Modoc County Grand Jury

FY 2003/ 04 Report

Scanned from the Modoc Record

and converted to Microsoft Word format.

Pagination and formatting changed to 8.5’’ by 11’’.

Hyperlinks added for Table of Contents.

Last modified 10/ 22/ 2005 11: 53: 06 AM gts.

June 25, 2004

2003/ 2004 Grand Jury Report 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

Functions of the Grand Jury ........................................................................................................ 3

Judge’s Letter ............................................................................................................................. 4

Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................................... 4

Foreperson's Letter ..................................................................................................................... 5

2003- 2004 Grand Jury Roster ..................................................................................................... 5

Notice to Respondents ................................................................................................................ 6

GRAND JURY REPORTS

Note: Responses are required from the officials and entities ( Respondents) that are shown in italics at

the end of individual reports.

Audit

Special Districts

County Auditor/ Recorder

Informing County Supervisors on Special

Districts Legislation SB 1272 .......................................................................................... 7

Special District/ Non- Profit/ General Government

Hot Springs Valley Irrigation District............................................................................... 8

Modoc County Special Districts ...................................................................................... 9

County Administration................................................................................................... 10

District Attorney Conflict- of- Interest ............................................................................. 11

Contracts with Modoc Medical Clinic Doctors............................................................... 11

Nepotism in County Government................................................................................... 12

Public Works/ Schools

Modoc County Road/ Public Works Departments........................................................... 12

Schools, Modoc County Office of Education ................................................................. 13

Health and Human Services/ Hospital

County Departments of Mental Health, Public Health, and Drug and Alcohol ................ 13

County Department of Social Services........................................................................... 13

Hospital....................................................................................................................... . 14

Law Enforcement

Visits to correctional facilities........................................................................................ 14

9 1 1 Dispatch ............................................................................................................... 15

2003/ 2004 Grand Jury Report 3

Functions of the Grand Jury

The Grand Jury is part of the judicial branch of the government, mandated by the California

Constitution, and an arm of the Superior Court. The primary function of the Grand Jury is to examine

local government. The Penal Code states the Grand Jury is specifically:

Mandated to conduct civil investigations and audits of City and County Government, to insure efficient

and proper operation of all local government And to detect and expose fraud and malfeasance.

The Grand Jury addresses citizen complaints and conducts investigations to act as a " watchdog the

citizens of Modoc County.

The Grand Jury reviews and evaluates performance of local government officials and entities, focusing

on procedures, methods and systems ( not polices), to determine if more efficient and economical

measures might be employed and if procedures are being followed. The Grand Jury three ways to

exercise its powers:

1. Reports - Published report evaluating local government conditions, generally addressing

specific issues, with findings and recommendations. The County Board of Supervisors,

City Councilor affected agency must comment on each recommendation as per Penal(

933.05. ( When crimes are not charged but suspected, special reports with documentation

may refer to specific issues to other authority.)

2. Accusations - Formal written complaints accusing a government official or employee of

misconduct. ( Conviction would result in removal from office/ duties rather than criminal

penalties.)

3. Indictments - Formally charging a person with a crime.

The Grand Jury is specifically authorized to:

·   Inspect and audit local entity records, insuring proper and legal accountings of public record;

·   Investigate and report on performance of special districts or commissions.

·   Evaluate conditions of jails and detention centers within the county.

·   Investigate charges of misconduct by public officials or employees.

·   Investigate and report on " questionable practices" of such agencies or officials.

The Grand Jury also receives complaints from citizens alleging mistreatment by officials, suspicions of

misconduct, or government inefficiencies. While keeping all complaints confidential, each is

acknowledged and considered by the panel: those accepted under Grand Jury jurisdiction are

investigated carefully before any action is taken.

2003/ 2004 Grand Jury Report 4

LARRY L. DIER

Superior Court Judge

FRANCIS W. BARCLAY

Superior Court Judge

MODOC COUNTY SUPERIOR

COURT

Robert A. Barclay Justice Center

205 South East Street Alturas, CA 96101

Phone ( 530) 233- 6526 Fax ( 530) 233- 6500

VICKI L. HUGEHES

Court Executive Office

July 1, 2004

To: Grand Jury Members

Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:

As your service on the 2003- 2004 Modoc County Grand Jury comes to an end, it is my pleasure and

privilege to write to you to express m y sincere gratitude to all of you for your dedication and hard

work this year. A special debt of gratitude is owed to Robert " Chico" Pedotti for is capable leadership

as Foreperson and Sophie Sheppard for all of her work as Secretary.

