i

Placer County Grand Jury

The following Placer County residents have qualified and been sworn to serve on

this 2004- 2005 Grand Jury:

Paul Ahdan Jim Boltman Ralph Krueger

Ilene D. Albert Herbert Boyer Yvonne L. Lewis

Bill Angerer Pete Brink Gene Potts

Carmen Armstrong Craig G. Clymo Stan Prager

James M. Baker Ken Gandee Paul Ridgeway

Linda Barley Frances T. Hale Denny Valentine

Shirley Vincent

The Grand Jury offers a special tribute for the service and dedication of Kenna

Charles Gandee, who passed away on September 14, 2004. Mr. Gandee was a

member of three Placer County Grand Juries: 2001- 2002, 2003- 2004, and 2004-

2005. In addition, he served on the San Bernardino County Grand Jury in the

1990’ s.

The 2004- 2005 Grand Jury organized itself into nine Standing Committees for

purposes of research, study, and preparation of reports. All reports herein have

been approved by the Grand Jury’s full panel. The nine committees are as

follows:

Audit and Finance County Administration Health and Welfare

Cities Criminal Justice Schools and Libraries

Continuity Editorial Special Districts

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Transmittal Letter……………………………………………………..…….………..… i

Grand Jury Roster and Structure…………………………..……………………..…. ii

Table of Contents…………………………………………………..……….……..….. iii

Auburn Area Recreation and Parks District…………………………..……….…… 1

Placer County Main Jail………………………………………………….…….…….. 5

Gender Bias in Domestic Violence Cases…………………………….…….……... 8

Conflict of Interest and Record Keeping Practices of Planning ………… ….…. 11

Commissions and Design Review Boards of Cities in Placer County

Placer County Public Guardian………………………………………….…….…… 22

Burton Creek Sheriff’s Substation…………………………………………….…… 28

Emergency Responses for the Elderly…………………………………….……… 30

City Jails within Placer County………………………………………….….………. 33

Juvenile Detention Facility………………………………………………….….…… 35

Placer County Annual Audit………………………………………….…….……….. 37

Note to Respondents…………………………………………………………….….. 39

California Penal Code Section 933.05……………………………….………….… 41

List of Respondents..……………………………………………………………….. 43

1

AUBURN AREA RECREATION AND PARKS DISTRICT

Summary

The 2004- 2005 Grand Jury continued work on four complaints received by the

2003- 2004 Grand regarding the Auburn Area Recreation and Parks District

( ARD), as well as an additional complaint received by the current Grand Jury.

These complaints included allegations regarding receipt and disbursement of

funds designated for a specific use, timeliness and accuracy of financial reports,

independent investigation of claims alleged against board members by staff,

Brown Act violations, and procurement issues. The Grand Jury found problems

identified by previous Juries unaddressed along with additional matters of

concern, and makes recommendations to improve ARD’s operations.

Narrative

Background to Investigation. Issues in ARD’s operations have been noted by

previous grand juries. The 1997- 1998 jury conducted an ARD investigation

resulting in eight recommendations.

The 2003- 2004 Grand Jury’s ARD investigation led to four recommendations:

1. Better compliance with the Brown Act.

2. Required revision of the Personnel Policy Manual.

3. Required revision of the Board of Director’s Procedures and

Responsibilities Manual.

4. Further ARD investigation by the 2004- 2005 Grand Jury.

Investigation by the 2004- 2005 Grand Jury. ARD responses indicated general

agreement with last year’s Jury recommendations. The Grand Jury’s Special

Districts Committee accepted the ARD responses as responsive except for

Brown Act compliance. Thus, the Committee mainly investigated matters not

addressed by the previous Grand Jury.

The Committee focused on issues of financial reporting, legal claims, personnel

matters, the general operation of the board, Brown Act problems, and

procurements.

The Committee collected data in a variety of ways:

• reviewed applicable state law, and ARD’s draft revision to the Board

Procedures and Responsibilities;

• reviewed documentation to include contracts, complaints, meeting

agendas and minutes;

• conducted interviews with Board members, management, and staff;

• attended Board meetings;

• looked at financial reports.

2

Results of the Investigation. In general, the Committee found ARD had a wide

range of operational problems that impede its effective operation and result in

poor management. A discussion of specific problem areas follows:

1. Outside Counsel. ARD’s outside counsel has been the same firm for

several years. While use of the same firm should have provided

organizational stability, in reality this has not been the case. ARD

problems have escalated over the past few years as have legal fees.

While legal fees for the years 2000- 2003 averaged $ 71,000 per year, fees

in the 2003- 2004 year, the last full fiscal year for which we have data,

escalated to $ 172,000.

2. Extended Use of Same Outside Audit Company. The audit firm of

B. L. Myers has been employed by ARD since the fiscal year 1999- 2000.

The last full fiscal year reported on by this firm was for its fifth successive

year of employment. It is generally considered good business practice for

a public agency such as ARD to change its outside audit company every

three to five years. The Government Finance Officers Association

supports reasonable and timely rotation of outside auditors.

3. Lack of a Board Approved Capital Improvement Program 5- Year Plan.

The last Board approved Capital Improvement Program 5- year Plan was

during the 2002- 2003 fiscal year. Organizations such as ARD usually

have formal 5- year plans that can be updated each year at budget time

and made public. The purpose of these plans and their regular updates is

to identify changing needs.

4. Operational/ Management Audit. Records indicate that ARD has never

commissioned an operational/ management audit. The Committee learned

that while the Board has discussed the possibility of such an audit, no

decision has been made. Organizations experiencing operational

challenges routinely utilize this type of audit and find it effective.

5. Lack of Timely Financial Information. ARD’s financial statements for

September, October, and November 2004 were not approved until the

February 2005 Board meeting. Financial statements for December 2004

were not Board approved until March 2005. The revised budget for Fiscal

Year 2004- 2005 was approved at the November 2004 Board meeting.

Timely financial information is vital to effective operation.

6. Lack of a Clear Procedure for Investigating Claims Against the District.

The Committee identified a claim in excess of $ 25,000 filed by ARD’s

District Administrator in September 2004 against two specific board

members and the full board. This claim is still active, with all the parties

involved placed in an awkward position, inconsistent with an effective

working relationship. ARD has no clear procedure for investigating such

claims. The 1997- 1998 Grand Jury recommended a neutral party

investigate all harassment claims brought forth by employees against

either the District Administrator or a board of directors member. ARD has

never acted upon this recommendation.

3

7. Board Procedures and Responsibilities Policy. The Committee

understands a revised Board Procedures and Responsibilities Policy has

been drafted and is under review. Among other remedies, this revision

allows action to be taken to officially respond to inappropriate behavior by

board members.

8. Continuing Lack of Understanding of Brown Act Implications. ARD

response to the 2003- 2004 Grand Jury stated that board members would

attend Brown Act training approximately once every two years. With two

new ARD board members elected in November 2004, it is obvious that

having them trained once every two years does not provide adequate

training for the board. No formal Brown Act training has been conducted

for the entire board.

9. Community Support. Despite its problems, ARD enjoys widespread

community support, with over 400 volunteers working on various district

programs.

10. Problems beyond the Committee’s Investigative Timetable. The

Committee has noted potential problems with ARD, such as procurement

policies.

Findings

The 2004- 2005 Placer County Grand Jury found:

1. ARD’s outside legal counsel has not provided a cost effective, stabilizing

influence in recent years.

2. ARD’s outside auditing firm has remained the same for five years.

3. ARD lacks a Board approved Capital Improvement 5- Year Plan.

4. ARD is evaluating the need for an operational/ management audit.

5. ARD’s financial information has lacked timeliness.

6. ARD has not implemented a clear procedure for investigation of

harassment claims against the district.

7. ARD is evaluating a revision to the Board Procedures and Responsibilities

Policy.

8. ARD board members do not receive enough timely training regarding the

Brown Act, and have a limited understanding of its ramifications.

9. ARD enjoys widespread community support.

Recommendations

The 2004- 2005 Placer County Grand Jury recommends:

1. ARD evaluate the retention of new outside legal counsel to provide a fresh

perspective on its legal issues and the cost effectiveness thereof.

2. ARD’s outside audit firm be changed.

3. ARD’s board annually approve a Capital Improvement 5- Year Plan.

4. ARD commission an operational/ management audit.

4

5. ARD develop and maintain its financial information on a timely basis;

approval of monthly financial statements should never lag more than one

month.

6. ARD implement a clear policy regarding the handling of harassment

claims against the district, and bring closure to existing claims

expeditiously.

7. ARD adopt a current revision to the Board Procedures and

Responsibilities Policy and ensure members adhere to that policy in

conducting their activities.

