2006- 2007

TEHAMA COUNTY

GRAND JURY

FINAL REPORT

For The

Betterment Of The

Citizens Of

Tehama County

Tehama County Sheriff’s Office of Emergency Services ( OES)

Summary:

The Audit and Finance Committee of the 2006- 2007 Grand Jury, in service of the citizens

of Tehama County, did discharge it’s duties to investigate various governmental entities

and selected the Tehama County Office of Emergency Services ( OES) for a routine visit

because it had been at least six years since they had been examined.

Introduction:

The Audit and Finance Committee ( the Committee) agreed on the OES because it had

been at least six years since the office had been examined by the Grand Jury. The

primary focus of this investigation is to report on the distributions of funds for the OES

and how those funds were used to prepare our county for a potential disaster. The

Committee also felt it was important to examine the OES in order to bring attention to the

citizens of Tehama County that our public safety departments have disaster plans and

procedures in place in the event of a county or statewide disaster.

Method of Investigation:

On September 27, 2006, the Audit and Finance Committee met privately with a

representative of the Tehama County Sheriff’s Office at the Sheriff’s office located on

Pine Street in Red Bluff. A second meeting with the OES took place on December 8,

2006, at the National Incident Management System & System & Standardized

Emergency Management System ( NIM SEMS) training held at Curtis Wetter Hall

located at 1740 Walnut Street in Red Bluff. During this meeting, the Committee

observed a table top exercise put on by the OES. This visit proved helpful to the

Committee in determining how the monies allocated for training are being used. The

County of Tehama Final Budget for year ending 2007 was provided by the office of the

County Auditor – Controller.

Discussion:

The Office of Emergency Services resides in the Tehama County Sheriff’s Office. OES

staff consists of the Under Sheriff and two others from within the Sheriff’s Office.

Funding for the Sheriff’s Office personnel involved in the OES comes from the regular

Sheriff’s Office budget that is approved by the Tehama County Board of Supervisors.

The main functions of the OES are to: 1) obtain grant funding; 2) conduct training; and

3) coordinate the activities of vario us county departments, state agencies, and private

health and safety organizations during a disaster or other emergency. The goal of the

OES is to ensure a consistent and efficient response by all departments and entities to any

natural or man- made disaster.

At a meeting with the representative of the Sheriff’s Office, the Committee made

inquiries regarding OES funding. The Office’s representative willingly and openly

discussed the accounts pertaining to the emergency services and offered written

documentation regarding these accounts. Written documentation was also offered with

enthusiasm, explaining the benefits of implementing the NIMS SEMS procedures and

protocol. Information was also obtained regarding the equipment purchased with the

Homeland Security grant monies. Equipment purchases included updated computers for

patrol cars and other communication equipment that is used by the OES Mobile Field

Force. Approximately 835 county and city employees have completed the NIM SEMS

training. The goal of the OES has been accomplished through this NIMS SEMS training.

During the table top exercise on December 8, 2006, the Audit and Finance Committee

was able to discuss with the Sheriff’s Office the future plans for the OES Emergency

Operations Center ( EOC), which is located at Curtis Wetter Hall on Walnut Street in Red

Bluff. The facility is in need of six additional dedicated phone and data lines so the

command post can more efficiently handle the communications needed in the event of a

disaster.

Another concern of the OES is the need for additional restrooms at the Emergency

Operations Center. Currently the restrooms can not handle the number of individuals

who would be stationed at the EOC during a disaster. The Sheriff’s Department has

researched the most cost effective way for installing the additional phone lines and has

prepared a tentative plan for the additional restrooms. As of February 1, 2007 during a

Committee meeting, the Sheriff’s Office informed the Committee that the installation of

the phones lines required for the EOC is near completion. The restrooms will be a

budget item and put to bid as soon as the monies become available. A third and final

concern of the OES is the need to increase the attendance of county departments at the

training exercises.

Findings:

· The OES uses allocated grant monies appropriately and wisely.

· The OES has exceeded the yearly requirement to maintain the Homeland Security

grant, which is to train county and city employees in the NIMS SEMS procedures

and protocols.

· The OES Emergency Operations Center is in need of additional restrooms. This

is a budget item and will be put out to bid as soon as the monies are available in

the budget.

· As of February 1, 2007, the State Auditor spent three days reviewing the books of

the Tehama County Sheriff’s Office and found no discrepancies. This

information was disclosed in the February 1, 2007, Committee meeting with

representatives of the Sheriff’s Office.

Recommendations:

· The OES should continue to provide training to county departments and private

entities that are involved in disaster response.

· The Tehama County Board of Supervisors should encourage the appropriate

county departments to attend OES training events.

· The Tehama County Board of Supervisors should give serious consideration to

funding the restroom facilities expansion at the EOC in next year’s budget.

Commendations

· The OES within the Tehama County Sheriffs Office has exceeded the

requirements for the training of county employees and is to be commended for the

hours and efforts committed to planning and preparing these training exercises to

protect and aid the citizens of Tehama County.

· The Sheriff’s Office cooperated fully and willingly with the Audit and Finance

Committee.

· The Sheriff’s Office has established procedures for a mass causality event which

can be executed proficiently and effectively.

Response Required

The OES should provide the 2007- 2008 Grand Jury with a copy of its budget

request to the Board of Supervisors for the restroom expansion.

TEHAMA COUNTY TREASURER/ TAX COLLECTOR DEPARTMENT

Summary:

The County Government Committee of the 2006- 2007 Grand Jury conducted a

routine visit of this department because it had been three ( 3) years since it was last done.

Introduction:

The Treasurer’s Office is responsible for the receipt, depositing, investing and recording

of all funds for the County, school and Special Districts. The purpose of this inquiry is

to determine if the procedures utilized by the Treasurer/ Tax Collector Department

fulfill their department duties and is in compliance with the Ralph M. Brown Act.

Methods of Investigation:

The members of the County Government Committee met the Treasurer/ Tax Collector

and five staff members at 444 Oak Street on September 28, 2006 for approximately one

( 1) hour including a tour. The committee asked 12 questions that included the following

topics; number of people in department, sub- department or committees, organizational

chart, department funding, personnel hiring policies, sources of funds, dispersion of

funds, fiduciary function, scheduled meetings, public posting of meetings, auditing

agency, audit frequency, and last audit.

Discussion:

Satisfactory answers were given for all questions asked and copies of all procedures and

reports were provided as requested. The committee was shown documents and reports

that substantiated their compliance of the procedures and polices mandated in them.

1. There are five staff members and the Treasurer- Tax Collector in the department.

The Treasurer- Tax Collector offices have been combined in staffing and location.

