the Grand Jury for the written compliments. Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this recommendation and will encourage all departments to update and/ or develop a comprehensive policy and procedures manual. Response Required Mendocino County District Attorney Mendocino County Board of Supervisors 32 1999- 2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report MENDOCINO COUNTY ADULT PROBATION DEPARTMENT The duty of the Mendocino County Probation Department, as an integral part of the criminal justice system, is to promote public safety by reducing criminal behavior and its impact on the community. Supervision and court services are the primary functions of the adult Probation Department. The Probation Department provides services to the Mendocino County Superior Court through the preparation of adult pre- sentence recommendation reports, violation of probation petitions and supplemental reports including bail and release recommendation studies. Probation officers appear in court on adult sentencing, pre- trial hearings, and arraignments. Specific court probation officers are assigned to each court in Mendocino County. On occasion the Court may determine at arraignment that a person is marginally acceptable for release and may set specific conditions for release under the tight supervision of a probation officer. The Probation Department also monitors compliance and progress of persons in court- directed diversions to drug programs, counseling, or educational services. The Department’s supervision unit enforces court- ordered terms and conditions of probation by providing supervision of offenders. This is accomplished by regularly scheduled contacts, urine analysis, victim contacts, monitoring treatment, and verifying the collection of restitution and fines. Often, the terms of probation include mandatory counseling. The Probation Department certifies each program and monitors these programs for compliance with guidelines and standards. Probation also provides advocacy for victims and is involved in the community by the development and support of a system of prevention, intervention and treatment programs. The Department has offices in Ukiah ( Stanley Street and Low Gap Road), Fort Bragg, and Willits. The Probation Department also has jurisdiction and important responsibilities on all juvenile matters including the administration of Juvenile Hall. However, this investigation is restricted to the Department’s adult functions. Reason for Review The Grand Jury conducted an oversight review of the adult portion of the Mendocino County Probation Department. It was last reviewed by the Grand Jury in 1988. Method of Investigation The Grand Jury interviewed fourteen past and present members of the Probation Department, including all first- line supervisors. The Chief Probation Officer was interviewed at three stages of the investigation. Deputy District Attorneys, Public Defenders, a Service Employees International Union ( SEIU) representative and the Mendocino County Administrative Officer were also interviewed. Documents reviewed included salary and benefit surveys, retirement provisions, union bargaining packets, the Probation Department Administrative Manual, Department 1999- 2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 33 policies and procedures, interoffice memoranda, case load trend data, probation annual reports, County budgets, the County Policy and Procedures Manual, and relevant sections of the California Penal and Welfare and Institutions Codes. Courtroom hearings both in Ukiah and Willits were attended to observe Probation Court Officers. The Grand Jury also toured the Standley Street facility. Relevant Law The activities of probation officers are governed by numerous California Code sections. Penal Code Sections 1191 through 1209.5 specifically stipulate the main requirements for county Probation Departments. Staffing Findings 1. Turnover in the department has been chronically high ( 8% per annum) and had increased to 16% during 1999. Response ( Probation): Agree with this finding. Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding. 2. The causes of this high turnover, reported by those interviewed, included: a. low salary b. lack of safety retirement benefit c. low morale d. dissatisfaction with management e. lack of opportunity for advancement Response ( Probation): Agree with the finding in that those interviewed may have indicated the listed reasons. The Chief Probation Officer believes staff was justified in their perceptions of the turnover. However, the Department has performed exit interviews with most of the staff that departed. Low salary, safety retirement, and lack of promotional opportunities were the primary reasons given. Low morale was not mentioned, nor was dissatisfaction with management. These two were probably the result of the restructuring of the Department that occurred during that year, but was abandoned later because of various reasons which will be discussed in subsequent sections of this response. 34 1999- 2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with the response provided by the Chief Probation Officer. Each area is either being dealt with by the Department or the County in general. 3. The high turnover rate has resulted in chronic under- staffing, thereby increasing case load and job stress. Response ( Probation): Highly agree with this finding. Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding and has taken steps such as the Compensation and Classification Study to eliminate low salaries. 4. In January 1999, the Mendocino County Courts restructured the Ukiah court system to assign cases to courtrooms alphabetically according to the last name of the defendant . The introduction of this “ vertical” system has exacerbated Probation Department under- staffing. Recognizing this hardship, the Courts are now accepting written reports from Probation Court Officers in certain circumstances. Response ( Probation): Agree with this finding. The Courts were cooperative in assisting the Department in staffing for the different judicial department assignments. However, Probation Court Officers are still required to spend an inordinate amount of time in court, due to delays or intervening cases, making it difficult for the officers to find time to prepare the required written court reports. Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with the response of the Chief Probation Officer. The Board appreciates the Courts willingness to cooperate with Probation and to look for alternative solutions. 5. A 1998 survey of Probation Department salaries in 50 of California’s 59 counties , conducted by Kern County, indicated that salaries are a direct function of the population of the county. For example, Mendocino County ranked 34th in population among the 50 counties. Deputy Probation Officer I salaries ranked 33rd and Deputy Probation Officer II ranked 32nd. Response ( Probation): Agree with this finding. The survey is prepared biennially for and on behalf of the Chief Probation Officers of California ( CPOC) association, with information derived from each of the participating county probation departments. Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with the response provided by the Chief Probation Officer. 1999- 2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 35 6. Most Deputy Probation Officers ( DPO’s) interviewed felt they were underpaid. However, the County- financed January 2000 Slavin Report reveals those salaries for DPO’s are on a par with other sample counties. Response ( Probation): Agree with this finding. The disparity comes in the higher level positions. Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding. Salary issues were found at the higher level positions. 7. However, both the Slavin Report and the Kern County study reveal that the salary of Mendocino County’s Chief Probation Officer ( CPO) is substantially less than CPO’s in other comparable counties. Response ( Probation): Agree with this finding. The CPO has researched this issue independently and came to the same conclusion. Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding. 8. The Probation Department has, for a number of years, experienced great difficulty in its ability to recruit qualified staff. Response ( Probation): Agree with this finding. This is a statewide problem that has been discussed at many CPOC meetings. Educational requirements are the biggest stumbling blocks, although many applicants do not pass the background investigations, because of criminal records or fabricated information in the applications. A combination of education and experience has been our measuring tape for the last several years. The Chiefs are mounting a media campaign to make the public more aware of probation services and our roles in the community. A sharing of employment applications throughout the State has also been discussed. The Department is working with the Mendocino College to start internship and work- experience programs, which should increase interest in this field. Also impacting our recruitment are the issues mentioned in item 2 of this section. We are hopeful that increased salaries and safety retirement will entice more applicants. Internal incentives, such as adjusted professional hours ( a current practice), may also have an impact. 36 1999- 2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding. This issue occurs in almost all California counties. The Chief Probation Officer is fully aware of this concern and has taken steps, in cooperation with Mendocino College, to develop an internship program. The Board is also in the final stages of implementation of the Slavin Study, which will increase salaries. 9. Despite recommendations from the CPO and proposals from the SEIU, Local 707, the Board of Supervisors ( BOS) has rejected offering Probation Officers Safety retirement. Twenty- eight of the 46 counties surveyed offer this benefit. The Union volunteered to pay for half the cost of an actuarial study. Response ( Probation): Agree with this finding in part. The issue of safety retirement has been discussed at meet and confer sessions during MOU negotiations. The request for an actuarial study was presented by the Union and reportedly rejected by the BOS. I have met with the Union representative and our staff, and are in the process of preparing a presentation for safety retirement for the BOS. As of this time, no formal discussion between the BOS and the CPO has taken place. The Department highly encourages the County to implement it, both for officer safety consideration and as a recruitment incentive. Response ( Board of Supervisors): The issue of safety retirement for Probation Officers is still in discussions and will be reviewed this fiscal year. The Board’s goal this year is the implementation of the Slavin Study with other issues moved to future review. 10. A number of those interviewed voiced complaints concerning the lack of opportunity for advancement. However, it is clear that promotion from within the department is commonplace. Response ( Probation): Agree with this finding. This is a small department with few chances for promotion. The Department has recently acquired several mid- management positions through court funding, grants, and inter- agency agreements, allowing for internal advancement. However, there are many qualified officers competing for these few positions. Safety retirement might encourage upper management officers to retire earlier, but until then there do not appear to be many promotional opportunities. Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with the response provided by the Chief Probation Officer. Recommendations 1999- 2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 37 1. The BOS should determine the cost of high Probation Department turnover, including recruitment, training, and loss of experience. Response ( Probation): Agree with this recommendation and would fully cooperate in this determination. As the problems with recruitment were discussed earlier, the issues of retention are also important to explore. The State ( through the Board of Corrections) and the County contribute to the cost of training deputized staff. To lose staff for any reason is fiscally painful due to the high investment for this early training. The loss of experienced staff creates liability issues, while increasing demands on seasoned staff to train and support newer officers during the initial probationary periods. As stated earlier, this is not unique to Mendocino County Probation, and efforts are being made on a statewide basis to reduce turnover. Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Board understands the high cost of turnover and we have taken steps to reduce the problem with the Classification and Compensation Study ( Slavin), reviewing safety retirement and encouraging the Chief Probation Officer to examine and modify internal issues that may affect an employees willingness to continue employment with the Department. Time Frame for Implementation: Anticipated completion of cost estimate of the high turnover is April, 2001. This will include recruitment, training costs, clerical time, etc. 2. The BOS should review Probation Department salaries to determine if an increase would likely reduce turnover, increase job satisfaction and facilitate recruitment. Response ( Probation): Agree with this recommendation. The CPO believes the Slavin Study is the first step in this direction. Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Board believes that the Slavin Study will address this recommendation. Time Frame for Implementation: Slavin Study will be implemented effective November 26, 2000. The determination of any appreciable difference should be completed by December, 2001. 3. The BOS should seriously re- evaluate the cost and benefit of making Safety Retirement available to all qualified employees of the Probation Department. An actuarial study should be conducted. Response ( Probation): Agree with this recommendation. 38 1999- 2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report Response ( Board of Supervisors): This issue will come forward in the next several months. The Board will take a critical look and this recommendation based on our financial abilities and with a need to retain our valuable employees. Time Frame for Implementation: The Department anticipates presenting a recommendation to the Board in April, 2001. 