8. ARD ensure all board members have timely Brown Act training. This

training should not be limited to merely handing out relevant materials and

hoping board members read it.

9. ARD find a way to leverage its community support to achieve a more

favorable perception of the district. An active public relations effort would

be highly beneficial.

10. The 2005- 2006 Grand Jury continue to monitor ARD, ensuring these

recommendations are implemented.

Respondents ( within 60 days) ( See pages 39- 42 for Respondents’

Instructions):

• Auburn Area Recreation and Parks District Administrator

Respondents ( within 90 days) ( See pages 39- 42 for Respondents’

Instructions):

• Auburn Area Recreation and Parks District Board of Directors

5

PLACER COUNTY MAIN JAIL

Summary

A new 120- bed wing was added to the Placer County Main Jail in March, 2003,

increasing the jail’s potential capacity to 646 beds. However, as a result of

earlier budget shortfalls and, more recently, the delay of hiring, 106 beds are still

not being used. In the year 2004, 37% of all inmates were released early

because the added 120 beds were not used. In early 2005, 14 beds were made

available for use, but 106 beds are still not being used. Therefore, the Grand Jury

recommends the county take the steps necessary to make use of these 106 beds

and also recommends the county Personnel Department work closely with jail

staff to facilitate the hiring of the necessary officers to fully staff the jail.

Narrative

Background to Investigation. Penal Code Section 919( b) states: “ The Grand

Jury shall inquire into the condition and management of the public prisons within

the county.” Accordingly, the 2004- 2005 Placer County Grand Jury visited the

Placer County Main Jail and had subsequent interviews with key sheriff’s office

personnel. Because the Grand Jury has visited and reported on the Placer

County Main Jail for each of the past several years, the current Grand Jury also

followed up on the specific recommendations of the previous Grand Juries.

Follow- up on 2003- 2004 Grand Jury Recommendations. The 2003- 2004 Grand

Jury’s major recommendation relating to the Main Jail, issued in June 2004,

noted the Main Jail had completed a $ 9.5 million construction project in April

2003 for a 120- bed wing but this wing was still not used as a result of budgetary

constraints. At the time of the June 2004 report, the new unused wing was 15

months old and still unused.

Unfortunately, the 2004- 2005 Grand Jury has found 106 beds are still not used.

The Unused Beds. The 2003- 2004 Grand Jury noted in its annual report the

120- bed wing was not being used because the $ 1.5 million required for staffing

for that area had not been budgeted.

In interviews in both February and April 2005, Sheriff’s Department officials told

the 2004- 2005 Grand Jury’s Criminal Justice Committee that, although budgetary

funds had now been allocated, the requisite personnel had not yet been hired to

cover the added beds. The jail staff has reconfigured the jail’s housing units to

make use of the new 120- bed wing, but does not currently house inmates in a

comparable 106- bed area. This 14- bed difference results from the jail’s opening

a 14- bed unit in early 2005. Thus, the jail currently has an operating capacity of

540 beds vs. a total potential capacity of 646 beds.

6

Early Releases. During the past five years, over 20% of the jail’s inmates were

required to be released early because of inadequate space in the jail. This

percentage of early releases has increased during that time period. In 2004,

37% of the inmates had to be released early because of inadequate jail space

( while 120 beds remained unused).

In interviews, jail staff indicated that if the additional 120 beds had been available

in the past few years, requirements for early releases would have either been

totally eliminated or greatly minimized.

Early Releases and Lack of Space for New Inmates. On an ongoing basis, new

offenders are arrested daily and need to be processed into the system.

Depending on the severity of their crimes, these offenders may qualify for

immediate bail, may be released on their own recognizance, or may be

candidates for incarceration at the jail. When new offenders are booked into the

jail, this often means that someone else must be released, due to the continuing

bed shortage. At that time, jail staff need to decide who should stay in jail and

who should be released. Currently, about 12 inmates are given early releases

each day.

Plans for Using the Added 106 Beds. The Sheriff’s Department has made

detailed plans for use of the currently unused 106 beds. They have identified

qualified personnel to be hired and will open the additional areas when their staff

is large enough to handle the increased work. However, because there is a

considerable lag time between making a job requisition and having a fully trained

staff member, there is no firm date for opening the unused housing units.

The Jail’s Staffing Problem. The jail managers currently have staffing problems

that are major impediments to jail operations. In late 2004, the county instituted

a hiring freeze that affected the jail’s recruitment and hiring activities. Then,

when the hiring freeze was lifted, jail staff had to begin their hiring activities

anew, starting with new job requisitions and the entire set of hiring tasks. These

tasks are more complex and time consuming for the jail’s staffing than is the case

for many other new county employees. New jail employees are required to

undergo detailed background checks and a combination of eight weeks of on-the-

job training and 176 hours of off- site training. Thus, new employees cannot

be hired quickly and are not fully functional for several months.

In the past year, jail personnel had a turnover rate of about 10%, with the jail

losing several staff members to other police jurisdictions. This has resulted in

personnel shortages, and has made overtime a way of life for the jail staff. The

jail’s managers are not allowed to submit a requisition for a new employee until a

fully funded vacancy occurs, even though it is well known that the lead time for

hiring a new employee is several weeks and a new employee will not be fully

functional for several months.

7

Grand Jury Jail Tour. The 2004- 2005 Grand Jury made an extensive tour of the

county jail. Major observations were:

• The Sheriff’s department complies fully with Federal and State laws

regarding jail capacity and the requirements for early releases.

• Within its budgetary constraints, the Sheriff’s Department does a

commendable job in operating the jail.

• While crime continues to increase in this growing county, the jail capacity

has not ( de facto) increased much since 1998.

• Certain exterior walls of the jail are in need of repair, even though these

walls are only two years old. These walls have begun to leak, and

sandbags have been placed within the walls in numerous places.

Findings

The 2004- 2005 Placer County Grand Jury found:

1. The jail is currently not using 106 beds as a result of a previous budget

problem and current staffing shortages.

2. Without use of the 106 beds, early inmate releases continue at an

alarming rate.

3. The jail has a significant staffing shortage and has major challenges in

getting and retaining adequate staff numbers.

4. Some exterior jail walls are in need of repair.

5. The Placer County Main Jail personnel perform their duties well.

Recommendations

The 2004- 2005 Placer County Grand Jury recommends:

1. The Sheriff’s Office initiate use of the unused 106 beds as soon as

possible.

2. The exterior jail walls be repaired.

3. The jail managers work closely with the county Personnel Department to

devise a method to facilitate more rapid hiring of needed personnel.

4. The 2005- 2006 Grand Jury continue to monitor the progress in responding

to these recommendations.

Respondents ( within 60 days) ( See pages 39- 42 for Respondents’

Instructions):

• Placer County Executive Officer

• Placer County Sheriff’s Office

• Placer County Personnel Department ( Recommendation # 3)

8

GENDER BIAS IN DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CASES

Summary

Responding to an official complaint regarding gender bias in law enforcement,

the 2004- 2005 Grand Jury expanded its initial investigation into other county

agencies and entities. Our investigation indicated that most people, including

those working in law enforcement, in the court system, and in Children’s System

of Care ( CSOC) ( formerly known as Child Protective Services), tend to assume it

is most likely for a man to be the offender in domestic violence cases. However,

with cultural changes in recent years, women have become more aggressive,

and often are the chief offenders in domestic violence cases. The Grand Jury

recommends that all who deal with domestic violence cases become more aware

of the possibility that men may be unjustly victimized as a result of gender bias.

Narrative

Background to Investigation. The 2004- 2005 Placer County Grand Jury received

a carryover formal complaint. This was a case in which a man was victimized in

a domestic violence situation. In one instance, he had been in police custody ( on

another matter) at the same time his wife stated he exercised violence on her.

He was nevertheless charged with violence against his wife simply on the basis

of the wife’s false words and emotions. Based on this case and allegations of

other miscarriages of justice in the gender bias area, the Grand Jury expanded

its inquiries into the larger realm of gender bias in law enforcement, the courts,

and, particularly, CSOC.

Interviews with Men and Women Assigned to Anger Management Counseling.

The Grand Jury’s Criminal Justice Committee conducted a series of interviews

with over a dozen men and women who had been ordered by the courts to

participate in anger management programs. Several of the men in this group

claimed they were the ones who were “ battered” by their spouses rather than

being the batterers, which was the way the cases had been decided. This claim

( that they had been erroneously charged as batterers) was supported by their

group facilitator, who claimed that all too often men are erroneously charged as

the batterers as a result of gender bias. Some of the women participating in the

anger management group substantiated the men’s statements.