The current Treasurer- Tax Collector has been elected to a third term as Tehama

County Treasurer- Tax Collector.

2. The Treasury Oversight Committee monitors this department in accordance with

State regulations.

3. This department provided the Committee an organizational chart with department title

names and percentage of staff time allotted for Treasurer and Tax Collector

departments. A copy is attached.

4. The funds provided to operate this department and its salaries come from the General

Fund, interest earnings, and county treasury. The funds are allocated from the

treasury by the Board of Supervisors, in compliance with State Code.

5. The policy that establishes employee qualifications, pay scale, and merit review is

controlled by the Tehama County Personnel Hiring Policy.

6. The source of County funds comes from the Treasury, interest earnings, Special

Districts, School Districts, building and construction permits and the General

Fund. The funds are held in a bank account.

7. Fund dispersion is controlled by the County Auditor Controller as prescribed by

the County Board of Supervisors.

8. The fiduciary function of this department is controlled by the California State

Government Code and Tehama County Investment Policy.

9. The Treasury Oversight Committee schedules meetings with agenda and minutes

taken. The Ralph M. Brown Act rules require one ( 1) scheduled meeting a year.

There are currently two ( 2) scheduled meetings a year in Tehama County.

10. The Treasurer- Tax Collector is responsible to post the notice of a meeting on the

bulletin board in the Tehama County Courthouse and on the internet.

11. The Treasury Oversight Committee uses the audit services of an outside agency.

The certified public accounting firm of Bartig, Basler & Ray LLP located in

Roseville CA. is used to audit both the Treasurer- Tax Collector and County-

Controller departments.

12. The Treasury Oversight Committee audit for the fiscal year 2005- 2006 was

published October 18, 2006. The County Auditor- Controller audit for June 30,

2006 was published March 13, 2007. Copies of the audit reports may be viewed in

their respective offices.

13. The County Government Committee was taken on a tour of the office per our

request.

Findings:

1. The Treasurer- Tax Collector department and staff are well organized and

knowledgeable on all procedures that are used to perform their duties.

2. The committee found no deficiencies to make comment on.

Recommendations: None

Response Required: None

Commendations: This department operates in a professional, diligent, and

pleasant manner in the performance of their duties for the

citizens of Tehama County.

Corning Water District

Summary

The Districts & Commissions Committee of the 2006- 2007 Grand Jury ( the

Committee) conducted a routine visit of the Corning Water District because it had not

been visited in the last six years. The Grand Jury found that the Corning Water District is

well- run and in good financial condition, but is faced with a number of challenges related

to government policies and the regional agricultural economy.

Introduction

The purpose of the Committee’s visit was twofold: 1) to determine if the Corning

Water District was serving the public interest and the needs of its customers by providing

irrigation water to the agricultural community in the Corning area; and 2) to determine if

the Board of Directors was following the Ralph M. Brown Act, which governs public

meetings.

Methods of Investigation

The Committee met with the Corning Water District General Manager and

another District employee, on September 18 and October 17, 2006 for a total of 2.75

hours at the Corning Water District office, 22240 Gallagher Avenue, Corning, CA.

Committee members toured the office and pump station facilities at the September 18,

2006 visit.

Two members of the Committee attended the September 20, 2006 Board of

Directors meeting. The meeting was held at the district office, 22240 Gallagher Avenue,

Corning, CA. All five Board of Directors and the General Manager/ Secretary were

present at the September 20 meeting. No members of the public appeared at the meeting,

which our members were informed was a typical occurrence. The Grand Jury members

at the meeting received the same packets as the Board of Directors. The packets included

a meeting agenda, minutes from the August 2006 meeting, current financial statements,

and a proposed annexation policy statement.

Other written materials that were received from the Corning Water District

( CWD) included the 2005 audit by Larry Bain, CPA, of West Sacramento, CA and the

minutes of the September 20, 2006 Board of Directors meeting. All of the written

materials received from the District were used to evaluate the functioning of the CWD

along with notes taken by Grand Jury members at the various meetings they attended.

The Grand Jury contacted the District Manager on November 13, 2006. The

purpose of the contact was to clarify facts and to obtain updated water sales information

for the draft report.

Discussion

The Corning Water District was formed in 1954 under the California Water Code,

Division 12, Section 30,000 et seq. At that time, a specific plan was submitted to the

community offering water service. Based upon the initial responses to the plan, the

Bureau of Reclamation ( BOR) and the CWD designed the Corning Canal and the

distribution system to serve those areas that expressed the interest and commitment to

incur the indebtedness. The first decade of its existence was spent in organizing and

planning the district. The District contracted with the U. S. Government on July 3, 1963

to construct the water delivery system at a total cost of $ 5,108,060. Water deliveries to

customers began in 1965 ( approximate year).

The purpose of the District is to deliver water from the Central Valley Water

Project ( via the Red Bluff Diversion Dam and the Corning Canal) to District landowners

( customers) for agricultural and municipal/ industrial uses. The district has contractual

rights to water from the USDI Bureau of Reclamation ( BOR) and therefore is a federal

water contractor. There are a total of 17 water districts that purchase and distribute water

from facilities managed by the Tehama- Colusa Canal Authority ( TCCA) between

Proberta and Dunnegan. Water from the Central Valley Project ( CVP) is allocated to the

various districts by the TCAA on an annual basis. The TCCA manages the Red Bluff

Diversion Dam and regulates daily water deliveries into the distribution system in

response to water orders from the individual water districts. The Corning Water District

pumps water from the Corning Canal. Each water district has a long- term contract with

the BOR that sets the district’s maximum annual water allocation. The BOR recently

changed the term of the contracts from 40 years to 25 years with the right to renew for

another 25 years. The current contract that the CWD has with the BOR will expire in

2030. Actual annual water allocations depend upon federal and state water policies, crop

types, irrigation methods, and the weather.

The Corning Water District contains 10,687 acres within its jurisdiction. The

approximate boundaries of the District are Simpson Road on the north, Black Butte Road

on the west, Kirkwood Road and 99W on the east, and Liberal Avenue to the south.

Those boundaries correspond roughly to the “ Place of Use” for CVP water as determined

by the State Water Resources Control Board prior to the construction of Shasta Dam.

There are approximately 794 separate assessor’s parcels and 484 landowners within the

CWD. Water delivered by the District is used primarily for agricultural irrigation.

Municipal/ industrial uses are not a significant component ( less than 1%) of water

deliveries due to the high cost of water used for those purposes as per the BOR’s pricing

policy. The water delivered by the District is not used for domestic purposes and

therefore it is not treated, although the pump intakes are screened so that the amount of

fish, algae, and other organic matter that gets into the distribution system is minimized.