4. New staff positions should be established to satisfy the burden of the vertical court system. Response ( Probation): Agree with this finding. With a limited overall county budget, it is difficult to implement new positions. I have been seeking grants and other funding streams to enhance staffing. Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Board authorized one new probation officer during the Final Budget process. The Chief Probation Officer is seeking grants to reduce the impact on the County’s General Fund and thus still address the expanding needs of our communities. Time Frame for Implementation: On- going through grant applications and seeking other funding streams to enhance staffing. Organization and Facilities Findings 11. Line staff was not adequately prepared for the reorganization of the Probation Department in December 1998. Their views were not solicited and as a result they were antagonistic to the new organization from its inception. Response ( Probation): Highly disagree with this finding. It may be the perception of some line staff that the reorganization was imposed upon them with little of their input, but input from all staff was solicited at every step of the reorganization. Management level staff was instructed to consult line staff for suggestions and criticism, which is verified in administrative staff meeting minutes. The unit supervisors reported that there was very little input from their line staff, and that which was received was considered and used or rejected after extensive discussion. Management “ retreats” were held to compile staff input and to design the new organization. Many line and management issues for the improvement of operations were thoroughly discussed. No policy, procedure, or change of operation was implemented without agreement from the entire group. Once the reorganization plan was 1999- 2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 39 published, there was plenty of time for input for modifications and corrections. It was emphasized all along that the reorganization was not set in concrete, and that the plan was open to constructive criticism and modification. Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Board disagrees with this finding and agrees with the response provided by the Chief Probation Officer. The Chief Probation Officer took several steps to include all staff in the preliminary discussions and reviews before any modification took place. Change is difficult for everyone. Some employees may have felt left out but did have an opportunity to share their opinions at various stages of the process. 12. Prior to December 1998, the juvenile and adult units were separated. The new organization created court and supervision units that encompassed both the adult and juvenile functions, which seriously restricted communication. The new organization also had inherent supervision problems ( e. g., one supervisor had 22 DPO’s reporting to him). Response ( Probation): Disagree with this finding, which appears to place the failure of the reorganization on restricted communications and staffing patterns. As probation departments in general are finding that many members of families are on probation at the same time ( parents and siblings alike), supervision of the family unit as a whole is becoming more and more essential to community corrections. The new model recognized this as a new and innovative way of dealing with this trend. The model also retained juvenile/ adult practices, but required staff to learn practices with which they were not familiar. This created a feeling of being overburdened with the learning process, while trying to deal with burgeoning caseloads. To add to the dilemma, the turnover of staff may have been indicative of the staff’s dislike for the reorganization, but it also exacerbated the problems of implementing the new design. To their credit, the officers made valiant efforts to learn both adult and juvenile laws, courtroom procedures, and supervision requirements, assisting each other in this process. Restricted communications resulted from two unexpected areas, the shift from the juvenile/ adult paradigm that had been practiced for years, and having staff in more than one location. The difficulty in adapting to the new model was evident in the territorial protectiveness that staff was not willing to give up. This impacted sharing of information. Complaints that court officers were not leaving adequate and appropriate information in the files for the supervision officers, and vice versa, exemplified the discontent with the reorganization. However, 40 1999- 2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report these complaints pre- date the restructuring and are again expressed by staff today. There seemed to have been a reluctance to simply communicate by telephone and e- mail ( Jalan), which would have simplified the process. Not being under one roof is, and will be, a problem for communications among the staff, but a willingness to communicate is imperative. As just noted, there still seems to be an inability or reluctance to share information in a timely manner. Management staff is cognizant of this and has worked to eliminate communication problems. The issue of supervisor/ staff ratio was in the process of being rectified by creating more DPO III ( mid- management) positions. Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Board disagrees with this finding and agrees with the response provided by the Chief Probation Officer. The Department was finding that several family members are on probation at the same time, thus supervision of the family unit became essential to community corrections. This new model retained juvenile/ adult practices, but did require staff to learn practices unfamiliar to them. This did create a feeling of being overburdened with the process since Probation was experiencing staff concerns at the time. Communication was a concern before this restructuring and is being addressed by staff. Staff is addressing the supervision issue by creating more mid- management positions. 