When being interviewed about the source of gender bias, the men who were

interviewed generally claimed the police were mostly fair to them, and also, the

courts were generally fair, but the personnel in CSOC were guilty of gender bias.

The attendees in the anger management group expressed dismay that they were

the ones who had to pay for group sessions that they are required to attend for

52 weeks, especially when they felt they had been erroneously charged. The

9

costs vary from $ 20 to $ 60 per session and often cause hardships such as job

stress and interference in work hours.

Interviews with Police and Sheriff Office Personnel. The Committee interviewed

representatives from several city police departments and sheriff office personnel.

Each of these people insisted they evaluated each domestic violence situation on

its own merits and recognized women could be just as guilty of domestic violence

as men.

Difficulty in Identifying and Accessing Children’s System of Care ( formerly CPS).

The Committee found considerable difficulty in identifying the current entity that

was formerly labeled Child Protective Services. Neither the regular telephone

directory nor the Placer County Agencies directory was clear or consistent with

respect to this problem. In fact, the committee found that even the Placer

County Public Information Office staff had to do some double- checking before

they were able to correctly state the current name of the former CPS entity. The

committee also found that when one calls the number listed for Children’s

System of Care ( CSOC) there was a likelihood of being able to speak only to an

answering machine.

Interviews with Representatives from CSOC and Other County Social Workers.

The Committee interviewed personnel at varying levels of responsibility within

CSOC as well as other county social workers. They all claimed there was no

gender bias in their policies or in the execution of their duties. They admitted,

however, it was possible some mistakes had been made whereby some men had

been falsely accused of domestic violence.

Findings

The 2004- 2005 Placer County Grand Jury found:

1. It is likely mistakes were made in the convictions of some men, and

gender bias was indeed an important factor in those erroneous decisions.

2. The prevailing perception among male domestic violence offenders was

CPS ( now CSOC) was the agency most troubling to them as a result of its

gender bias, and they felt this had resulted in the most egregious errors.

3. All county agencies and all persons interviewed who worked for the county

claimed a total lack of gender bias, but admitted there may have been

some cultural assumptions among staff members that caused wrong

judgments.

4. Attendees in the court mandated anger management group sessions are

required to attend these sessions for 52 weeks and are required to pay for

these sessions.

5. The current official name for Child Protective Services, which is Children’s

System of Care, is difficult to find. The telephone accessibility of

Children’s System of Care is difficult as well.

10

Recommendations

The 2004- 2005 Placer Grand Jury recommends:

1. CSOC ensure their workers are well trained to recognize gender bias as a

possibility in their domestic violence decision making.

2. Further investigation implemented by CSOC to continue the study of

possible gender bias.

3. The county share the cost of mandated attendance at anger management

sessions, which should result in more attention to gender bias.

4. CSOC to better publicize its new name as the successor entity to CPS,

and also, to achieve improved telephone accessibility.

Respondents ( within 60 days) ( See pages 39- 42 for Respondents’

Instructions):

• Children’s System of Care

• Placer County Executive Officer

• Placer County Public Information Officer ( Recommendation # 4)

• Placer County District Attorney

• Health and Human Services Department

11

CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND RECORD KEEPING PRACTICES

OF PLANNING COMMISSIONS AND DESIGN REVIEW BOARDS

OF CITIES IN PLACER COUNTY

Summary

The 2004- 2005 Placer County Grand Jury Cities Committee investigated the

cities of Auburn, Colfax, Lincoln, Loomis, Rocklin, and Roseville regarding how

their Planning Commissions and Design Review Boards handle conflicts of

interest and perform record keeping tasks. The investigation indicated

significant improvements are needed in both areas. The Grand Jury

recommends specific changes to ensure the cities properly monitor any conflicts

of interest and also suggests a wider distribution of agendas and meeting

minutes.

Narrative

Background to Investigation. The Grand Jury received a complaint concerning a

potential conflict of interest of a planning commissioner in Lincoln. The

complainant noted the excessive number of times a planning commissioner had

recused himself from hearing items brought before the Commission. The

complainant highlighted an instance where this same commissioner recused

himself from hearing an item, but then took the podium to advocate the item for

his client. The complaint further alleged the Lincoln Design Review Board failed

to keep adequate meeting minutes.

As the investigation progressed, the Committee determined there would be value

in expanding the investigation to each of the county’s six cities. Accordingly, the

Committee looked into the operation of each city’s Planning Commission and

Design Review Board with respect to the questions of “ conflict of interest” and

“ proper record keeping.”

Methodology of the Investigation. The Committee performed the following

investigative activities.

1. Review of Relevant Laws and Documents Regarding Both Conflict of

Interest and Meeting Records, to include:

• Information regarding conflict of interest recusal requirements as

specified by California’s Political Reform Act; the most pertinent

item was “ Can I Vote?: An Overview of Public Officials’ Obligations

Under the Political Reform Act’s Conflict of Interest Rules,” State of

California Fair Political Practices Commission, 2004.

• Information posted on the website of the California State Attorney

General regarding the Brown Act, specifically “ The Brown Act:

Open Meetings for Local Legislative Bodies,” California Attorney

General’s Office, 2003.

12

• Materials published by the League of California Cities’ Institute for

Local Self Governance concerning ethics laws as they apply to

local public officials; the pertinent item was: “ A Local Official’s

Guide to Ethics Laws,” League of California Cities, Institute for

Local Self Governance, Spring 2002.

2. Review of Agendas and Minutes for Planning Commission and Design

Review Board Meetings from October, 2002 – October, 2004. The

Committee obtained additional information from city staff on reasons for

recusal when it was not included in the meeting minutes.

3. Review of Each City’s Website with Respect to Agendas and Minutes for

Planning Commission and Design Review Board Meetings. A detailed

analysis of each website was conducted examining meeting agendas and

minutes. A list of websites utilized for government information appears in

Appendix A.

4. Review of Relevant City Policies and Procedures. The Committee sent

two letters to the City Manager of each city requesting specific information

about the city’s conflict of interest policies and procedures, and the

practices of the Planning Commission and Design Review Board. Also

requested were copies of agendas and minutes from each Planning

Commission and Design Review Board. All cities submitted the requested

information.

5. Visits to Meetings of the Planning Commissions and Design Review

Boards. The Committee attended meetings in selected cities to gather

data on the conduct of the meetings.

6. Consultation with Professional Legal Advisors. The Committee consulted

attorneys regarding the issues of recusal procedures, definitions of conflict

of interest, and the adequacy of meeting minutes.

Results of Investigation. The results of the investigation are presented in Tables

1- 3. Each table is preceded by a discussion of key points.

Planning Commissions, Design Review Boards, and Their Agendas and Minutes.

Table 1 presents a summary of the agency composition and the website

availability of agendas and minutes. Notable points identified in the table follow:

• None of the cities maintain a current listing on their website of both

agendas and minutes for their Planning Commission and Design Review

Board meetings.

• The City of Lincoln does not keep minutes of their Design Review Board

meetings.

• The composition of the Design Review Board varies among the cities.

13

Table 1. Planning Commissions, Design Review Boards, and Their

Agendas and Minutes.

City/ Town Planning

Commission ( PC)

Composition

Design Review Board

( DRB) Composition

Agendas and

Minutes on City

Website ( as of

4/ 1/ 05)

Auburn 5 members, 4- year

term, 3- term limit.

Planning Commission

acts as Design Review

Board.

Agendas and

minutes for 9/ 21/ 04-

1/ 18/ 05.

Colfax 5 members; at least 3

must be residents;

others must maintain

business in Colfax; 4-

year term.

5 members; must be a

resident or maintain a

business in Colfax; 4- year

term; created by

ordinance.

No agendas or

minutes.

Lincoln 7 members; 4- year

term; each City Council

member appoints one

Commissioner.

City Engineer; City

Planner; City Adminis-trator

( or designee); City

Fire Chief ( or designee);

a member of Planning

Commission; a member

of the public appointed by

City Administrator;

created by ordinance; no

terms specified for

citizens.

Agendas for

1/ 17/ 01- 3/ 16/ 05.

( PC only).

Minutes for 1/ 21/ 04-

12/ 15/ 04 only. ( PC

only). DRB does

not keep minutes.

Loomis

( town)

5 members; 4- year

term; each Town

Council member

appoints one

Commissioner

Does not have a Design

Review Board.

Agendas: none.

Minutes: none.

Rocklin 5 members; 4- year

term.

Planning Commission

acts as the Design

Review Board

Agendas: only the

current agenda is

posted.

Minutes: none.

Roseville 7 members plus

alternates for major

projects where a

regular member is

absent or disqualified;

4- year term; limited to

2 consecutive terms.

3 members; 2 appointed

by City Council and 1

designated by Planning

Commission; 4- year term;

limited to 2 consecutive

terms; created by

ordinance.