Since the District’s inception, there has been a declining trend in the percentage of

District landowners that actually purchase water from the CWD. The percentage has

gone from 80% to 50% currently.

The District’s operations are governed by the State Water Code and federal

reclamation law. Water is purchased from the USDI Bureau of Reclamation, Central

Valley Project. The Brown Act governs meetings. Board meetings are held on the third

Wednesday of every month at 7: 00 PM. Meeting notices are posted at least 72 hours

before the meeting ( as per the Brown Act) on the office bulletin board and at the front

gate of the fenced enclosure around the district office and pump station site. The Brown

Act requires notices to be posted at a publicly accessible place within the District’s

jurisdiction. The CWD is in a rural area, so the District office is the only logical place to

post meeting notices. Meeting notices are sent to customers only if requested. The

District Manager sets the meeting agendas with input from the Board of Directors. The

District Manager is also the Secretary/ Treasurer of the Board of Directors and therefore

takes the minutes at the meetings. There are five Directors on the Water District Board

who are elected at- large from within the District. They serve staggered 4- year terms.

Directors must be landowners within the District. Elections for the Board of Directors

appear on the general election ballot for Tehama County. Typically, nominees run un-opposed

for the director seats. The District has three full time employees— the manager,

an office clerk, and a maintenance man. There is one part- time maintenance person

employed by the District.

Day to day operation of the District involves pumping water from the Corning

Canal into a closed and pressurized distribution system. The pumps are automated—

connected to a computer in the main office. Four main pump stations remove water from

the Corning Canal. There are two lift stations connected to reservoirs that boost pressure

at the far end of the distribution system. One of the main pump stations is connected to a

large holding tank. The fourth main station has only the storage tower attached to it.

Water orders are taken daily from customers and then sent on to the Tehama- Colusa

Canal Authority. The TCCA controls releases from the Red Bluff Diversion Dam so as

to meet the orders from the 17 water districts. Water is distributed “ on demand” with 24-

hour notice. Each district removes its water allocation from the canals managed by the

TCCA. Meters are used to measure customer usage. During irrigation season, the

District’s main functions involve taking water orders, billing, keeping the pumps and

distribution system functioning properly, and monitoring customer usage. During the

off- season, maintenance of the distribution system, meeting federal water contract

requirements ( i. e. crop reporting, etc.), rebuilding meters, comprise most of the workload.

The Corning Water District is accounted for as an Enterprise fund and acts in a

manner similar to a business. Enterprise funds recover their operating costs and capital

asset depreciation through the collection of user fees. The water distribution facility is

actually owned by the Bureau of Reclamation and will be even after the debt is retired

unless Congress acts to give title to the district. The major block of debt will be retired in

2014, which will result in smaller payments to the BOR after that.

According to the 2006 budget, total income for 2006 is estimated to be $ 573,835.

Revenue to the District comes from two primary sources— assessments ( 34%) and

operations income ( 66%). Current assessments are $ 17.81 per acre to every landowner in

the District, whether they use any water or not. Of that assessment total, $ 7.40/ acre goes

to debt retirement ( 41%) and $ 10.41/ acre goes to operations and maintenance ( 57%). An

additional 2% of the assessment income total comes from county tax collections ( an

estimated $ 4,000 in 2006). Total assessed acreage in the District is 10,866 acres. About

89% of their operations income comes from agricultural water sales and 11% from

miscellaneous sources ( primarily interest). An inconsequential amount ( 0.2%) of income

comes from municipal/ industrial water sales. Water rates are $ 33.35/ acre- foot ( AF) for

agricultural use and $ 112.00/ AF for municipal/ industrial use. The agricultural water rate

is composed of a $ 18.44/ AF charge for water purchased from the TCCA and the BOR,

and a $ 14.91/ AF charge by the District for its delivery costs.

Total estimated expenses for 2006 are $ 650,514. Expense categories expressed as

a percent of the total are as follows: Operating, 36.8%; Water & Conveyance, 44.3%;

Capital expenditures, 1.0%; Reserve Fund Deposits, 5.5%; and BOR debt 12.4%. The

operating expense budget is composed of salaries and benefits ( 67%), vehicle and

equipment ( 4%), distribution system maintenance and repair ( 10%), office and

miscellaneous ( 16%), and permits and fees ( 3%). The one expense category that the

District management has any degree of control over is the operating budget.

According to the 2006 budget, total estimated expenses will exceed revenues by

$ 76,679. The CWD expects to make up the difference by using interest income from it’s

various accounts and drawing upon some of their reserve funds which are set aside

ahead- of- time for operating shortages and adverse weather conditions ( the LAIF Water

Deficit account).

Prior to 2006, water was purchased under a 40- year contract. When the original

40 year contract with the BOR expired in 2005, the District signed a new 25- year contract

with the BOR on March 1, 2005 with the right- to- renew for another 25 years. The

maximum contract water allocation to the CWD is now 23,000 acre- feet. Last year, the

District used 65% of that contract allotment. The District’s 2006 operating budget is

based on agricultural water sales ( purchases from BOR) of 10,000 acre- feet and 8 acre-feet

for municipal/ industrial water sales, well under their maximum contract allotment.

As of 11/ 13/ 06, water sales to customers have totaled 9006 AF, or 90% of the District’s

estimate of water usage for this year. Generally, the CWD uses a five- year average to

estimate water usage for the next year’s budget and then may modify that estimate based

upon other factors such as anticipated changes in crops or irrigation methods, BOR

pricing policies, and the cost of competing water sources. When actual water sales fall

below the budgeted amount, the cost per acre foot of water delivered increases, which

may force the District to use it’s reserves to make up the difference in the current fiscal

year and lead to a need to raise rates in the following year. Of course, the opposite can

also be true and a decrease in rates might be possible.

The 2005 audit of the CWD was performed by The Accounting Office of Larry

Bain, CPA’s, 3905 Jennings Ct., West Sacramento, CA, 95691. In the audit, the

independent auditor said: “ In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above

present fairly, in all material respects the assets, liabilities and net assets of the Corning

Water District as of December 31, 2005, and its revenues, expenditures, changes in net

assets and the results of its cash flows for the year then ended in conformity with

accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.” There was

one weakness in the internal financial controls—“ The small size of the Corning Water

District and the limited number of personnel involved in the accounting process do not

enable the management to implement procedures which would create an adequate

segregation of duties. Accordingly, no reliance is placed on the internal control in

establishing audit procedures to be performed.” This appears to be a problem that the

District can do nothing about.