I realize that it was a difficult term due to the short period of tine you were given to address the varied

and complex issues presented to you. However, I have been extremely impressed with your enthusiasm

and sincere commitment to quality and congratulate you on the job you have done and the report you

have prepared.

Thanks for a job well done and a special thanks to the several of you that have gone beyond the call of

duty and agreed to serve a second term on the 2004- 2005 Grand Jury.

Very Truly Yours,

Francis W. Barclay

Acknowledgements

The Grand Jury acknowledges Judges Dier and Barclay for their counsel on matters both legal and

practical.

We express thanks to the Superior Court staff for their generous help in providing the Jury with

comfortable and secure quarters for assembly and for staff support.

We extend our thanks to the Modoc County Board of Supervisors, Modoc County department heads

and staff for their cooperation in our investigations.

In addition we give special thanks to the special districts for their cooperation and assistance in our

investigations.

We appreciate the Modoc County Record for helping to make this Grand Jury report widely available to

concerned citizens and for keeping within our limited budget.

Modoc County Grand Jury

2003- 2004

2003/ 2004 Grand Jury Report 5

Modoc County Grand Jury

205 South East Street

Alturas, California 9 6101

June 25,2004

To: Judge Barclay,

the 2003- 2004 Modoc County Grand Jury

and the Citizens of Modoc County

I thank Judge Barclay and the Superior Court for the honor and privilege of selection as a Grand Juror.

I applaud my fellow Jurors, one and all, for their thoughtful consideration, integrity and dedication in

accomplishing complex investigations into the operations of local government as well as receiving and

investigating citizen complaints while under the time constraints imposed by a half term. This report is

the result of that effort.

To the Citizens of Modoc County, I trust that you will find this Jury has served you well as your

advocate and I urge you to serve as a Grand Juror when given the opportunity. As one Juror expressed,

" it has made a better citizen of me".

Sincerely,

Robert C. Pedotti, foreman

The 2003- 2004 Modoc County Grand Jury

Additional copies of this FY 2003- 04 Grand Jury Report are available at the Superior Court. The

legally required responses to this report as outlined on page 6 are a matter of public record and may

be obtained by making a request to the Superior Court.

2003- 2004 Modoc County Grand Jury Roster

Carrie Lee Anderson Johnalynn O'Malley

Beverly Carstens Peggy Page

Debra Cockrell Robert Pedotti

Doug Dollarhide Virginia Pierce

Jodi Frey Lynne Schluter

Robert Hagerud Sophie Sheppard

Mike Hickman Don Steger

Jerome Hoxsey Hans Van Nes

Linda Moore

2003/ 2004 Grand Jury Report 6

Notice to Respondents

Response Requirements

On January 1,1997, an extensive change in the legal requirements affecting respondents and responses

to Grand Jury Findings and Recommendations took effect ( California Penal Code Section 933.05). Each

Respondent identified in this report should become familiar with the law and, if in doubt, should consult

legal counsel before responding.

How to Respond to Findings

For the assistance of all Respondents, California Penal Code Section 933.05 is summarized as follows:

The Respondent ( person or entity) must respond to Findings in one of two ( 2) ways, stating that:

1. You agree with the Finding.

2. You disagree wholly or partially with the Finding, in which case the response shall specify

the portions( s) of the Finding that is disputed, and shall include an explanation of the reasons

for disagreement.

How to Report Action in Response to Recommendations:

Recommendations by the Grand Jury require action( s). The Respondent must identify action( s) on all

recommendations in one of four ( 4) ways, stating that the recommendation:

1. Has been implemented, with a summary of implemented activities.

2. Has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with activities and time frame

for implementation.

3. Requires further analysis or study. In such case, the law requires a detailed outline of the analysis and

time frame not to exceed six ( 6) months. Further, the complete analysis or study must be submitted to

the officer, director or governing board of the entity being investigated.

4. Will not be implemented, because it is either unwarranted or unreasonable with an explanation( s) and

supporting facts.