PC Agendas:

2/ 24/ 05- 3/ 24/ 05

PC Minutes:

1/ 27/ 05- 2/ 24/ 05

DRB Agendas and

minutes: 12/ 03-

12/ 16/ 04.

14

Conflict of Interest and Recusal Practices. Table 2 summarizes the data

collected from the cities regarding training and monitoring of conflict of interest

and their procedures for recusal when a conflict exists. Notable points in the

table follow:

• Cities vary in providing conflict of interest training and monitoring.

• The procedures for handling conflicts of interest are varied. Four cities do

not have written policies for their Planning Commission and Design

Review Board specifying procedures members must use when they

recuse themselves from hearing an item.

• Auburn and Roseville have written procedures for recusal when a conflict

of interest exists.

• Rocklin and Roseville maintain a map of conflict zones for property of

members of their Planning Commission and Design Review Board to

assist appointees and staff in identifying when a conflict may exist.

15

Table 2. Conflict of Interest and Recusal Practices

City/ Town Conflict of Interest Train-ing

Provided to Planning

Commission and Design

Review Board Members

Staff Respon-sible

for Monit-oring

Conflict

of Interest

Procedures for

Recusal When a

Conflict of

Interest Occurs

Auburn Community Development

Director meets with each

member, discusses

information from League of

California Cities; members

attend annual Planning

Commissioners Institute of the

League of California Cities.

City Attorney and

Community

Development staff

work with

members on

conflict of interest

issues.

Written procedures

for recusal; when

item is called,

commissioner must

declare nature of

conflict and not

participate in dis-cussion

of the item.

Colfax City provides training materials

and conducts work sessions;

City Attorney provides

personal counsel.

City Manager, City

Attorney and City

Planner monitor

compliance.

NO written

procedures for

recusal.

Lincoln City Attorney discusses con-flict

of interest with members

of boards and commissions.

“ A Local Official’s Guide to

Ethics Laws” from Institute for

Local Self Government is

provided to Commissioners.

No staff design-nated

to monitor

conflict of interest

by Planning

Commissioners;

they monitor

themselves.

NO written

procedures for

recusal.

Loomis

( Town)

Town Attorney discusses

current laws; provides

materials from the League of

California Cities.

Town Attorney

and Planning

Director monitor

compliance.

NO written

procedures for

recusal.

Rocklin City Clerk and City Attorney

provide information; members

attend the annual Planning

Commissioners’ Institute of the

League of California Cities.

No staff design-nated

to monitor

conflict of interest

by Commission-ers;

they monitor

themselves; map

of conflict zone

maintained for

property of each

member.

NO written proced-ures

for recusal;

Commissioners are

advised to state if

they have a conflict

on an item and ex-cuse

themselves

from room; may not

participate or try to

influence a decision.

Roseville City Attorney provides training

materials, conducts a seminar;

Commissioners attend League

of California Cities workshops

for planning commissioners.

City Attorney and

Planning Dept.

staff monitor

compliance; map

of conflict zone

maintained for

property of each

member.

Written procedures

for recusal; when

item is called,

commissioner must

declare nature of

conflict and leave

dais; may not try to

influence decision.

16

Recusals Due to Conflict of Interest by Planning Commissioners and Design

Review Board Members. Table 3 summarizes data collected concerning

recusals by Planning Commissioners and Design Review Board members from

October, 2002 – October, 2004. Notable points made in the table follow:

• Based on a review of meeting minutes, most cities did not identify the

nature of the conflict of interest when one occurred, as required by

California Code of Regulations ( CCR) § 18702.5 ( b)( 2), Public

Identification of a Conflict of Interest for Section 87200 Filers. The code

states “…. If the governmental decision is to be made during an open

session of a public meeting, the public identification shall be made orally

and shall be made part of the official public record.”

• The City of Lincoln had 25 instances of a Planning Commissioner recusing

himself from hearing an issue before the Commission. Of those, 19 of the

recusals were by the same commissioner. On two occasions, this

commissioner recused himself from three items at a single Planning

Commission meeting.

• During the Lincoln Planning Commission meeting of February 19, 2003, a

commissioner recused himself from hearing an item, left his seat on the

dais and went to the podium to advocate his client’s project. This is in

contradiction of California Code of Regulations ( CCR) § 18702.5( b)( 3),

which states “…. The public official must recuse himself or herself and

leave the room after the identification required by subdivisions ( b)( 1) and

( b)( 2) of this regulation is made….”

• As Lincoln’s Design Review Board does not keep minutes, the frequency

and reason for recusals is not known.

17

Table 3. Recusals Due to Conflict of Interest by Planning Commissioners

and Design Review Board Members

City/ Town Number of

Recusals ( 10/ 02-

10/ 04)

Largest Number

of Recusals for

Any Single Person

Most Frequent

Reasons for

Conflict of Interest

Auburn 11 for Planning

Commission

5 for a Planning

Commissioner

7 for owning property

close to the item in

question; reasons for

recusal are always

stated in the minutes.

Colfax 4 for Planning

Commission.

2 for Planning

Commissioner.

Specific reasons for

recusal are not always

stated in the minutes.

Lincoln 25 for Planning

Commission; recusals

for Design Review

Board are unknown

because no minutes

are kept.

19 for a Planning

Commissioner; this

Commissioner has

had as many as 3

recusals at a single

meeting; recusals for

Design Review Board

are unknown since

minutes are not kept.

Specific reasons are

not always stated in

the minutes; City Clerk

indicated that a

Commissioner

recused himself on 19

occasions due to his

professional

involvement with the

item before the

Commission.

Loomis

( Town)

2 for Planning

Commission.

1 for Planning

Commissioner.

Specific reasons are

not always stated in

the minutes.

Rocklin None. None. No recusals.

Roseville 9 for Planning

Commission; 5 for

Design Committee.

4 for Planning

Commissioner; 4 for

Design Committee

member.

5 for business conflict

of Planning

Commissioner and 4

for business conflict of

Design Committee

member per statement

from City Manager.

Specific reasons are

not stated in the

minutes.

18

Findings

The 2004- 2005 Placer County Grand Jury found:

1. The Planning Commission of the City of Lincoln has a significantly higher

incidence of recusal for conflict of interest by its members than any other

city studied. The frequent occurrence of a conflict of interest sends a

confusing message to the public about the objectivity of Planning

Commission decisions.

2. A Lincoln Planning Commissioner’s advocacy of his client’s project

before the commission on February 19, 2003 appears to be a conflict of

interest under California law. This activity blurs the boundary between the

role of a dispassionate public servant and the opposing role of an

advocate for a client and can compromise the integrity of Planning

Commission decisions.

3. The Lincoln Design Review Board does not keep minutes for public

review. While this may not be required under law, the effect is to limit

public oversight of and participation in procedures which may significantly

affect the quality of life in the community.

4. None of the cities studied maintains a current listing on their website of

both agendas and minutes of their Planning Commission and Design

Review Board meetings. This presents a significant obstacle for citizens

who wish to track the many sequential decisions made by these bodies in

determining the progression and quality of growth in the community.

5. Some cities lack in- house, formalized training and monitoring of conflict

of interest for Planning Commission and Design Review Board members.

Effective training and monitoring can preclude potential improprieties and

costly lawsuits.

6. Many of the cities studied lack written policies for their Planning

Commission and Design Review Board specifying the procedures

members must follow to recuse themselves when a conflict of interest

occurs. Clear policies regarding conflict of interest can enhance public

confidence in the decisions made by Planning Commissions and Design

Review Boards.

7. Most cities do not identify the nature of a conflict of interest in the

meeting minutes. This is a failure to comply with CCR § 18702.5 and

hinders public oversight of government agencies.

19

Recommendations

The 2004- 2005 Placer Grand Jury recommends:

1. City Council members refrain from appointing citizens to boards and

commissions who frequently recuse themselves due to conflict of

interest.

2. Minutes of all Planning Commissions and Design Review Boards be kept

and published both in written form and on the City’s web site in a timely

manner.

3. Cities adopt written procedures specifying what a member of a Planning

Commission or Design Review Board must do when a conflict of interest

exists, in accordance with CCR § 18702.5.

4. Cities adopt clear administrative procedures for internal monitoring of

conflict of interest by members of each Planning Commission and Design

Review Board. Additionally, the City Attorney should have a personal

meeting with each member of a board or commission annually to review

their Fair Political Practices Commission ( FPPC) Form 700 filing, to

ensure the form is complete and correct, and to discuss areas where a

conflict of interest may arise.

5. Cities conduct an in- house training seminar for all members of Planning

Commissions and Design Review Boards on ethical issues for public

servants, to include discussion of conflict of interest and the Brown Act.