According to the independent audit, the Corning Water District appears to be in

good financial condition. They are making every effort to keep costs down to their

customers. The SCADA ( Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition) project is an

example of their effort to provide water as efficiently as possible. The water distribution

system is managed from the District office using computer programs that monitor all

aspects of the system. Prior to the SCADA project, the pump stations were connected to

the office by phone line. The SCADA project involves the installation of radio

equipment that will provide more reliable real- time control of the distribution system, and

result in cost- savings to the District.

The CWD Board is currently considering a proposed “ Annexation Policy and

Criteria.” The stated goal of this policy is “ to provide guidance to landowners and

district staff and to provide a written outline of factors that enter into the Board’s

determination of whether or not to annex lands.” The end result of this policy is to

prevent annexations that would not bear all the costs of service and end up being a

liability to the district. This is an example of the CWD’s effort to run their operation as

efficiently and cost effectively as possible.

During the interviews, the District Manager identified several challenges facing

the CWD now and in the future: 1) subdivided parcels that are within the District that

have right to the water but no physical access to the original parcels’ distribution point; 2)

a distribution system that is close to the maximum designed capacity; 3) land- use

conversion away from agricultural uses; 4) increasing cost of federal water; 5) unforeseen

changes in crop types and irrigation practices within the District; 6) recent rules and

legal interpretations that will adversely affect the District’s ability to change its water

price; and 7) increasing energy costs. Many of the challenges are not unique to the

District and reflect larger trends within the regional agricultural economy. Some of the

challenges can be addressed by the CWD and some are well beyond their ability to

change or influence. For now, the main challenge for the District is to remain

competitive with other sources of irrigation water within their jurisdiction.

Findings

As a result of its review of the Corning Water District, the Grand Jury determines

that the Corning Water District:

1. Makes a diligent and conscientious effort to estimate water usage by its

customers each year for the purpose of budgeting;

2. Is investing in equipment ( the SCADA project) that will improve

efficiency and reduce operating costs so that the cost of water to its

customers remains competitive with other sources of irrigation water. The

distribution system is very close to its maximum design capacity for the

10,687 acres in the District. Expansion of the system, by annexing more

landowners and water users into the system, would require a significant

amount of capital investment and thus indebtedness for the CWD;

3. Maximizes its return on various interest- bearing accounts by shopping for

the best interest rates and account terms that match its needs for liquidity

and flexibility. They also protect accounts by keeping them under FDIC

insurance limits, where possible;

4. Faithfully pays the Bureau of Reclamation for retirement of the debt

associated with the original construction of the distribution system;

5. Has been faced with a declining percentage of landowners within the

District that actually purchase water from the District. The percentage has

declined from about 80% when the District was created to 50% currently.

Reasons for the decline include changing irrigation practices, changes in

crop types, and lower- cost alternative water sources ( i. e. groundwater).

Energy price fluctuations affect the relationship between the cost of

groundwater and that of surface water ( which is what the CWD provides).

In the last 15 years, the cost of pumping groundwater has been lower than

that of the CVP water provided by the CWD;

6. Is faced with variable water demand from year to year due to the small

average parcel size ( 12.5 acres/ parcel and 20 acres/ landowner) within the

District. Small parcel sizes discourage ongoing agricultural operations

because of economies- of- scale. Conversely, large agricultural operations

would provide more consistent demand from year to year;

7. Is faced with changing federal, state and local water policies which

negatively affect its operations:

A. A recent court ruling with regard to Proposition 218 ( the “ Bighorn

Decision”) will require the District to post proposed water rate

increases for 45 days, during that time, if more than a majority of

the landowners in the District object to the increase in writing, then

the District cannot increase it’s rates, which are their only means

for balancing their budget. The 2007 budget will be the first one

subject to this new interpretation;

B. Proposition 218 already requires a ballot ( majority protest) of the

District landowners to raise the District’s portion of the

assessment;

C. The BOR and the TCCA set the price for water deliveries from

their respective portions of the CVP. The price for CVP water has

steadily increased over time. The District can influence federal

pricing through its membership in a water users association ( which

lobbies the government water agencies) and membership on the

board of the TCCA, but that influence is limited;

D. The combination of A and B above limit the CWD’s ability to

recover costs by increasing the District portion of the water price.

It is highly unlikely that largely non- user landowners will vote for

an increase in their costs;

8. Is faced with land use conversion to non- agricultural uses. Smaller parcel

sizes encourage conversion to other uses— primarily non- agricultural.

Economics of agricultural enterprises within the District boundaries are

often not favorable when compared to competing land uses. The District

does not contain much class I soil, which does not encourage long- term

agricultural enterprises on the land. Poor local markets for olives in the

past 10- 15 years forced many landowners to change crops, if not land use.

Olives were the dominant crop for many years in the Corning area;

9. The only way to increase water use is to make District water cheaper than

the alternatives currently available ( i. e. pumping ground water with your

own well).

Recommendations

1. The District Board should put a meeting calendar in their twice- annual

assessment billing so that landowners within the District may have more

frequent reminders of board meetings than they currently receive;

2. The District Board should adopt the proposed Annexation Policy and

Criteria as soon as is practical ( if they have not already done so by the

time this report is published). Annexation is one way that the CWD can

increase revenues if the policies and criteria are followed.

3. The Tehama County Board of Supervisors and the Planning Department

should discourage land use and zoning that interferes with agricultural

infrastructure ( i. e. water districts). Parcel splits in agricultural areas

should be discouraged because they will, in the end, take ground out of

production and lead to more detachments from the CWD system;

4. The Tehama County Planning Department should amend land use policies

and/ or ordinances to require appropriate easements or design of newly

created parcels to ensure access to District water for those newly created

parcels. Potential purchasers ( or even sellers) of subdivided parcels need

to be made aware of their right to District water and a distribution point on

their parcel.

Response Required

1. The CWD should provide documentation by board minutes and/ or a

sample meeting calendar to the 2007- 2008 Grand Jury to demonstrate that

they have complied with Recommendation # 1;

2. The CWD should provide a copy of its current Annexation Policy and

Criteria to the Grand Jury as per Recommendation # 2;

3. The Tehama County Board of Supervisors and/ or the Planning

Department should demonstrate its intentions regarding the preservation

and maintenance of agricultural infrastructure through provision of written

documentation ( i. e. policy statements, board resolutions, zoning

ordinances, etc.) to the Grand Jury as per Recommendation # 3;

4. The Tehama County Planning Department should provide to the Grand

Jury documentation that demonstrates its policy towards notification of

parties involved in parcel splits within the CWD jurisdiction as per

Recommendation # 4.