Timing of Responses and Actions to Findings and Recommendations:

As stated in Penal Code Section 933 ( c), for 45 days after the end of term, the Grand Jury foreperson or

designees shall, upon reasonable notice, be available to clarify recommendations in the report. No later

than 90 days after the Grand Jury submits a final report on the operations of any public agency, the

governing body of any public agency subject to Grand Jury reviewing authority, shall comment to the

presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations. Every elected official or

agency head for which the Grand Jury has responsibility shall comment within 60 days to the judge of

the superior court with a copy sent to the Board of Supervisors.

2003/ 2004 Grand Jury Report 7

Grand Jury Reports

Audit

Areas of Study

Special Districts

County Auditor/ Recorder

Informing County Supervisors on Proposed Special Districts Reform Legislation – SB 1272

General Report:

Grand Jurors met with County Auditor/ Recorder, Board of Supervisors, and Administrative Services

Director. These functions were investigated and reviewed:

·   General functions of the county auditor and office.

·   Proposed changes in statutes for special districts by Senate Bill 1272

·   The consequences to special districts in the county if current code requirements are not met

regarding these districts.

·   Written request of 3 8 special districts for copies of audit, organizational charts and policy and

procedures.

Issues:

Auditor/ Recorder - Jurors met with the Auditor/ Recorder and discussed the following:

·   Department organization.

·   Audit trails ( print outs) prepared for each department and special district in the county.

·   The 2003 county audit results.

·   The lack of audits on special district funds.

Special Districts - Jurors requested copies of current audit, organizational charts and policy procedures

from 38 special districts, such as fire, irrigation, cemetery, community service, and school districts in the

county.

Jurors met with the Board of Supervisors regarding proposed S B 12 72 and audits of special districts.

Findings:

Jurors observed that the office of the Auditor/ Recorder is run on a professional level and general

accounting procedures are followed. There are audit trails for each county department or special district

for which the county receives and disburses funds.

There are two kinds of special districts:

·   Dependent, with advisory boards, elected or appointed, governed by a larger entity, for example

the Board of Supervisors; and

·   Independent, governed by their own elected or appointed bodies.

For the most part, special districts have not had audits done for several years due to a lack of funds.

Government Code Section 26909 requires special districts to have an audit annually, but, under certain

conditions, the district can substitute a biennial audit covering a two year period, or the Board of

Supervisors may substitute a financial review if the Board of Supervisors is the governing board of the

district and the revenues do not exceed $ 100,000, and the districts revenues/ expenditures are transacted

through the county financial systems and other special conditions are met.

2003/ 2004 Grand Jury Report 8

Jurors found there have been certain county funds that were not run through the county accounting

system and therefore were not included in the county audit.

Recommendations:

·   All county funds/ financial transactions should be detailed in the county auditor/ recorder's

records.

·   The county should have an unqualified audit of all funds that are administered or expended by

the County.

·   Finances of special districts must be audited annually, biennially or a financial review must be

done annually in accordance with Government Code Section 26909.

·   Board of Supervisors must meet their obligations to special districts as required by Government

Code Section 26909.

·   County auditor/ recorder must request copies of annual audits from those special districts that

are required by code to provide them.

Respondents:

Board of Supervisors

County Counsel

County Auditor/ Recorder

Special District/ Non- Profit/ General Government

Areas of Study

Hot Springs Valley Irrigation District ( HSVID)

Modoc County Special Districts

Modoc County Administration

District Attorney Conflict of Interest

Contracts of Modoc Medical Clinic Doctors

Nepotism in County Government

Hot Springs Valley Irrigation District ( HSVID)

Issues:

The Grand Jury reviewed the legally required response from HSVID to the FY 2002- 03 Grand Jury

recommendations.

·   Elections procedures are being followed satisfactorily.

·   Conflict of dual elective office issues has been resolved by the resignation of the involved board

member.

·   The State Water Resources Control Board cease- and- desist orders are covering district and

downstream water rights issues.

Procedures:

Since satisfactory answers for the following questions were not received in response to the FY 2002- 03

Grand Jury Report, the FY 2003- 04 Grand Jury submitted the following questions:

·   Has the recommended and required audit been completed?

·   Requested HSVID provide Code support to its contention Board members are not required to

file Form 700.

In addition, the Grand Jury requested HSVID furnish copies of recent cease- and- desist orders from the

State Water Resources Control Board. The Grand Jury also informed HSVID that the special district is

subject to conflict of interest code requirements according to the Fair Political Practices Commission

( FPPC).

2003/ 2004 Grand Jury Report 9

Findings:

·   HSVID acknowledges its responsibility for but has not yet attained the required audit.