These issues should not be limited to merely handing out materials from

the League of California Cities and hoping the appointee reads them.

6. Cities develop a statement for members of Planning Commissions and

Design Review Boards to sign, attesting to their understanding of what

constitutes a conflict of interest and promising to avoid it.

7. All cities should create and maintain a website which has a calendar of

meetings of all boards and commissions in their jurisdiction. Additionally,

the website should provide both the agendas and minutes for all

meetings in a timely manner for a period of at least two years.

20

Commendations

The Placer County Grand Jury commends:

1. The City of Auburn for having written procedures for recusal when a

conflict of interest exists and for noting the nature of the conflict in the

meeting minutes.

2. The Cities of Rocklin and Roseville for maintaining a map of conflict zones

for property of members of their Planning Commission to assist

appointees and staff in identifying when a conflict may exist.

Respondents ( within 60 days) ( See pages 39- 42 for Respondents’

Instructions):

• City of Auburn

• City of Colfax

• City of Lincoln

• Town of Loomis

• City of Rocklin

• City of Roseville

21

Appendix A

WEBSITES FOR GOVERNMENT INFORMATION

Brown Act

www. caag. state. ca. us/ publications/ 2003_ Intro_ BrownAct. pdf

California Laws

www. leginfo. ca. gov/ calaw. html

California State Attorney General

www. caag. state. ca. us

City of Auburn, CA

www. auburn. ca. gov

City of Colfax, CA

www. ci. colfax. ca. us

City of Lincoln, CA

www. ci. lincoln. ca. us

Town of Loomis, CA

www. loomis. ca. gov

City of Rocklin, CA

www. rocklin. ca. gov

City of Roseville, CA

www. roseville. ca. us

Fair Political Practices Commission, State of California

www. fppc. ca. gov

Institute for Local Self Governance, League of California Cities

www. ilsg. org

State of California

www. ca. gov

22

PUBLIC GUARDIAN’S OFFICE

Summary

The 2004- 2005 Placer County Grand Jury followed up on the 2003- 2004 Grand

Jury’s investigation in the management and operation of the Public Guardian’s

Office ( PGO). The PGO performs legal guardianship services for about 180

persons. The current year’s investigation found continuing ( and ever increasing)

problems in that office, to include: management, staffing, warehousing, and

performance of basic required tasks. During the past year, there were a few

efforts by the Department of Health and Human Services ( HHS) to make

improvements, but these efforts were inadequate. As a result, the Grand Jury

recommends significant management changes for the PGO.

Narrative

Background to Investigation. The 2004- 2005 Placer County Grand Jury began

its investigation into the PGO by following up on the report made by the previous

Grand Jury. In addition, the Grand Jury’s Health and Human Services

Committee noted several other previous Grand Juries had reported on

inadequacies in PGO operations. In response to these reports, the Placer

County HHS has consistently stated that improvements would be made;

however, the proposed changes were never implemented. Therefore, the

Committee decided to perform an in- depth investigation of the PGO operations.

Responses to the 2003- 2004 Grand Jury Recommendations by HHS. HHS

provided responses to the 2003- 2004 Grand Jury’s recommendations three

times: in August 2004, December 2004, February 2005. With each response,

HHS came closer to satisfying the recommendations. Not until the latest

response, however, does it seem HHS has a semblance of understanding the

PGO problems, and still offer no well defined plan to correct them.

Identification of Additional Problems within the PGO. The Committee conducted

interviews with two PGO supervisors, every PGO employee, and the HHS

director. The Committee visited the PGO twice, and toured both the old and new

warehouses. The Committee identified a number of problems, including:

• Poor management and supervision.

• Staffing shortages.

• Warehousing.

• Filing backlog.

• Lack of standardized policies, procedures, and workload management.

1. Poor Management and Supervision. Criticism of the management and

supervision of the PGO has been identified in Grand Jury reports for years. This

Committee’s interviews with both the current supervisor and staff confirmed the

fact that the most recent long term supervisor has been on a leave of absence for

23

over one year and was not expected to return. Interviews with the PGO staff

found that while this supervisor was assigned 50% of his time to PGO he actually

devoted less than 10% of his time. Since his absence there have been interim

supervisors, none of whom have taken an interest in PGO.

2. Staffing Shortages. Last year’s Grand Jury report noted two key staffing

needs: the supervisor, on long- term leave but not replaced; and a clerical person,

on long- term disability but not replaced. The existing four PGO staff workers

include three deputies ( one of whom works half- time on Public Guardian tasks)

and one clerical person. The three deputies have a case load 22% larger than

the state average. The clerical person is assigned to do work formerly done by

two people.

This personnel shortage has been ongoing for almost two years. However, HHS’

February 2005 response to the last year’s recommendations stated two new

half- time temporary employees would be hired to cover the work formerly done

by the on- leave clerical employee.

3. Warehousing. The Committee toured the two warehouses in January 2005.

The first warehouse was used to store the belongings of approximately 26

clients. The items in the warehouse were poorly arranged, not well identified,

and not well catalogued. Items belonging to other agencies were interspersed

with items belonging to the PGO clients.

The second warehouse is in a building modified to store PGO clients’ property

exclusively. The move to this warehouse facility was made in March 2005 and

seems to have rectified all concerns – a major improvement.

4. Filing Backlog. Interviews with staff indicated some files have not been closed

in two years. Staff indicated the filing was kept current when all staff positions

were filled two years ago. Since then, the three deputies and the clerical person

state they have not had time to do much filing. Therefore, there is a major filing

backlog.

5. Lack of Standardized Policies, Procedures, and Workload Management. In

interviews, all personnel noted the PGO has no procedure manual. They also

stated about five years ago a manual was being developed, but it was somehow

lost. Nothing has been done to develop a new one.

It became apparent there was a wide variance among the different deputies’

practices in areas such as “ frequency of visits of clients” and “ storage items

maintained for clients.” There are neither formal job descriptions nor guidelines

for any PGO staff members.

24

In February 2005, the HHS Director told the Committee it had been determined

that the PGO would adopt the Policy and Procedure Manual for Public Guardians

used in Sacramento County.

Interviews with the Public Guardian Supervisors. The Committee interviewed the

interim supervisor on two occasions, in October 2004 and January 2005. The

Committee also interviewed the new supervisor ( appointed in January 2005) in

January, February, and April 2005. She is on probation for the first few months

of her assignment. The former PGO interim supervisor was promoted and is now

the immediate supervisor of the new PGO supervisor.

The Committee was disappointed in its two interviews ( October 2004 and

January 2005) with the interim supervisor. In spite of the fact that he was the

person with prime responsibility for supervising the PGO, he seemed unaware of

the scope of the previous Grand Jury’s report. He had a paucity of knowledge

about the PGO operations, and had no definitive plan for improving the PGO.

This lack of awareness on his part extended to each of the areas of the

committee’s concerns. He either did not know or care about staffing shortages,

warehousing problems, filing backlog, or lack of a procedures manual. He had

extremely limited knowledge of the duties of the PGO staff, and was unable to

answer even the most basic questions about PGO operations.

Sometimes, his answers to the committee’s questions were quite puzzling.

When the committee asked about whether the supervisor was assigned full- time

to the PGO, he claimed that he was indeed assigned full- time, but that he was

also assigned full- time to another area. The committee asked if this meant that

the PGO was only getting his time for 20 hours per week. His answer was “ he

worked 40 hours per week in both the PGO and the other office, for a total of 80

hours per week.” Later, upon review of the HHS budget, the Committee learned

that both he and his predecessor had nominally been assigned 50% of their time

to the PGO.

In the interviews with the newly appointed PGO supervisor, the Committee was

impressed with her desire to do an effective job. She is new to the PGO work

and will need to be trained before she can be effective. In the recent re- shuffling

of assignments within her particular area of HHS, she has been given

supervisory responsibilities for three programs: PGO, Adult Protective Services,

and Public Administrator. Unfortunately, staff members working in these three

programs have their offices in different buildings.

Interviews with Deputies and Clerical Staff. The Committee interviewed each of

the four employees assigned in that unit: three deputies and one clerical worker.

The Committee was impressed with the job knowledge and work ethic of each of

them.

25

Deputies. Two of the deputies have worked for 10 years in their PGO jobs, while

the other has worked 11 years there.

Their job as conservator is quite complex and involves a number of legal issues.

This means they must work closely with the Placer County Counsel’s Office.

Every 1st and 3rd Thursday the deputies have various court appearances. When

asked how they were trained for their jobs, they stated there was no training; they

basically learned to do the work “ on the job,” using the Public Administrator’s

Office for guidance in the absence of their own department’s supervision.