Red Bluff Joint Union High School , Salisbury High School,

Vista Middle School

Summary:

Members of the Education Committee Grand Jurors did not receive any complaints in

reference to any school within the Tehama County in 2006- 2007. The Education

Committee has chosen to do routine visits to three schools in Tehama County which had

not been visited in a number of years.

Introduction:

The three schools that were chosen by the Education Committee Grand Jurors were Red

Bluff Joint Union High School, Salisbury High School and Vista Middle School. The

purpose of the visits to each school was to evaluate school safety plans and evaluate any

gang related issues.

Methods of Investigation:

Four members of the Education Committee Grand Jurors met with the Principal of

Salisbury High School on September 27, 2006. On October 17, 2006, four members of

the Education Committee met with the Principal of Red Bluff Joint Union High School.

Then on December 14, 2006, four members of the Education Committee met with the

Principal of Vista Middle School.

Discussion:

Salisbury High School is located on Kimball Road. The Principal states his number

one duty is to make a safe and secure environment for students and staff. Salisbury has 88

students attending at this time. Salisbury High School has students enrolled in the 10th

through 12th grade. Most students come from Red Bluff Joint Union High School

students that are behind on credits or students that are having some sort of problem on a

large campus. Salisbury High School also has a wonderful mother- baby program.

Salisbury has lunches brought over from Red Bluff High School main campus.

Vista School is located on South Jackson. The Principal is doing a great job on turning

around the negative image at Vista School. There are 433 students attend ing Vista School

having students in 7th and 8th grade. Vista School has many Hispanic speaking students

and only one Hispanic speaking aide to assist with these students. Vista School does not

have adequate seating for students to eat their lunches.

Red Bluff Joint Union High School is located on Union Street. There are over 1,800

students that attend Red Bluff High School at this time. Red Bluff High School has

students enrolled in the 9th through 12th grades. Red Bluff High School has one police

officer on campus during school hours. Red Bluff High School has many new buildings.

Recently completed are the new auto shop, wood shop, chemistry lab, and gymnasium.

There is also a new football field and track area. The new library should be done

sometime later this year. A group of students from Red Bluff High School are working

on a new dress code that they would like to see put into place. Students will be at the next

District Board meeting to propose their policy.

Findings:

Salisbury High School Principal and staff were energetic and proud of their new school.

They have a very nice campus which includes a large multi purpose room, computer lab,

a kitchen were they have cooking classes. Occasionally the staff comes in early and

surprises the students with breakfast they have prepared for them. The school offers a

wonderful mother- baby program as well as a father- baby program. It was obvious that a

lot of love and care went into the designing of the mother- baby building. Salisbury High

School has adequate staffing and supplies for their students and teachers. We found the

school facilities to be very clean.

Vista School Principal and staff were very pleasant. We found the facilities to be clean.

The school needs to have a multi purpose room or lunch room for its 433 students.

A new fence is going to be installed along the back part of the school to separate the

school from the adjoining park. After school programs are available for extra academic

help. There is also an aide to help with the Hispanic speaking students.

Red Bluff Joint Union High School has a lot to offer their students. Principal and staff

were all ve ry pleasant. We found the facilities to be clean. Red Bluff High has a new auto

shop, wood shop, chemistry lab, and gymnasium. There is also a new football field and

track area. The library should be complete sometime later this year. The teachers have

many different work shops that they can attend. There is a new dress code being

implemented by the students. The dress code focuses on gang related apparel and apparel

of inappropriate nature for school. What a great idea to allow the students to decide on

the guidelines for the dress code. See attachment B and C.

The Education Committee found that the Tehama County Schools are keeping safety

plans current. See Attachment A. The safety response plan includes law enforcement,

medical personnel and emergency responders and includes evacuation plans, maps and

safe locations where parents would be able to find their children. The counties law

enforcement officers, the schools and the California Highway Patrol all have access to the

plan. Tehama County Mental Health has a youth hotline for them to call and express any

mental health or other safety concerns they may have. Tehama County also has a

preventio n program involving anti- bullying and violence prevention.

The school system is aware that there is a gang problem within our community. One way

the schools are currently dealing with the situation is by implementing a new dress code.

School principals felt that keeping trust and communication between students and staff

help keep problems under control. Better communication with parents would be a great

help. See Attachment B and C.

Commendations:

The members of the Education Committee were very impressed with their findings within

our school district. For being such a small rural area our school district has many

different programs and opportunities for the students in our community to learn or to

obtain the help they need. All school staff and students made us feel very welcome. It is

evident that the staff of our school district put a lot of hard work and care into our schools

and the life’s of our children.

The Principal and staff at Vista School are doing a great job of turning around the negative image

the public has had of Vista School.

Recommendations:

1. Vista School is in desperate need of a multi purpose room or cafeteria since 433

students can not sit down to enjoy their lunch.

2. Grand Jury Education Committee of 2007- 2008 should consider investigating Corning

High School and Maywood Middle School in Corning.

Response Required:

That Vista School gives evidence of planning for and creating the reality of a multi

purpose room or cafeteria in order to provide students a place to eat lunch.

Tehama County Main Jail Inspection

Summary: The Law Enforcement Committee performed an annual inspection of the

Tehama County Main Jail, located in Red Bluff. The Law Enforcement Committee

determined the jail was current on all inspections and met the minimum standards set in

the Grand Jury Jail Inspection Guide.

Introduction: Members of the Grand Jury conducted an inspection of the Tehama

County Jail. This inspection is one part in a series of the Grand Jury's periodic reviews of

the many government agencies and facilities that serve the citizens of Tehama County.

Method of Investigation: On November 30, 2006 members of the Grand Jury met with

the Jail Operations Lieutenant, of the Tehama County Sheriff’s Department. The

Lieutenant answered questions about the jail operation, produced all the required

inspection documents and conducted a tour of the facility. The Lieutenant provided the

members with a copy of the Inmate Orientation Handbook, which answered most

questions.

Discussion: Members found the jail in overall good condition. The facility is smoke

free. The jail houses both male and female inmates. The jail houses 227 inmates and

currently had 201 the day of the visit. There were no deaths, suicides or escapes since the

last inspection, by the 2005/ 2006 Grand Jury. The jail had documentation of the

following inspections:

Fire Inspection – 10/ 19/ 2005

Medical/ Mental Health Inspection – 12/ 20/ 2005

Environmental Health – 12/ 20/ 2005

Nutritional Health – 3/ 28/ 2005

State Board of Corrections – 09/ 14/ 2005

The jail has access to a 24 hour crisis line and a language interpretation line. Inmates are

provided a GED and computer program through Red Bluff High School. The jail has a

new video surveillance system.

Findings:

1) The jail was current on all required inspections.