13. To the credit of the CPO, recognizing the widespread dissatisfaction and inherent problems, he rescinded the new organization in October 1999. It was replaced by an organizational structure that reinstated many, but not all, of the features of the 1998 form. Response ( Probation): As much as the Department appreciates the comment, the CPO disagrees with the finding. The CPO did not rescind the reorganization due to dissatisfaction or inherent problems. The believed and still believes that the restructuring would have been effective in delivering better service. Many felt it was for the good of the department and participated fully. However, the CPO received many comments from outside sources that several staff were openly critical of the reorganization and expressed their negative views and reluctance to participate loudly in the public forum. These staff members did not come directly to the CPO with their concerns or comments or suggestions as to how to improve service delivery. Further, there were outside influences that impacted the reorganization in a negative way. The vertical calendar model for the courts changed the staffing pattern for the adult courts. Domestic violence caseloads increased dramatically, causing a shift in supervision priorities. The 1999- 2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 41 reassignment of judges and the creation of new therapeutic courts shifted demands for court services. In a memorandum presented to staff and the courts, the CPO compared the situation to Sebastion Junger’s book, The Perfect Storm, where several smaller storms from various areas combined to create a super storm that sunk an unsuspecting boat. Significant issues combined suddenly to make the new model difficult to implement at the time. Considering the loss of staff during this period and the new DPOs having to be trained, along with the above- noted problems, the CPO decided that the reorganization would not work at that time, and therefore, returned to a modified form of the previous organization. This pleased most, if not all, staff mainly because it relieved the tension that surrounded the project. Many staff members have commented that they learned many things from the experiment: the roles and responsibilities of those whose positions were different and/ or misunderstood, a greater appreciation of the amount of work performed by others, new and exciting information and techniques not previously shared between the units, a willingness to look at whole families and not individuals, and a better understanding of the problems inherent in remaining in a position so long that the tasks become routine and personal pride gets eroded. The reorganization was based on a model used in other county probation departments throughout the nation. Given a different time and more favorable circumstances, the CPO would again reorganize along the same lines. Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with the response provided by the Chief Probation Officer. Because of staff shortages such as loss of line staff, supervisors must perform non-supervisory roles on a limited basis. The department is attempting to reduce this concern through additional mid- management staff. 14. The current organization continues to have managerial problems in that supervisorial units are extremely large and one of the most experienced supervisors is assigned a non- supervisory role. Response ( Probation): Agree in part with this finding. Supervision caseloads are large, but cannot be compared to court responsibilities in terms of workload. Each task requires specialized abilities that can be measured qualitatively and quantitatively. Unit supervisors are often required to perform line duties because of loss of staff through termination, loss of line staff to training, increased work assignments generated by the courts, and inexperienced staff not being able to perform complex duties. These supervisors are burdened with supervising large staffs. We have attempted to alleviate some of this problem through additional mid- management positions. 42 1999- 2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report The unit supervisor who is not in a supervising role is assigned to coordinating training for the entire department, seeking and procuring grants and other funding prospects, and preparing guardianship reports for the civil court. The training function is easily a half- time position, requiring scheduling, monitoring, fiscal control, and evaluation of internal and state- required training. Deputized officers attended 4086 hours of state- mandated instruction during the last fiscal year. The department was required to perform guardianship investigation reports about two years ago, with no additional staff. What started as a trickle of requests has expanded into an almost full- time task. And this supervisor has been instrumental in obtaining grants and monitoring the TANF/ IVE allocations. Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with the response provided by the Chief Probation Officer. Because of staff shortages such as loss of line staff, supervisors must perform non-supervisory roles on a limited basis. The department is attempting to reduce this concern through additional mid- management staff. 15. The split of the organization between the Standley Street and Low Gap Road facilities burdens operations and causes communication problems. Having the Department under one roof was recommended in the 1999 Ross- Drulis Criminal Justice Facility Master Plan, funded by the BOS. Response ( Probation): Agree with this finding. Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding. Limited resources dictate logistic problems, which the Board is aware of. Recommendations 1. The CPO should solicit and listen to line staff views, when making decisions that directly affect them. Response ( Probation): Agree with this recommendation and the CPO staunchly maintains that that is his practice. Each employee is requested to present complaints and suggestions through the chain of command, but in a department of this size, communications frequently happens on an informal basis. The CPO appreciates the input from all levels of staff and solicit it on issues that will affect those involved. Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this recommendation and refers the Grand Jury to the Chief Probation Officers’ response. 1999- 2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 43 Time Frame for Implementation: On- going. 2. With input from all members of the Department, the current organization chart should be the subject of a thorough review. Response ( Probation): Agree with this recommendation. The organization was reviewed and restructured, with input from staff. The current organization is what the staff seems to have desired. Evaluation of service is an on- going process. Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this recommendation. The Chief Probation Officer assures us, through his response, that this process is ongoing. Time Line for Implementation: On- going. 3. The BOS should establish a time line for the implementation of the Criminal Justice Facility Master Plan which consolidates Probation Department services in one location. Response ( Probation): Agree with this recommendation. It would be ideal to have the department in one location. Response ( Board of Supervisors): Given the limited resources available to local government, the County of Mendocino developed a Capital Improvement Plan that prioritizes facilities issues. The Board adjusts this plan on a yearly basis and uses the Criminal Justice Facilities Master Plan as a component to that review. Job Performance Findings 16. Competency, job knowledge, and dedication were high at all levels in the department. Line staff demonstrated a deep commitment to their work. Response ( Probation): Highly agree with this finding. We have a well- trained and competent staff, eager to learn new techniques and procedures. This staff is dedicated and very committed to serving and protecting the community. The community as a whole should be proud of their efforts. Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding and thanks the Grand Jury for their comments. 44 1999- 2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 17. Outside obligations and commitments have caused the current CPO and his predecessor to be out of the office over 40% of the time, seriously limiting his availability to staff and knowledge of the day- to- day running of the department. Having his already overburdened supervisors stand in for him does not ease the situation. Response ( Probation): Since the Chief Probation Officer is the administrator of the department, it is necessary for him to spend a great deal of time in meetings with other agencies throughout the county and state, seeking collaborations for services, funding sources, and up- to- date legislative programs. Time is spent in consultation with the county administration, other chief probation officers, and training providers. The CPO attends commission and committee meetings by appointment from the BOS; represents the department and county at speaking engagements, national conferences ( National Community Sentencing Association), and community based activities ( such as the Community Forum on Hate Crime, the Ukiah Valley Culture and Recreational Center) and sits on boards of directors ( Ford Street Project, Mendo- Lake Alternative Services Program). With annual personal leave, which after 30 years of service is substantial and difficult to use, but encouraged by county BOS policy, the CPO indeed spend time away from the office. The CPO believes this time away from the office is essential to operating the Department efficiently. The CPO does not believe that it is necessary to be involved in every aspect of the operations. As an analogy, the ship’s captain is responsible for getting to port, but is not involved in ordering the uniforms for the crew or managing the galley on the trip. Unit supervisors have been appointed because of their management abilities and leadership skills, and are expected to monitor the day- to- day operations of their units. They are expected to keep me informed of issues within their units, especially those that affect the other units. All management level staff ( CPO, SDPOs, DPO IIIs, Superintendent, Asst. Superintendent, and Administrative Manager) meet twice per month ( recently changed from once a week) to discuss operational and personnel issues. The CPO meets almost daily with each of the unit supervisors. When he is away for an extended period, the CPO appoints one of the supervisors to be in charge, rotating the responsibility among the SDPOs and the Juvenile Hall Superintendent. The CPO views this practice as a chance to enhance leadership skills. The CPO does not leave the office without leaving a contact number, and am available at all times by pager, even during his personal leave. As noted below, the CPO has the desire to have an assistant chief probation officer, but that position was eliminated by a resolution from the Board of Supervisors in the early 1980’ s, when the department 1999- 2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 45 was smaller. In place of the Assistant position, the Supervising Deputy Probation Officer position was created to supervisor each unit. The CPO has concentrated on adding new positions in the lower levels of the probation officer series, not upper management. As the need for an assistant has become apparent for many reasons, the CPO intends to request this position next year. Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with the response provided by the Chief Probation Officer. Local and State obligations do sometimes take a manager away from the office but with current technology, physically remaining in the office is sometimes not necessary. The Chief Probation Officer must prioritize his time between his outside obligations and his need to properly supervise his staff. 18. Team building efforts have been restricted to senior staff members and have not been provided to line staff, leaving them with a feeling of being left out. Response ( Probation): Agree with this finding, but not the underlying message. The original team building effort was a product of the past administration and was effective in modifying many internal problems in communications. The group was limited to the management team, because of the nature of the communication problems existed at that level of the organization. When it was decided to implement an overall departmental quality and continuous improvement program, several general staff meetings were held to work out the program. Very little participation from line staff undermined the effort. The chosen model, “ Simply Better,” had been used in other local agencies and was well accepted. When there are players that do not want to play as a team, it is futile to press it upon the whole. Team building was offered as a departmental program, but not supported by all. The Clerical/ Accounting Unit has begun to implement this program on a smaller scale. It has improved workflow and communications within that unit. Since there was sufficient improvement in communication in the management team, that team building program was discontinued about a year ago. Response ( Board of Supervisors): The team building program was discontinued a year ago and did include only management since the focus was managerial communication. 19. The Court appoints the CPO and performs an annual review of the Probation Department. However, the Court does not specifically evaluate the CPO’s performance; nor is his performance reviewed by the Chief Administrative Officer or the BOS. 46 1999- 2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report Response ( Probation): Disagree with this finding. The CPO receives an annual evaluation of his performance from the presiding judge, prepared in consultation with the other judges. The CPO provides a statement of accomplishments and operations for the year. The CPO also meets regularly with the judges, both in the courtroom and at meetings. Although they are not directly involved in the county budget process, they are kept apprised of the operations. The CAO and BOS do not evaluate the CPO’s performance, but are kept informed about program and operations issues. Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with the response provided by the Chief Probation Officer. Recommendations 1. The CPO should consider filling the allocated position of Assistant Chief Probation Officer as a solution to the problem of CPO’s outside obligations. However, the operation of the Probation Department should always be the primary focus of the CPO. Response ( Probation): Agree with this recommendation. The CPO intends to request an Assistant CPO position for the next fiscal year, but it should be noted that the position has not been allocated since the early 1980s and will require a BOS resolution to re- establish it. The overall operation of the Department is the CPO’s primary focus. Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Board welcomes the Chief Probation Officer’s review of this recommendation. Since the position has not been allocated for a number of years, the Department must make a strong case that the position is essential to the ongoing operations and the delivery of services to our citizens. Time Frame for Implementation: The CPO will address the issue of an Assistant CPO with the Board during the 2001/ 02 budget conferences/ hearings. 2. Priority should be given to team building that would include all department employees. Management should place department morale as an important objective. Response ( Probation): Agree with this recommendation. “ Simply Better,” an effective team building program, was presented to staff last year, but was not supported by all staff. Without support, the program was not implemented department- wide. Team building requires a 1999- 2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 47 team whose members will commit to each other and the overall focus of the group. This administration has been very cognizant of morale, having experienced several periods of “ discontent.” For the past several years, the department actually has had a Morale Committee that organizes activities and lunches. Management has held a “ staff appreciation picnic” for many years, with management members personally paying for the picnic grounds and the main barbecue dishes. Morale is also an issue in assigning and monitoring workload, and in hiring and promoting. Not everyone is happy with assignments and the inability to promote in a small department. The CPO feels it should be noted that, according to staff, morale has greatly improved since the Department has hired new staff with new ideas and attitudes. Just having all positions filled has relieved pressure and made the work environment less hostile. The CPO has received many comments from staff that “ things really are getting better.” Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this recommendation. Time Frame for Implementation: On- going process. 3. The BOS, with Court approval, should include the CPO in its annual evaluation of County Department Heads. Response ( Probation): The CPO cannot comment on this recommendation. It is a political issue that is pending legislation. Please see CPO’s previous comments about annual evaluations. Response ( Board of Supervisors): The evaluation of the Chief Probation Officer is done by the Courts. Arming Probation Officers Findings 20. Many DPO Supervisors have experienced dangerous encounters in the performance of their duties. All line staff interviewed felt they should be armed. Response ( Probation): Agree with this finding. Many, not all, of the deputy probation officers feel a need to be armed. 48 1999- 2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with the response provided by the Chief Probation Officer. 21. The Probation Department is seeing more violent behavior and armed offenders. Probation supervisors are required to travel to remote areas of the County in the performance of their duties. Often these areas are where methamphetamine labs and marijuana cultivation are prevalent. Armed defenders are usually present at these establishments. Response ( Probation): Agree with this finding. Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding. 22. The decision to arm DPO’s is solely at the discretion of the CPO. He is hesitant to arm his officers for fear that arming may, in fact, increase the overall risk to their safety. Another concern mentioned by the CPO is the potential for increased liability exposure to the County. Response ( Probation): Agree with this finding. Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding. Recommendation An independent evaluation of the wisdom of arming DPO’s should be made. Response ( Probation): Disagree with this recommendation. Chief Probation Officers throughout the state are split on this issue. Shasta County prepared a survey and report on arming, which was released in June 2000. Forty- six county probation departments responded. Only seven counties have department- wide arming, while thirty- two have specialized arming like us. Fourteen counties are contemplating arming, while seven have no intention of arming. This department has two armed officers, one assigned to the Major Crimes Task Force, and one to the Gang Suppression Unit. Both positions involve contact with clients known to be more dangerous than the usual probationer, by nature of the criminal activities. In both cases, the officers are expected to provide back up to other law enforcement officers with whom they work, in case of armed confrontations. Each officer receives forty hours of initial arms training, sponsored by the CPOC, and must qualify quarterly with a certified range master. 1999- 2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 49 To quote from that report, “ The work performed by probation officers is continually changing. We must adapt our methodology to efficiently approach our mission. It would appear, through the results of our survey, that most counties in California have embraced the idea that field work, in partnership with other community law enforcement agencies, is an integral component to achieving our mutual goal of preserving public safety. In order to evaluate risk to our community, supervision is taking place beyond the office and within our neighborhoods. Probation Officers are evaluating the probationer’s lifestyle, those with whom they reside, those with whom they socialize and the elements that surround them. Consequently, this results in more diverse, and potentially dangerous, situations that officers will encounter. It appears, through this survey, that each county recognizes the necessity to maintain a sense of officer and public safety and each has developed a different approach in dealing with those issues.” The cost of arming a single officer is not an issue, when compared to officer safety. Recognizing the ever- changing complexion of the offender population, the CPO has requested the staff to present documentation for the need for carrying arms. Until the CPO is satisfied that there is an overwhelming need to arm, he will continue to consider liability issues, safety to the officers and the community, and individual needs dictated by assignments. Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Board of Supervisors agrees with the response provided by the Chief Probation Officer. Officer safety and community need must be balanced in this discussion. Certain Probation Officer are armed when it is known they may encounter clients that are more dangerous that the usual. Field work for Probation Officers is changing and the Chief Probation Officer stands ready to examine these influences as it relates to arming his officers. Department Manual Finding 23. The Probation Department Administrative Manual has not been updated in over ten years. Its contents are not well known by the staff and it is rarely referred to. There are more than a dozen sections that address subjects covered by the County Administrative and Policy and Procedures Manuals ( e. g., Affirmative Action, Use of County Vehicles, Sexual Harassment, Seat Belts, Political Activity, among others). The Probation Administrative Manual does not include job descriptions for the court DPO’s nor supervision DPO’s. 50 1999- 2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report Response ( Probation): Agree with this recommendation. An effort to update the manual was started by the previous chief, but stalled along the way. About a year ago, the CPO restarted the process and am currently working on the update. Duplication of sections with other manuals may occur when there are special needs or variations within the departments ( e. g. use of vehicles for overnight transportation or on- call activities). Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding. Recommendation The Manual should be updated and made into an active, useful handbook well known to the staff and used for the training of new employees. Sections duplicating the County manuals should be deleted. Detailed job descriptions should be added to the job standards. Each page should bear a revision date. Response ( Probation): Agree with this recommendation. An effort to update the manual was started by the previous chief, but stalled along the way. About a year ago, the CPO restarted the process and is currently working on the update. Duplication of sections with other manuals may occur when there are special needs or variations within the departments ( e. g. use of vehicles for overnight transportation or on- call activities). Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this recommendation. The Department is currently working on the update. Time Frame for Implementation: Completion of updated manual in its entirety is anticipated by June 30, 2002. Each division will also have working manuals. Comments Throughout this complex investigation, the Grand Jury was extended every courtesy and received the full cooperation of the entire Probation Department. The Chief Probation Officer was especially helpful in facilitating the investigation. Response ( Probation): The Grand Jury made a sincere effort to gather information intended to improve the operation of this Department. Their approach was positive and from the outset very courteous and professional. The Grand Jury investigated this Department during a period when we had changed from a tried and true service model, to another that provided a different approach to services. It was new and unfamiliar 1999- 2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 51 to staff and very challenging. It was an attempt to improve internal communications and service delivery. At this time, some staff members were feeling pressured and demoralized because of these changes. Since returning to the previous, but modified, model, the CPO has been told and has observed morale has greatly improved. Communication within and amongst the units is still problematic, but this is an on- going issue. Personnel feelings that they were not consulted about changes that affected them, is duly noted, but disputed by the CPO. The CPO values his staff’s input, and although not all ideas and concerns are addressed to the benefit of the individual, the overall operation and well- being of the department is his daily concern and focus. The CPO appreciates the concerns and recommendations offered by the Grand Jury. Response Required Mendocino County Board of Supervisors Response Requested Mendocino County Chief Probation Officer 52 1999- 2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report MENDOCINO COUNTY CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICE EMERGENCY RESPONSE UNIT Child Protective Service ( CPS) is a division of County of Mendocino Department of Social Services. The Emergency Response ( ER) Unit of CPS responds to reports of abuse, neglect or exploitation of children under the age of 18. CPS has offices in Ukiah, Fort Bragg, and Willits. The investigating Social Worker of the Emergency Response Team is responsible for intake, assessment, and investigation of allegations, cross reporting to law enforcement and placement in Emergency Shelter. Currently the Emergency Response Social Worker is also responsible for the initial court work. Reason for Review The Grand Jury conducted an oversight of the Emergency Response Unit. Method of Investigation The Grand Jury interviewed the Deputy Director of CPS, the Court Social Worker Supervisor, Licensing Supervisor, Emergency Response Supervisor, two Social Workers, and two Aides. Documents reviewed: Child Welfare Services Program Requirements, Intake Guidelines; Emergency Response Investigating Worker Protocol, Shelter Placement Summary; Family and Children's Services Division Mission Statement , Policies and Procedures, Suspected Child Abuse Report Form, On- Call training outline; Ukiah Emergency Response Search Checklist; Child Welfare Services/ Case Management System ( CWS/ CMS) Off- line Intake Screening Form; Law Enforcement Cross- Report and Two Day On- Call Training Outline for Social Workers. The Grand Jury visited the CPS office. Relevant Law Penal Code Part 4, Title 1, Chapter 2, Article 2.5, The Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act. Welfare and Institutions Code section 300. Findings 1. Some Social Workers ( SWs) responding to a referral lack CWS training and skills in ER. Response ( Social Services): Agree in part. The Department has a training program for new staff and review training for existing staff. The overall shortage of staff with prior Children’s Services experience and the need to move new staff into active duty rapidly can lead to social workers with less than optimal training and skills being on- call to receive referrals. 1999- 2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 53 Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Board and Department agree with this finding in part and recognize that it is a critical issue throughout rural counties. The overall shortage of staff with prior Children’s Services experience, coupled with the urgent need for more staff, can lead to social workers with less than optimal training. The Department has a training program for new staff and continually reviews the need for on- going training for existing staff. 2. CPS administrators and staff indicate it is difficult to hire and retain experienced SWs due to stressful job demands and the resulting burnout. Response ( Social Services): Agree. In the past six months, out of 16 social workers who left Children’s Services, 12 left to enter private practice or other less demanding positions. Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees based on information supplied by the Department which indicates that 12 of 16 Social Workers who left Child Protection Services in a six month period, did so to go into private practice or to take less demanding assignments elsewhere within County service. 3. Top administrators stated that it is difficult to find SWs with experience in CWS. Response ( Social Services): Agree. Finding Social Workers with direct Child Welfare Services experience is a statewide problem, that is of special concern in rural counties. The problem is so acute that the County Welfare Director’s Association, in cooperation with State Merit System, has established a standing committee to address the issues of recruitment and retention of staff. Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Board and the Department agree with this finding and note that it is a frequent topic of discussion among rural counties statewide. 4. CPS has recently hired a new training supervisor to provide information about State and Federal guidelines on Child Welfare Services. The training will also include the Department Policies and Procedures, Court procedure and case management process. The department plans that new SWs involved in ER will participate in Emergency Response investigations during the training period. The University of California Davis has been contracted to provide Mendocino County specific training in Ukiah. Response ( Social Services): Agree. The Department has made a major commitment to expanding the breadth and depth of training for all staff. 54 1999- 2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Board and the Department agree with this finding. The Board commends the Department for its commitment to expanding the “ breadth and depth” of training for its staff. Recommendation Core Training in CWS should be mandatory for all SWs involved in ER. Response ( Social Services): Agree. Core Training in CWS is mandatory for all social workers. Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Board and the Department agree with this finding and note that such training is already mandatory. Time Frame for Implementaton: Core Training to be provided June 2000 – June 2001. Findings 5. At the time of our oversight, the screener, classified as an Aide, took the initial telephone call, recorded pertinent information and assessed the urgency of the situation. Response ( Social Services): Agree. Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding based on the response of the Department. 6. The Child Welfare SW supervisor determines whether an immediate or 10- day in- person investigation by the ER unit, referral to a community agency or no action at all is appropriate. Response ( Social Services): Agree. Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding based on the response of the Department. 7. The clerks research possible prior complaints and input information into the CWS/ CMS computer system. Response ( Social Services): Agree. Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding based on the response of the Department. 1999- 2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 55 Recommendation The Grand Jury commends the ER Unit for recently staffing the screener position with fully qualified SWs who perform these duties on a rotating schedule. Response ( Social Services): Agree. The Department appreciates the understanding and support of the Grand Jury for program changes that we have implemented. Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Board and the Department agree with this recommendation and thank the Grand Jury for recognizing and supporting these program changes. Time Frame for Implementation: ER staffing with Social Workers implemented May 2000. Finding 8. State standards regulating caseload assignments for Emergency Response SWs were developed in the early 1980s before the state mandated CWS/ CMS Data System was implemented. While the information this system makes available is considered most useful, all staff stated that the current program for data input is extremely cumbersome and requires extra time for SWs to collect and enter information. Response ( Social Services): Agree. It is estimated conservatively that the CWS/ CMS computer systems increased the workload of social workers by approximately 10%. Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Board and the Department agree with this finding. Recommendation On- going training in the use of the CWS/ CMS computer system is necessary. It would be desirable if the statewide system were more user- friendly. Response ( Social Services): Agree. Training in the use of CWS/ CMS is provided. A Help Desk position is also available to provide assistance to staff. Unfortunately the Department has no control over the statewide system. 56 1999- 2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Board and the Department agree with this finding, noting that training in the use of CWS/ CMS is provided and a Help Desk position is also available for staff. While the Board and Department staff have no control over the statewide system, county officials will continue to provide feedback and be a part of efforts to improve this system. Time Frame for Implementation: On- going Training for CWS/ CMS to be implemented January- June 2001. Finding 9. Family and Children's Services Division SWs are on- call on a rotating basis to provide 24- hour coverage to assess children's situations for immediate danger. Response ( Social Services): Agree. It should be noted that the stand- by rate is $ 1.25 per hour and has not been increased many years. Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Board and the Department agree with this finding. 10. All changes in placement are made in consultation with the ER Supervisor. Response ( Social Services): Agree. Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Board and the Department agree with this finding. 11. ER in Ukiah has been divided into two separate units: ER which follows the case through the initial court disposition and the Court Unit which stays with the case for continuing services, that can end with family services or continue until the child is 18. If this division proves successful, it will serve as a model for the remaining CPS offices in the county. Response ( Social Services): Agree. Response ( Board of Supervisors): The Board and the Department agree with this finding. Comments The Grand Jury commends Child Protective Services and the Emergency Response Unit for initiating a reorganization of their department. The aim of this reorganization is to terminate Emergency Response involvement after initial court action and assign the case to a single Social Worker throughout the time the case is active with the Child Welfare System and thereby promote consistency in case management. 1999- 2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 57 Response ( Social Services): Agree. The Department worked with the Child Welfare League of America in 1999 to develop a strategic plan to guide the reorganization and continuing improvement of the Children’s Services Division. Changes will take place over time, but progress is being made in building a strong and effective continuum of services to children and their families in Mendocino County. Response Required Mendocino County Board of Supervisors Response Requested Mendocino County Department of Social Services 58 1999- 2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report MENDOCINO COUNTY COUNSEL The County Counsel is charged by State law with the responsibility to defend or prosecute all civil actions and proceedings which concern the County or any of its officers. Th |
| PDI.Date | 2000 |
| PDI.Date.Issued | 2000 |
| PDI.Title | Final Report. 1999-2000. |
| OCLC number | 144609924 |
Tags
Add tags for Mendocino County Grand Jury final report
Comments
Post a Comment for Mendocino County Grand Jury final report
Your rating was saved.
you wish to report:
Your comment:
Your Name:
|
|
...