The deputies have had a history of having supervisors within HHS who had no

knowledge of the PGO, so each new supervisor had to be trained. This situation

has prevailed for the past ten years and has exacerbated in the past two years.

The deputies recognize the problems of the chaotic warehouse and the filing

backlog, but are so busy trying to keep up with their clients’ most basic needs

they have not been able to do this other work. They claimed they have made

repeated attempts to work with their supervisors to improve the condition of the

warehouse. They stated they offered to come in on a Saturday on their own time

for warehouse cleanup. They said they found an opportunity to purchase some

inexpensive shelving for the warehouse, but their supervisor rejected that idea.

In spite of their difficulties, the deputies have good attitudes and are doing a good

job.

Clerical Worker. The clerical worker has been in the PGO since 1988. Her

official title is Senior Services Administration Clerk. Because of the arrangement

of certain types of clerical workers, the clerical worker in the PGO does not report

to the same supervisor that the case deputies do. Her supervisor is in the

Clerical Pool. This means she has no in- PGO supervision. Because she is a

“ one- person” operation, she has no backup. When she is not at work, no one

answers the phone, or does her work. This is a major problem, because much of

her work involves tasks related to the court, such as new petitions, conservator-ship

renewals, and court filings. She must prepare for court every 1st and 3rd

Thursday of each month.

The clerical worker is the only person who understands the details of this job.

There is no written job description, and apparently, the job has evolved over the

past 17 years. There is a procedural manual covering the court documents.

Years ago two clerical persons performed complementary tasks. However, two

years ago, the other clerical worker left her job, went on a non- job related

disability, and moved out of the county. The Committee found it difficult to

understand why that position is still being held in her name.

The remaining clerical worker states the best thing to do to improve the PGO

operation would be to replace the unfilled clerical position. Many things are not

26

getting done, e. g., no case files have been closed in over two years. She says “ it

doesn’t help if a temporary person comes in because it takes too long to train

someone how to do the job if they only stay a short while.” Also, there is a

significant volume of mail, and it would help to have an additional clerical person

perform the mail opening/ distribution task.

Interview with HHS Director. In February 2005, the Committee interviewed the

HHS Director. He has been in his current position under one year, so he has had

a limited background in dealing with the PGO. He has many responsibilities in

managing an 800 plus person department, so the PGO is a small part of his

responsibility. Nevertheless, in response to the 2004- 2005 Grand Jury’s

investigation of the PGO, he has devoted attention toward fixing the problems.

No substantive changes in the PGO operation took place before the HHS

Director got personally involved. The Committee presumes he has been the

catalyst in getting some improvements made:

• Two temporary half- time positions have been designated for the PGO, to

assist with the clerical functions, with these positions to be filled by the

end of the fiscal year.

• The Public Guardian Procedures Manual used by Sacramento County has

been obtained but is not yet adapted for use by Placer County.

When the Committee questioned the wisdom of assigning a new supervisor only

1/ 3 time to the PGO, the Director cited budget constraints within HHS as the

reason for that decision, and stated this was a necessary step.

The Committee also questioned the value of hiring two half- time temporary

personnel to do the work of the former clerical person. He stated again this was

a budgetary measure and the use of the temporary people would save money.

Findings

The 2004- 2005 Placer County Grand Jury found:

1. The management of the PGO has been neglected.

2. Staffing shortages have impaired PGO.

3. PGO lacks a definitive improvement plan.

4. None of the past Grand Jury recommendations were acted upon until the

new HHS Director became personally involved.

5. Until recently, warehousing tasks have been performed poorly.

6. Filing tasks have been neglected due to staffing shortages.

7. There was a notable lack of standardization of policies, procedures, and

workload management.

27

8. The PGO supervisor spends ( nominally) 1/ 3 of her time with the PGO

tasks.

9. The PGO supervisor has responsibility for directing three distinct

programs, but each has offices in different physical areas.

10. All new PGO supervisors for the past several years have initially known

nothing of PGO work and have required basic PGO training.

Recommendations

The 2004- 2005 Placer Grand Jury recommends:

1. The PGO be reorganized.

2. A supervisor be able to devote sufficient time to correct the PGO

problems.

3. The three programs directed by the PGO supervisor be co- located in the

same building.

4. The PGO supervisor develop a definitive PGO Improvement Plan.

5. The staffing shortage be corrected.

6. The warehouse continue to be monitored for improvements.

7. The filing tasks be brought up to date.

8. Standardized policies be implemented.

9. Job descriptions be developed.

10. Continued training of the PGO supervisor.

11. Follow- up on the PGO situation by the 2005- 2006 Grand Jury.

Respondents ( within 60 days) ( see pages 39- 42 for Respondents’

Instructions):

• Public Guardian’s Office

• Health and Human Services Department

• Placer County Executive Officer

28

BURTON CREEK SHERIFF’S SUBSTATION

Summary

The Burton Creek Sheriff’s Substation and related courtroom facilities are

outmoded and have reached the point where future remodeling is not cost

effective. Therefore, the Grand Jury recommends active planning started for a

new enlarged facility on a site already owned by Placer County.

Narrative

Background to Investigation. Penal Code Section 919( b) states: “ The Grand

Jury shall inquire into the condition and management of the public prisons within

the county.” Accordingly, the 2004- 2005 Placer County Grand Jury visited the

Burton Creek Sheriff’s Substation and related courtroom and other facilities.

Because the Grand Jury has visited and reported on the Burton Creek facilities

for each of the past several years, the Grand Jury also followed up on the

specific recommendations of previous Grand Juries.

Inadequacy of the Current Burton Creek Sheriff’s Substation Facility. The current

facility housing the sheriff’s substation and courtroom functions, built in 1960, has

been remodeled many times. The Sheriff’s Office has off- loaded some of its

operations to a nearby rented facility. However, this is only a minor aid to the

basic problem of having an outmoded and inadequate facility. Based on Grand

Jury observations and interviews, the current facility does not have the space

needed to perform its required functions properly, nor is the facility amenable to

the type of remodeling that would be required to make it a proper facility.

Contractual Arrangements between Placer and Nevada Counties. Truckee,

located near Tahoe City ( but in Nevada County), houses a Nevada County

Sheriff’s facility and related courtroom. Placer County contracts with Nevada

County for the Truckee facility as needed to house inmates arrested in Placer

County. This contractual arrangement helps Placer County to minimize space

requirements in its Burton Creek Substation holding cells.

Placement of New Sheriff’s Substation in Cabin Creek Area. Property in the

Burton Creek/ Tahoe City area is much more expensive than in most other areas

of Placer County. However, Placer County owns the property housing the

current Burton Creek Substation. Placer County also owns property in the Cabin

Creek area which could be used to build a new Substation facility. The Cabin

Creek area is located several miles north of Tahoe City, and is much closer to

Truckee.

The Grand Jury received a memorandum from the Placer County Assistant

County Executive Officer which had been prepared by the Facility Services

Department. The department estimated costs of a vehicle maintenance building

29

and a sand storage building on the Cabin Creek site. This same site might be

used as a future sheriff’s substation and court.

Active Planning Needed for a Future Substation Facility. While some of the

Burton Creek Sheriff Department officials have presented the idea of building a

new substation and courtroom facility at Cabin Creek, the idea has not been

developed in detail, and thus has not been considered by policy makers. In

order to effectively develop these concepts, it is important to have the pertinent

Placer County entities start to plan for a new substation.

Findings

The 2004- 2005 Placer County Grand Jury found:

1. The Burton Creek Sheriff’s Substation is housed in an inadequate facility.

2. The county’s Cabin Creek property may provide a suitable location for a

new sheriff’s substation to replace Burton Creek.

Recommendations

The 2004- 2005 Placer Grand Jury recommends:

1. An in- depth planning study be performed to determine the cost and

timetable for a new sheriff and courtroom facility at Cabin Creek.

2. This planning study be performed jointly by Placer and Nevada Counties.

Respondents ( within 60 days) ( See pages 39- 42 for Respondents’

Instructions):

• Placer County Executive Officer

• Placer County Sheriff’s Office

• Placer County Facility Services Department

30

EMERGENCY RESPONSES FOR THE ELDERLY

Summary

The 2004- 2005 Placer County Grand Jury investigated the handling of possible

emergencies concerning elderly people who live alone. This may be an

increasing problem as there are growing numbers of elderly persons who live

alone. Policies that are helpful without being illegal or intrusive should be

adopted.