2) The jail met all requirements of the Grand Jury Jail Inspection Guide, which

was used as a reference during this inspection.

Recommendation: None

Response Required: None

City of Red Bluff Wastewater Reclamation Plant

Summary:

The Public Works, Parks & Recreation Committee completed a routine visit of the City

of Red Bluff Wastewater Reclamation Plant. The Committee found the Wastewater

Reclamation Plant to be in compliance with City, State and Federal regulations.

Introduction:

The Grand Jury decided on conducting this routine visit in view of the fact that the last

routine visit was over six years ago. The visit was scheduled to ensure that the

Wastewater Reclamation Plant was in compliance with City, State and Federal

regulations . No complaint was filed.

Method of Investigation:

Public Works, Parks & Recreation Committee Members met with City of Red Bluff

Wastewater Reclamation Plant staff on Tuesday, November 7, 2006. The Committee

Members discussed the current City of Red Bluff Wastewater Reclamation Plant training

programs, daily and emergency procedures, future expansion plans and adherence to

City, State and Federal regulations. The Committee Members reviewed copies of the

current Federal Environmental Protection Agency Report, the May 13, 1998, California

Water Resources Control Board Meeting discussion and approval of the 1998 SRF Loan

Project No. C- 06- 4525- 110 for the expansion of the Wastewater Reclamation Plant, the

Joint Meeting Board of Supervisors and Red Bluff City Council Special Meeting Minutes

from July 13, 2004, and news articles from the City of Red Bluff.

On Wednesday, March 28, 2007, Committee Members met with the City of Red Bluff

Wastewater Reclamation Plant staff to discuss the upcoming renewal of the waste

discharge requirements, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit No.

CA0078891, on May 3rd and 4th by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board,

Central Valley Region. Committee Members also reviewed the current National Pollutant

Discharge Elimination System Permit.

Discussion:

The Committee Members learned that the City of Red Bluff Wastewater Reclamation

Plant has a 2.5 million gallon a day design capacity and is currently using an average of

1.4 million gallons a day. There are sixty- two miles of sewer lines and fourteen lift

stations ( pump stations). There is 100 year old clay sewer pipe in some locations with

current plans to replace them with more manageable pipe. Most of the waste processed is

residential not industrial.

The treatment system design consists of several steps. The first step is the removal of

large solids through a screening system. Next is the aerated grit removal followed by

primary sedimentation, activated sludge treatments with secondary clarification, filtration

and chlorination and dechlorination. The dechlorination process is completed with the

chemical Sodium Bisulfite. Primary and waste activated sludge are treated in a series of

steps. These steps include aerobic digestion, storage in the solids storage basins and then

put in the sludge drying beds for dewatering and drying. Annually the solids are

transported to the Tehama County/ Red Bluff Class III Landfill.

One monitoring test is the annual chronic toxicity screening that is completed to ensure

that the effluent is not contributing toxicity to the Sacramento River. The chronic toxicity

samples are collected and three species of freshwater organisms are introduced to the

discharge that has been collected from the point of discharge before it enters the

Sacramento River. These three species are Pimephales promelas ( Fathead Minnow),

Ceriodaphnia dubia ( Water Flea), and Selenastrum capricornutum ( Green Algae). These

three species must survive in the effluent for a predetermined amount of time.

Four operators and four maintenance workers are employed at this time. There will be no

new staffing problems with the adoption of the new National Pollutant Discharge

Elimination System Permit.

There is periodic training and safety training for employees and a strict adherence to a

preventive maintenance program and use of state of the art process and safety equipment.

Safety plans and procedures are updated regularly.

Maintenance checks on the equipment and machinery at the City of Red Bluff

Wastewater Reclamation Plant are completed per the manufacture’s instructions. Lift

stations and the machinery on the City of Red Bluff Wastewater Reclamation Plant

grounds are checked daily to ascertain their working status.

According to the Environmental Protection Agency 2002 report “ The City of Red Bluff

Wastewater Reclamation Plant has developed and implemented an emergency response

program. The emergency response program includes interaction and communication with

local and state response agencies. The Tehama County Department of Environmental

Health, as part of their business plan program, is notified immediately if there is a

hazardous material release. The City of Red Bluff Fire Department will be the incident

commander in the case of a chlorine release and will coordinate evacuation procedures in

a worst- case scenario. The California State Office of Emergency Services and Tehama

County Office of Emergency Services are also notified in a worse- case scenario. The

Wastewater Treatment Plant’s chlorine manufacturer is also notified.” The City of Red

Bluff Wastewater Reclamation Plant is in compliance with the Environmental Protection

Agency as of the 2002 report.

Only one incident has occurred in the last six years which involved the chemical that

neutralizes the chlorine in the reclaimed water, Sodium Bisulfite. In November 2002, a

truck driver delivering the above chemical opened a closed valve, purposely left closed

by the City of Red Bluff Wastewater Reclamation Plant’s employees, which led to

spillage of the chemical into the wrong pipes. Safety and emergency plans were followed

and the chemical was dealt with accordingly. The chemical company delivering the

product paid restitution for the fines incurred by the City of Red Bluff Wastewater

Reclamation Plant and the company delivered a new truck load of Sodium Bisulfite.

The safety procedures dealing with the chemical were updated after the incident to ensure

this incident would not happen again.

When expansion is needed the City of Red Bluff Wastewater Reclamation Plant can be

expanded without an interruption to the current services.

Findings:

1. Based on the results of our investigation, it was found that the City of Red Bluff

Wastewater Reclamation Plant is in compliance with City, State, and Federal regulations.

2. Based on the construction of the City of Red Bluff Wastewater Reclamation Plant it is

ready for expansion when needed.

Recommendation:

None.

Commendations:

The Grand Jury commends the City of Red Bluff Wastewater Reclamation Plant’s staff

for their cooperation, commitment, hard work and professionalism.

City of Red Bluff Water Department

Summary:

The City of Red Bluff Water Department ( CRBWD) was visited by Grand Jury Public

Works Committee Members for a routine examination of its operations including a water

quality review and a Water Department growth plan with current emergency response

plans. With interviews and research being completed, the Grand Jury Public Works

Committee concluded that the CRBWD is efficiently established and functioning well in

its operations. It was determined that in the event of new growth or an emergency the

CRBWD supervisors and staff are sufficiently prepared to meet any and all challenges

.

Introduction:

The Grand Jury Committee decided that the CRBWD was subject to review since it had

not done so in over six years. News media reports of terrorist threats and local newspaper

articles proposing new residential growth for the City of Red Bluff evoked inquiry as to

how the Water Department would handle these special situations. The Grand Jury

Committee wanted to know how well the CRBWD is prepared for potential new growth

to the city and whether it is prepared in the event of a local emergency. The review of the

county office was done in the interest of the citizens of Red Bluff.