·   Forms 700 for each current HSVID Board member have been completed and filed with the

County Clerk.

·   HSVID acknowledges its responsibility for having a conflict of interest code, and for meeting

state requirements in this regard. As of this writing, the code has not been filed with the county.

Recommendations:

The FY 2004- 05 Grand Jury should follow this issue to assure that the findings listed above are fulfilled

and that HSVID has filed a copy of their annual audit with the CA State Controller and the Modoc

County Auditor.

Respondents:

HSVID

Special Districts:

Issues:

After finding that some levels of county government were not in compliance with code requirements for

audit, conflict of interest and up- date of bylaws, the Grand Jury requested this information from all

special districts.

Procedures:

·   The Grand Jury informed the Board of Supervisors and the County Administrative Office of the

above lack of compliance and informed them of proposed legislation, S B 1272, which, if

enacted could place enforcement of current code in state hands instead of at the county level.

·   The Grand Jury met with the auditor to determine the cost of bringing the County into

compliance regarding its obligations to audit dependent special districts, and the requirement for

independent districts to file copies of their audits with the county.

Findings:

·   The Grand Jury found and brought to the attention of the Board of Supervisors violations of

Government Code Section 26909 regarding the audit of some special districts.

·   The Grand Jury found that the County Administrative Office was unaware of, or had not

communicated, the above requirements to the Board of Supervisors or the special districts.

·   Special district volunteers have received little advice or help from the county as responses to

Grand Jury questions indicate that most special districts are unaware of audit, conflict of

interest and other legal issues pertaining to special districts.

·   Most special districts in the county are made up of volunteers who perform many vital county

functions with little or no compensation.

Recommendations:

·   The Board of Supervisors provide for aid to special districts, both dependent and independent,

in achieving compliance with existing codes.

·   The Board of Supervisors provide adequate legal counsel to review the status of special districts

and county responsibility to those districts on a regular basis and to advise county staff and

special district volunteers.

2003/ 2004 Grand Jury Report 10

·   The Board of Supervisors meet it s obligations regarding audits of special districts.

·   The Board of Supervisors review the policies of all special districts not specifically exempted by

resolution 95- 08 to ensure that those special districts are in compliance with Government Code

Section 87300 regarding conflict of interest.

Respondents:

Board of Supervisors

County Counsel

County Auditor

County Administration

Issues:

Grand Jury review of several county programs -- Public Guardian, Special Districts, Tobacco

Settlement Funds and lack of compliance with various codes -- reveals problems in county

administration. These issues reach the top of county government- the County Administrative Office

( CAO) and the Board of Supervisors ( BOS). The Grand Jury finds that the CAO s unaware of, or

indifferent to, certain code and procedural requirements of county governance.

Findings:

Granting the fact that Modoc County is a small rural governmental entity with limited funding, we offer

these findings:

·   It appears the BOS is overly reliant on the CAO regarding issues that rightfully should be the

BOS responsibility.

·   There are issues that should go before the BOS without having to receive prior submittal

approval from the CAO. Some budgetary and financial issues come before the BOS. Other

equally important issues such as code compliance, performance evaluations for department

heads, and public service issues do not.

·   The BOS is receiving some of these issues only when they are at crisis level. To wit: the current

imbroglio regarding the overpayment of some several hundred thousand dollars for surface

maintenance to a contractor.

·   The Grand Jury found that the BOS has not conducted annual performance reviews of the

County Administrative Services Director.

·   The CAO serves at the pleasure and under the direction of the Modoc County Board of

Supervisors. Without closer direction by the B OS and clearer delineation of authority and

responsibility, this office is operating too independently for the good of the county and the

public served.

Recommendations:

·   The BOS should require that the Board Chairperson be consulted by the CAO before proposed

agenda items are rejected.

·   The Board of Supervisors should conduct an annual performance review of the County

Administrative Services Director.

·   An annual performance review should be conducted by the CAO on all department heads under

CAO supervision and these reviews should be analyzed by the BOS with the County

Administrative Services Director in closed session. If an employee reviewed disagrees

significantly with the evaluation, that employee should be heard by the BOS in closed session.