Narrative

Background to Investigation. The 2004- 2005 Placer County Grand Jury’s

Criminal Justice Committee initiated an investigation into emergency responses

for the elderly. The Committee was informed of a situation where an elderly

person’s friend believed her friend was in need of attention, but because the

police had no firm reason to “ break in” to the home, they waited 72 hours before

breaking in. The elderly person was found dead at that time in her own home. It

was unclear whether an earlier intervention could have saved her life. Based on

that incident, the Committee conducted several interviews to see what policies

were in place within the county to intervene in the home of a potentially

incapacitated elderly person.

Scope of the Problem. According to estimates of the US Census Bureau, in

2003, Placer County had 9,418 persons over the age of 65 who were living

alone. With this sizable number of older people, it is reasonable to expect that

there will be a large group of people who are “ at risk” in their homes if they

should become suddenly incapacitated and are unable to call for immediate

medical attention.

Interviews with Police and Sheriff Departments. The Committee interviewed

personnel from the police departments of Auburn, Lincoln, Rocklin, and

Roseville, and the Placer County Sheriff’s office, regarding their policies toward

home intervention in the case of an “ at risk” elderly person. The reported policies

were diverse, but each department is well aware of the problems inherent in

these situations. Each person interviewed was interested in trying to strike a

proper balance between privacy concerns and helpfulness when emergencies

occur.

Police Concerns Regarding Privacy Issues. Each police department is well

aware of privacy considerations. They know the United States Constitution’s 4th

Amendment precludes forcible entry into private residences without a warrant.

Some jurisdictions have learned through their own experience that forcible entry

into some of the newer homes in Placer County has resulted in damage claims

being made against a police department in the thousands of dollars. Therefore,

31

police departments are extremely reluctant to make forcible entry into homes

even for the “ at risk” elderly population.

Police Concern for the “ At Risk” Elderly Group. Each police jurisdiction has

shown a willingness to respond to help potentially “ at risk” persons if there is a

significant indication of a major health concern. Each police jurisdiction works

as closely as it can with citizen groups such as Neighborhood Watch

organizations or Home Owner Associations to assist in looking out for “ at risk”

elderly persons. The Auburn Police Department has issued comprehensive

guidelines for Patrol Officers who may investigate reports of health concerns for

“ at risk” people. The Lincoln Police Department is actively pursuing a solution for

the “ at risk” people in conjunction with a local citizens’ group. In all cases, the

final decision as to forcible entry of an “ at risk” person is dependent on the

judgment of the investigating officer.

Legal “ Exceptions” to Warrantless Entry. Although the US Constitution’s 4th

Amendment specifically precludes warrantless entry into private homes,

California’s Case Law provides an exception for Police Officers under the

“ community caretaker exception.” Specific guidance is provided in the California

Peace Officers Legal Sourcebook. In such a case, officers must be able to point

to “ specific and articulable facts” to justify an entry into a private home.

Cooperation Among the Placer Law Enforcement Agencies. To further

cooperation among the several law enforcement agencies, the Placer Law

Enforcement Agencies Executive Council ( PLEA) meets monthly to discuss

mutual problems. PLEA includes the Chiefs of Police of Roseville, Rocklin,

Lincoln, and Auburn, as well as the Placer County Sheriff’s Department and the

California Highway Patrol.

Findings

The 2004- 2005 Placer County Grand Jury found:

1. The police departments within Placer County are fully aware of the

potential health concerns of “ at risk” elderly persons who live alone.

That awareness is balanced against the need for respecting privacy

issues, so police are reluctant to make forcible entry based on limited

data.

2. The several police jurisdictions have no common policy regarding

intervention in the home of “ at risk” persons, but try to work closely with

citizen groups to arrive at a humane yet practical solution.

32

Recommendations

The 2004- 2005 Placer Grand Jury recommends:

1. Each police jurisdiction prepare written guidelines for Patrol Officers when

investigating “ at risk” elderly persons.

2. Police departments and citizen groups work together to encourage “ at

risk” elderly persons to develop a system whereby neighbors keep track of

them.

3. PLEA to discuss the problems in dealing with emergency responses for

elderly people in distress, exchanging ideas in the hope of establishing

effective common policies.

4. Each jurisdiction ensure that their Patrol Officers are aware of the

exceptions and limitations to warrantless entry as provided in California

Case Law.

Respondents ( within 60 days) ( See pages 39- 42 for Respondents’

Instructions):

• Auburn Police Department

• Lincoln Police Department

• Rocklin Police Department

• Roseville Police Department

• Placer County Sheriff’s Department

33

CITY JAILS WITHIN PLACER COUNTY

Summary

The 2004- 2005 Placer County Grand Jury’s Criminal Justice Committee visited

jails in Auburn, Lincoln, Rocklin, and Roseville, and was impressed with their

operation. The Grand Jury especially commends the City of Rocklin, its

planners, police personnel, and others who assisted in the development of

Rocklin’s new state- of- the- art facility, which opened in May 2005.

Narrative

Background to Investigation. Penal Code Section 919( b) states: “ The Grand

Jury shall inquire into the condition and management of the public prisons within

the county.” Accordingly, the 2004- 2005 Placer County Grand Jury’s Criminal

Justice Committee visited the jails in Auburn, Lincoln, Rocklin, and Roseville.

Commonalities Among the Cities, Their Jails, and Police Departments. Based

on the Committee’s interviews with police chiefs and their staffs, the challenges

of growth in population and crime are being addressed as follows:

• Each police department has been increasing its size and facilities.

• Each police department makes effective use of volunteers, and has a

significant community relations effort.

• Each department is well managed, and is future oriented.

Defining Future Needs for Police Facilities and Organizations. In interviews with

the police chiefs of each of the cities, it was apparent that future planning was a

key issue for each police department. Each was well aware of future needs, but

some seemed to have identified future needs with more planning than others

Some Special Accomplishments. Rocklin has designed a state- of- the- art police

station that could serve as a model for many others. It makes excellent use of

space, and is designed to handle both present and future needs so that it will still

be current when Rocklin reaches its maximum growth in a few years.

The Rocklin Police Station contains well defined areas for offices, interviews,

recreation, a firing range, evidence rooms, and all other needs for a modern

police operation.

34

Findings

The 2004- 2005 Placer County Grand Jury found:

1. The police departments within Placer County are doing excellent work.

2. Rocklin’s new police station is outstanding.

3. All police departments do detailed future planning.

Commendation

The 2004- 2005 Placer County Grand Jury commends the City of Rocklin for its

fine work in planning, design, and construction of the new police station.

Respondents: None required.

35

JUVENILE DETENTION FACILITY AND OPERATIONS

Summary

The 2004- 2005 Grand Jury visited the county’s Juvenile Detention Facility ( JDF).

The Grand Jury especially commend the JDF operation for its new facility and its

effective adaptation of the System Management, Advocacy, and Resource Team

( SMART) methodology. As a result, JDF has an improved rate of non- recidivism,

and has achieved an average stay of only two weeks per youth in its system.

Narrative

Background to Investigation. Penal Code Section 919( b) states: “ The Grand

Jury shall inquire into the condition and management of the public prisons within

the county.” This charge to inquire into prisons also applies to the county’s

juvenile facilities. Accordingly, the 2004- 2005 Placer County Grand Jury’s Health

and Welfare Committee visited the JDF in Auburn. The Committee met with the

Juvenile Hall Director, the Chief Probation Officer, and probation staff members.

Notable Improvements in JDF Operations. The JDF operation has improved

markedly over the past few years. The committee was especially impressed with

the following areas:

1. JDF Facility. The facility itself is extremely clean and spacious with an

open, covered physical education ( PE) area. The individual quarters used

by the youth were well lighted and neat. The facility is sizable enough that

the county is able to rent space at the hall to outside counties; this practice

will result in cost savings.

2. The Daily JDF Operational Program for the Youth. JDF staff members

operate a full functional and well- balanced program for the youth who stay

at the facility. The youth are kept busy at all times with education,

counseling, and recreation activities. Discipline is well handled, with

incorrigible youth being isolated from the general population in a special

section of the facility.

3. The Adaptation of the System Management, Advocacy, and Resource

Team ( SMART) Methodology. The SMART method, which emphasizes a

team approach, is used to the advantage of each youth who is within the

JDF.

4. Recidivism Rate, and Numbers of Youth Served. The recidivism rate for

youth offenders has improved in Placer County in recent years. There has

been an emphasis on trying to keep youth offenders in their own homes.

This approach has been successful, as evidenced by the fact that out- of-home

placement is down by 60%. Thus, offending youth are remaining

much more in their own homes and staying less in JDF.

36

5. Average Length of Stay. Again, with emphasis on having offenders stay a

minimum of time in the Juvenile Hall, the average length of stay at the JDF

is only two weeks.

Finding

The 2004- 2005 Placer County Grand Jury found:

The JDF program is well executed.