Method of Investigation:

On August 28th, 2006 members of the Grand Jury Public Works Committee met with the

CRBWD Supervisor and the Public Works Director for an interview at the CRBWD

office, 555 Washington Street at 2: 00 pm. The purpose of the interview was to obtain

information that would specifically address questions regarding current water

composition and distribution within the city, its readiness for prospective new growth

within city limits and the Department’s preparedness in the event of possible threats to

the water supply. A questionnaire format was used to explore these issues. Following the

meeting a records research was completed by the Grand Jury Committee to confirm the

Department’s responses to the questionnaire.

Discussion:

During the meeting the Water Department Supervisor was asked about the main

priority of the City of Red Bluff Water Department. The Grand Jury Committee Members

were informed by the Water Department that its main goal is to “ deliver a constant

supply of quality, good- tasting water to residents and businesses of Red Bluff without

interruption.”

The Grand Jury Committee Members inquired into the formal testing of the Red

Bluff drinking water. The Water Department Supervisor informed the Grand Jury

Committee Members that the State Department of Health tests for bacteria on a weekly

basis randomly taking four samples a week from twelve to thirteen fixed sample stations.

The Water Department takes two samples from the high pressure and the low pressure

zone tanks.

The newest steel tank, placed within the last six months, holds three million

gallons of water. This tank is located near the county landfill. The landfill poses no

problem for the water, as the tank is located on higher ground.

Weekly testing is done for total Coloform Bacteria. Testing for lead and copper is

included. The City of Red Bluff’s water is rated as moderately hard on the Degree of

Hardness scale listed on the 2005 Consumer Confidence Report. Hardness of water is

important to those people that are facing health related issues; those that are HIV positive

or are on dialysis. The City of Red Bluff’s water hardness is closer to soft than too hard.

The water is delivered from fourteen untreated wells without the addition of chlorine or

fluoride. The CRBWD is accountable to the regulations of the Environmental Protection

Agency, which are more stringent than those of the Food and Drug Administration.

Therefore, water has to fall within the appropriate ranges for being safe to consume.

Red Bluff has six million gallons of water available in tanks that ho ld 3,200 gallons and

distribute 400 to 500 gallons per minute. The City of Red Bluff has 23,000 feet of pipe to

facilitate water distribution. The Water Department claims that they are staying ahead of

development by putting in a new well which will supply the growth of 1,000 homes, 330

of which will be off Baker Road.

The Water Department Supervisor and Public Works Director readily answered

all the questions concerning the possibility of water contamination resulting from an

accidental spill or attack. As to how and when the community would become informed of

potentially hazardous drinking water, Grand Jury Committee Members were informed

that there is an emergency notification plan on file that would be implemented should the

Department of Health Services receive a positive sample for water contamination. The

Water Department would be notified within 24 hours of a positive sample and the water

would subsequently be checked up and downstream of the well. The Water Department

would then stop that supply to consumers.

The EPA and the State Department produces a Nitrates Confidence Report

annually that is mailed to consumers in June. The Nitrates Confidence report, for the year

of 2006, was obtained by the Grand Jury Public Works Committee and is attached to this

report.

Regarding the need for an alternative water supply the Grand Jury Committee

Members were informed of the following:

1. A six- inch concrete collar, manufactured by American Water

Works Company, is used to cover the casing pipe.

2. Red Bluff has a total of six million gallons of water available.

Red Bluff’s fourteen tanks hold 3,200 gallons of water. These

tanks distribute 400 to 500 gallons per minute.

3. The tanks are gated and locked with a Neighborhood Watch

system in effect.

4. The Emergency Response Plan was updated in 2004 with grant

funds provided by the Federal Homeland Security.

There is a remote chance of water contamination, lessening the need for an alternative

water supply. In addition, ongoing emergency readiness and natural and bio- terrorism

prevention training is required for all employees of the City of Red Bluff Water

Department.

Findings:

1. The City of Red Bluff Water Department is in compliance with the

Environmental Protection Agency for water testing

2. New growth for the City of Red Bluff is being addressed by the Water

Department as a positive issue and is being handled accordingly.

3. The City of Red Bluff Water Department is well trained and prepared

in the event of a natural or man- made disaster.

Recommendations:

None.

Responses Required:

None.

Agencies Visited

Citizens Complaints

CITIZEN COMPLAINT

THE EL CAMINO IRRIGATION DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS

Summary

The 2006- 2007 Tehama County Grand Jury received a citizen complaint on September

13, 2006, against the Board of Directors of the El Camino Irrigation District. The

complaint alleged multiple violations of the Brown Act, Labor Code, and Conflict of

Interest laws. The Districts & Commissions Committee of the Grand Jury investigated

the Board of Directors of the El Camino Irrigation District in response to the complaint.

Introduction

The 2006- 2007 Tehama County Grand Jury received a citizen complaint on September

13, 2006, against the Board of Directors of the El Camino Irrigation Dis trict ( ECID). The

complainant was a resident and landowner within the boundaries of the El Camino

Irrigation District. Hereinafter, the Board of Directors will be referred to as simply the

“ Board” and the El Camino Irrigation District will be either abbreviated by “ ECID” or

referred to as simply the “ District.” The complaint alleges that the Board, during the

period of January to July 2006, committed multiple violations of the following laws:

1. Ralph M. Brown Act ( Government Codes 54950- 54963);

2. Conflict of interest sections of The Political Reform Act ( Government

Code Sections 87100- 87103);

3. Conflict of interest regarding contracts ( Government Code Section 1090);

4. Labor Codes ( no code sections referenced by the complainant).

Methods of Investigation

The Districts & Commissions Committee ( the Committee) reviewed the materials

provided by the complainant, which included meeting minutes, various district staff

reports, copies of pertinent statutes, and other documents. The Committee also met with

County Counsel on November 29, 2006, at 332 Pine Street in Red Bluff to discuss

various aspects of the pertinent laws cited in the complaint. Follow- up phone calls were

made to County Counsel on November 30 and December 11, 2006, and January 5 and 22,

2007. County Counsel suggested that the Committee obtain Board meeting agendas from

the ECID for the period January through July 2006. A Committee representative

requested of and obtained from the ECID office the Board meeting agendas for the period

January through December 2006, and copies of the Board meeting minutes from August

through December 2006. It was not necessary to ask the ECID to provide minutes from

January through July 2006, because these were already provided to the Committee as part

of the complaint.

The Committee met with the complainant on Thursday, January 18, 2007, at the

Department 2 Conference Room, Superior Court Building, 445 Pine Street, Red Bluff.