2003/ 2004 Grand Jury Report 11

Respondents:

Board of Supervisors

Administrative Services Director

District Attorney Conflict- of- Interest

Issues:

The Grand Jury received a letter from the California Department of Justice, Attorney General's Office in

response to a request made by the FY2002- 03 Grand Jury to review the evidence it had collected on an

investigation. That jury had no available legal counsel because of a written declaration of conflict of

interest from the District Attorney, a declaration of conflict of interest from the Judge, and County

Counsel could not provide advice other than for civil issues.

Procedures:

The Grand Jury reviewed the investigation by the FY 2002- 03 Grand Jury. The 2003- 04 Grand Jury

wrote a letter asking the District Attorney to explain his actions.

Findings:

·   The Attorney General's Office declined to review the evidence collected by the FY 2002- 03

Grand Jury, citing an opinion from the District Attorney.

·   The 2003- 04 Grand Jury's review indicated that the 2002/ 03 Grand Jury's investigations

gathered evidence of possible criminal issues.

·   The 2003- 04 Grand Jury finds that the District Attorney, after declaring conflict- of- interest,

submitted an opinion regarding the ongoing 2002- 0 3 Grand Jury investigation to the Attorney

General that may have interfered with access to counsel by the 2003- 04 Grand Jury.

Recommendations:

The 2003- 04 Grand Jury recommends that the Office of the District Attorney refrain from offering any

opinion on any matter in which it has declared a conflict of interest.

Respondents:

Modoc County District Attorney

Contract with Modoc Medical Clinic Doctors

Issues:

A complaint was received alleging violation of IRS rules governing independent contractor status in the

contracts with doctors at Modoc Medical Center Clinic.

Procedures:

The Grand Jury obtained and compared the contracts of the two doctors to the IRS rules.

Findings:

Evidence supports the status of the contracts as for independent, contractors, not county employees.

Recommendations:

None

Respondents:

None

2003/ 2004 Grand Jury Report 12

Nepotism in County Government

Issues: In reviewing the 2002- 03 Modoc County Management Report, the Grand Jury found that the

outside auditor expressed nepotism in county offices as a concern.

Findings: Review of county ordinances and positions held within county government shows evidence

of nepotism.

Recommendations: The Grand Jury recommends that the Modoc County Board of Supervisors review

relevant county ordinances and all county departments to be sure that nepotism provisions are not being

violated.

Respondents:

Modoc County Board of Supervisors Modoc County Counsel

Public Works/ Schools

Area of Study

Modoc County Road/ Public Works Departments

Schools, Modoc County Office of Education

Modoc County Road/ Public Works Departments

The Grand Jury interviewed the Modoc County Road Commissioner, Deputy Road Commissioner and

the Deputy Public Works Director. Jurors reviewed organizational charts, job descriptions, status of

projects and available funding sources and department policies.

Issues:

Two ( 2) separate complaints were received during this abbreviated tenure of tile Grand Jury. Individuals

raised concerns alleging:

·   Negligence by the Department of Public Works regarding the enforcement of its condemnation

and building habitability policy/ procedures.

·   The Road Department's inappropriate changing of county road designations.

Procedures:

On January 8, 2004 the Jury met with the Director and Deputy Director of the Public Works

Department. The jurors were made aware of the laws that apply to condemnation as well as the

procedure for enforcing living conditions when a building is being occupied under what is believed to be

less than desirable conditions. Jury members also reviewed the statutes relating to the alleged violations.

On April 19, 2004 the Jury met with the Modoc County Road Commissioner/ Director of Public Works,

and the Deputy Road Commissioner to discuss the second complaint regarding road signs. A thorough

explanation was presented regarding the mandates involving the distribution and maintenance of county

road signs. The jurors also reviewed the applicable statutes governing this procedure.

Findings:

·   There are laws and mandatory procedures governing the condemnation and habitability of

buildings. The Modoc County Public Works Department appears to be following those laws and

procedures. Currently, there are n o condemned buildings in Modoc County.

·   There are state laws and mandatory policies that dictate how and when road signs shall be used

at such time that a private road becomes a county road. The Modoc County Road Department

2003/ 2004 Grand Jury Report 13

appears to be following those laws and guidelines. Modoc County roads are assigned

consecutive numbers as they are accepted into the county maintained road system.

Recommendations:

None

Schools, Modoc County Office of Education

General Report:

The Grand Jury interviewed the outgoing Modoc County School Superintendent as well as the

Superintendent who will be taking over the administration effective July 6, 2004. Jurors reviewed

organizational charts, job descriptions, status of projects, available funding sources, and department

policies.