Commendation

The 2004- 2005 Placer County Grand Jury commends the JDF staff members.

Respondents:

No response is necessary.

37

PLACER COUNTY ANNUAL AUDIT

Summary

The 2004- 2005 Placer County Grand Jury performed its oversight functions of

the county’s accounting and auditing procedures and practices. The Grand

Jury’s Audit and Finance Committee reviewed accounting and auditing

operations with the county’s independent auditing firm and with the county’s

Auditor- Controller’s Office. The Committee was impressed with all the

accounting and auditing practices and results. The Grand Jury commends the

Placer County Auditor- Controller and her staff.

Narrative

Background to Investigation. California Penal Code Section 925 requires county

grand juries to “… investigate and report on the operations, accounts, and

records of the officers, departments, or functions of the county… “ Accordingly,

the 2004- 2005 Placer County Grand Jury’s Audit and Finance Committee

performed an investigation of the county accounting and auditing procedures,

practices, and results.

Committee Meetings with the Independent Auditors for Placer County. Placer

County has contracted with the Certified Public Accountants and Management

Consulting Firm of Bartig, Basler, & Ray to perform its annual independent audit.

The Committee met with Bartig, Basler, & Ray representatives, reviewing the

procedures and results of its Placer County audit. The results of their audit

indicated that all significant accounting and auditing issues had been properly

executed.

Meetings with Placer County Auditor- Controller’s Office. The Committee met

with the County Auditor- Controller’s Office to review its accounting and auditing

practices. The Committee was impressed with the work being done by the

Auditor- Controller’s Office.

The Government Accounting Standards Board is the national accounting and

financial reporting standards setting body for government entities. However,

four years ago, in an effort to perform its work at an even higher level, the Placer

County Auditor- Controller’s Office chose to perform its accounting work to the

demanding standards of the Government Finance Officers Association for

Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports ( CAFR). Each of the past three

years, the county’s full compliance with requirements associated with CAFR has

earned the county the highest recognition in government accounting and financial

reporting through the receipt of a Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in

Financial Reporting. The county’s office expects to receive recognition again this

year from CAFR.

38

The Auditor- Controller’s Office reports that it is in the second year of a three- year

program to support the County Executive’s Office in the implementation of

“ Governing for Results,” a performance based budgeting and reporting system.

This system is expected to improve departmental objective settings and

measuring of performance against those objectives. It is expected that

“ Governing for Results” will be used by all county departments next year.

Findings

The 2004- 2005 Placer County Grand Jury found:

1. The County Auditor- Controller’s Office is in compliance with all

accounting/ auditing requirements.

2. The county’s independent auditing firm, Bartig, Basler, & Ray, found no

significant problems with the county’s accounting and audit procedures,

practices, and results.

3. The County Auditor- Controller’s Office performs its operations according

to the methodology and standards defined by the Government Finance

Officers Association for Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports.

4. The County Auditor- Controller’s Office has had success introducing the

“ Governing for Results” system.

Commendation

The 2004- 2005 Placer County Grand Jury commends the County Auditor-

Controller’s Office for its excellent work.

Respondents: None required.

39

Note to Respondents

The legal requirements affecting respondents and responses to Grand Jury

findings and recommendations are contained in California Penal Code, Section

933.05. The full text of the law is printed below.

Each Respondent should become familiar with these legal requirements and, if in

doubt, should consult legal counsel prior to responding.

For the assistance of all Respondents, Sections 933.05 of the California Penal

Code is summarized as follows:

How to Respond to the Findings

The responding person or entity must respond in one of two ways:

( 1) That you agree with the finding.

( 2) That you disagree wholly or partially with the finding, in which case

the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed

and shall include an explanation of the reasons for the

disagreement.

How to Report Action in Response to Recommendations

Recommendations by the Grand Jury require action. The responding person or

entity must report action on all recommendations in one of four ways:

( 1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary of the

implemented action.

( 2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be

implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation.

( 3) The recommendation requires further analysis. If a person or entity

reports in this manner, the law requires a detailed explanation of the

analysis or study must be submitted to the officer, director, or governing

body of the agency being investigated.

( 4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted

or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor.

Budgetary or Personnel Recommendations

If either a finding or recommendation deals with budgetary or personnel matters

of a County department headed by an elected officer, both the elected officer and

the Board of Supervisors shall respond if the Grand Jury so requests. While the

Board of Supervisors’ response is somewhat limited, the response by the

department head must address all aspects of the finds or recommendations.

40

Appearance Before the Grand Jury

Prior to the publication or release of Grand Jury findings, the Grand Jury may

request a personal appearance by the person or entity to discuss the proposed

findings.

Advance Release of Grand Jury Report Disclosure Prohibited

Prior to Public Release

Two working days prior to release of the Final Report, the Grand Jury will provide

a copy of the portion of the report to all affected agencies or persons. No officer,

agency, department, or governing body of a public agency shall disclose the

contents of the report prior to its public release.

Time to Respond, Where and to Whom to Respond

Section 933.( c), Penal Code, depending on the type of Respondent, provides for

two different response times and to whom you must respond:

( 1) Public Agency: The governing body of any public agency must

respond within ninety ( 90) days. The response must be addressed

to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court.

( 2) Elective Office or Agency Head: All elected officers or heads of

agencies who are required to respond must do so within sixty ( 60)

days, to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court, with an

information copy provided to the Board of Supervisors.

The Presiding Judge of the Placer County Superior Court system is:

The Honorable Frances Kearney

Presiding Judge of the Superior Court

County of Placer

11546 B Avenue

Auburn, CA 95603

Also, please send a carbon copy to the Placer County Grand Jury, addressed as

follows:

Placer County Grand Jury

11490 C Avenue

Auburn, CA 95603

41

California Penal Code

Section 933.05

a. For purposes of subdivision ( b) of Section 933, as to each Grand

Jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of

the following:

( 1) The Respondent agrees with the finding.

( 2) The Respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the

finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion

of the finding that is disputed and shall include an

explanation of the reasons therefor.

b. For purposes of subdivision ( b) of Section 933, as to each Grand

Jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of

the following actions:

i. The recommendation has been implemented, with a

summary regarding the implemented action.

ii. The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will

be implemented in the future, with a time frame for

implementation.

iii. The recommendation requires further analysis, with an

explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or

study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for

discussion by the officer or head of the agency or

department being investigated or reviewed, including the

governing body of the public agency when applicable. This

time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of

publication of the grand jury report.

iv. The recommendation will not be implemented because it is

not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation

therefor.

c. However, if a finding or recommendation of the grand jury

addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a County agency or

department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or

department head and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if

requested by the Grand Jury, but the response of the Board of

Supervisors shall address only those budgetary or personnel

matters over which it has some decision- making authority. The

response of the elected agency or department head shall address

all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her

agency of department.

42

d. A Grand Jury may request a subject person or entity to come

before the Grand Jury for the purpose of reading and discussing

the findings of the Grand Jury report that relates to that person or

entity in order to verify the accuracy of the findings prior to their

release.

e. During an investigation, the Grand Jury shall meet with the subject

of that investigation regarding that investigation, unless the court,

either on its own determination or upon request of the foreperson of

the Grand Jury, determines that such a meeting would be

detrimental.

f. A grand jury shall provide to the affected agency a copy of the

portion of the Grand Jury report relating to that person or entity two

( 2) working days prior to its public release and after the approval of

the Presiding Judge. No officer, agency, department, or governing

body of a public agency shall disclose any contents of the report

prior to the public release of the Final Report.

43

Respondents

Entity Page

Auburn Area Recreation and Parks District Administrator……………….…........ 4

Auburn Area Recreation and Parks District Board of Directors………….….…... 4

Auburn Police Department………………………………………………….….…... 32

Children’s System of Care…………………………………………...……..……… 10

City of Auburn…………………………………………………………………....…… 20

City of Colfax…………………………………………………………………..…….. 20

City of Lincoln…………………………………………………….…………….……. 20

City of Rocklin…………………………………………………………………..….…. 20

City of Roseville……………………………………………………………….…….. 20

Health and Human Services Department……………………………………… 10,. 27

Lincoln Police Department……………………………………….…………………. 32

Placer County District Attorney…….…………………………………..…………… 10

Placer County Executive Officer……………………………………….. 7, 10, 27, 29

Placer County Personnel Department………………………………………….…… 7

Placer County Public Information Officer………………………………………….. 10

Placer County Sheriff’s Office……………………………………………….. 7, 29, 32

Public Guardian’s Office………………………………………………………..…… 27

Rocklin Police Department……………………………………………….…………. 32

Roseville Police Department……………………………………………….………. 32

Town of Loomis……………………………………………………………….……... 20