Issues:

While there were no specific issues to be addressed regarding this department, the Grand Jury was

concerned about the transition of the department's administration from one superintendent to another.

Findings:

It was determined by the Grand Jury that the upcoming change in administration will be of no

consequence to the department and the existing programs and department functions will remain

undisturbed.

Recommendations:

None

Health and Human Services/ Hospital

Areas of Study

County Departments of Social Services, Mental Health, Public Health, and Drug &

Alcohol

Hospitals

Issues:

The Grand Jury received only one written complaint pertaining to these departments; but because of the

importance of the Public Guardian position in providing essential services to conservatees, the Jury

focused on the Social Services Department and met with the Director several times. Grand Jurors also

met with various Directors/ Deputy Directors of Mental Health, Public Health & Drug & Alcohol.

The Grand Jury visited Hospital Board Meetings of Surprise Valley Hospital and Modoc Medical

Center. The Grand Jury received one complaint pertaining to Modoc Medical Center.

County Departments of Social Services

Issues:

·   Qualifications of Public Guardian.

·   Inventories of conservatee assets.

·   Educational information pertaining to public guardianship.

·   Timely payment of conservatee financial obligations.

2003/ 2004 Grand Jury Report 14

Findings:

·   Reviewing Class Specifications for Public Guardian as defined by Modoc County, the Jury

determined the current job description for the position of Public Guardian is adequate. The

county attempted to rectify staffing the Public Guardian position by combining the positions of

Director of Social Services with that of Public Guardian. The effect of combining these two

positions interferes with the system of checks and balances intended for the Public Guardian

position.

·   Conservatee physical assets presently in storage have been inventoried.

·   After appointment of guardianship, ninety ( 90) days is the time limit to inventory a new client's

assets pursuant to California Probate Code Sections 2610 through 2615. This Grand Jury has

been assured that assets are being inventoried within the ninety day limit.

·   Modoc County does have a brochure for family or friends explaining the formality of entering a

conservatorship.

·   The Jury was assured that timely payments of conservatees' financial obligations are being

accomplished.

·   The Department of Social Services is currently responsible for 30 conservatees, twenty

in- county and ten outside the county, yet does not have a full- time Public Guardian.

Recommendations:

The Grand Jury recommends that the Department of Social Services seek to fill the important position

of Public Guardian as soon as possible.

Respondents:

County Board of Supervisors

Department of Social Services

Hospitals

Issues:

Late in May 2004, the Grand Jury received a complaint concerning the approximate $ 4 million debt that Modoc

County is carrying for the Modoc Medical Center. The complaint alleges that this is unfair to Modoc County

taxpayers. The complaint further alleges it is also unfair to other departments in the county to function with

decreased budgets due to this debt.

The complaint was received so late in the FY 2003- 04 Grand Jury's six month term that this jury is referring this

new complaint to the Grand Jury of 2004/ 2005 for investigation.

Respondents:

None

Law Enforcement

Areas of Study

Required Annual Inspection of Devil's Garden Conservation Camp

Required Annual Inspection of Modoc County Jail 911 Dispatch

Devil's Garden Conservation Camp

Members of the Grand Jury visited the Devil's Garden conservation Camp. They observed excellent

cooperation and a great working relationship between the staffs of the California Department of

2003/ 2004 Grand Jury Report 15

Corrections and the California Department of Forestry. Additionally. the jurors noted concerted efforts

to purchase as many supplies as possible from local businesses. They provide a wide variety of

worthwhile services to the Modoc community.

Recommendations:

None

Respondents:

None

Required Annual Inspection of Modoc County Jail

Members of the Grand Jury met with the Sheriff and Under- Sheriff who discussed ongoing operations

of the jail, answered questions about operations and procedures of the jail. Jurors inquired about inmate

treatment, toured the jail and found the facility to be clean, well- kept, and operations organized.

Recommendations:

None

Respondents:

None

911 Dispatch

Issues:

Because of a complaint regarding 911 dispatch operations, jurors conducted a detailed inspection of 911 dispatch.

They were briefed on policies and procedures of the dispatch system.

Findings:

It was explained that retaining trained dispatchers was difficult and could be the cause of dispatch errors. A new

system has been implemented and training is an ongoing procedure.

Recommendations:

The Grand Jury recommends that the sheriff's office have adequate, trained dispatch staff to provide 24 hour

emergency dispatch service to the county.

Respondents:

Modoc County Sheriff