The purpose of the meeting was to interview the complainant and obtain explanation and

clarification of the materials provided in the complaint. At the meeting, the complainant

provided the Committee with additional information relating to District policies and

procedures.

The Committee met in closed session with all of the ECID Board of Directors, as

permitted by the Brown Act, on January 25, 2007, at Wetter Hall, 1740 Walnut Street,

Red Bluff. Topics discussed included the history of the District, financial situation,

current issues, and knowledge and training with regard to applicable laws ( i. e. the Brown

Act, and Conflict of Interest laws) for public officials. Additional information was

requested of the Board at the meeting. The requested materials were received from the

Board on January 27, 2007, and included a District map, copies of the original deeds, a

listing of District policies, correspondence, and other documents.

The following additional materials were obtained from the internet ( leginfo. ca. gov,

caag. state. ca. us/ ethics, and fppc. ca. gov):

1. California Water Code, Division 11 ( Irrigation Districts), Sections 20560

to 21562.5;

2. Summary of Key Provisions of the Ralph M. Brown Act by the Attorney

General’s office;

3. Fair Political Practices Commission On- Line Ethics Training

4. Government Code Sections 1090 to 1099;

5. Government Code Sections 87100 to 87300;

6. Government Code Sections 6250 et seq;

7. Government Code Sections 1750 to 1782.

On January 30, 2007, the Committee obtained information from the Fair Political

Practices Commission by phone regarding ethics training provided by the FPPC for local

boards.

The Committee attended the February 13, 2007, ECID Board of Directors Meeting held

at the Gerber School, 23014 Chard Avenue, Gerber. The purpose of attending the

meeting was to observe the conduct of the meeting relative to compliance with the Brown

Act and Conflict of Interest laws.

On March 6, 2007, the Board’s legal counsel was contacted by phone in order to

determine the applicability of GC Sections 87200 and 87300 to the ECID Board.

Discussion

The El Camino Irrigation District was organized and formed by a vote of the electorate

within the boundaries of the District on April 12, 1921. The ECID was recognized by a

resolution of the Tehama County Board of Supervisors on the same date. The 1921

resolution set up the basic organization of the ECID and described its boundaries. A

February 2, 1927, deed recorded the transfer of the water system and the water rights

from a private company to the ECID. The gross land area within the District boundaries

is about 7500 acres. Approximately 7000 acres are currently under the District’s

jurisdiction. About 4000 acres within the District are not using water for irrigation at the

present time. Currently, the District operates 26 wells and about 91 miles of pipeline.

Thirteen additional wells are not being used and apparently have been capped for safety

and other reasons.

The ECID was organized under Division 11 of the California Water Code in existence at

the time. Subsequent to the creation of the ECID, many laws have been passed that apply

to the operation of irrigation districts and elected officials ( such as the District’s Board of

Directors), including the Ralph M. Brown Act and The Political Reform Act. Two

examples from the California Water Code ( CWC) illustrate this principle:

CWC 20560 states “ Districts, regardless of the date of formation, are subject to

the provisions of this division.”

CWC 20561 states “ Nothing in this division impairs the validity of any district

formed prior to the effective date of this division, its rights, or obligations.”

Three facts stemming from the district’s history are germane to the discussion of the

complaint:

1. Every parcel of land, almost without exception, within the exterior

boundaries of the ECID is within the jurisdiction of the District ( c. f. 1921

resolution, 1927 deed, and the 1930 District Map);

2. The District regulates and provides water for irrigation users within the

District boundaries;

3. The District consists of five divisions and according to CWC Section

21100( a), Directors must be registered voters and landowners within the

District and residents within the division that they represent.

These facts are significant because landowner use of District water for irrigation is

declining which raises the cost of water delivery to the remaining irrigation customers.

However, all landowners in the District pay assessment fees whether they use water for

irrigation or not. Small parcel sizes do not encourage investment in commercial

agricultural enterprises or create significant demand for irrigation water. Small parcel

sizes are usually accompanied by increased domestic use, and for the ECID, increased

administrative costs.

In general, the structural challenges facing the District are very similar to those facing all

small water districts ( see also the 2006- 2007 Grand Jury Report for the Corning Water

District).

The complainant alleged violations of the Ralph M. Brown Act, Government Codes 1090

et seq and 87100 et seq ( conflict of interest laws), and unspecified labor laws. The time

period covered by the complaint was January through July 2006. The following

discussion is referenced solely to those materials and allegations for that time period.

Events and Board actions after July 2006, are only referenced where they relate to the

original allegations or to the Grand Jury’s findings, recommendations, or required

responses.

The following table summarizes the charges by the complainant against the Board of

Directors. The Grand Jury offers no corrections where the complainant’s references to

code sections may be in error. Similar alleged violations have been combined where

possible.

Act

Name

Govt.

Code

# of

Viol.

Allegation Discussion Resolution

Brown

54957

3 Discussing an

employee in open

session

Not clear in context

whether referring to

person by name is a

violation, especially in

a small district

According to counsel,

mentioning names in open

session is not necessarily

considered a Brown Act

violation

Brown 54957 3 Reprimanding

employee in open

session

Not able to judge if

comments were truly a

reprimand and

whether would fit

under 54957

Upon notification of error,

Board attempted to correct and

employees asked for open

session

Brown 54950-

54963

5 Unauthorized changes

and corrections to,

and failure to approve

minutes

Reasons for extreme

detail in minutes not

fully understood

Brown Act contains no

apparent reference to minutes.

No violation, since minutes

are a creature of the majority

vote of the Board. Checked

Public Records Act ( GC 6250

et seq), not applicable to

situation.

Brown 54957 1 ( 2?) Illegal appointment to

Board because

discussion and vote

done in closed session

Result of

misunderstanding of

law ( Directors are not

employees, they are

elected officials),

discussion and vote

should have been done

in open session

Board received legal opinion

and corrected procedural

mistake at the following

meeting

Conflict

of

Interest

( COI)

1090 1 Calling for attorney Board confused about

COI law application

Calling for legal advice does

not violate COI law. It does

show need for education.

Political

Reform

Act

87100 1 Director asking for

action affecting their

own property

Appearance of COI,

but seems to be in

compliance with the

Director should have had

someone other than self bring

matter before Board and

( PRA) Political Reform Act recused self from discussion.

Director did recuse self from

voting

PRA 87100 1 Director discussing

impact of pending

Board decision ( re:

water rates) on

personal business

Unavoidable given

qualifications for

Director, decision

would impact others in

same way ( lack of

distinguishable

material effect-- c. f.

87103)

No violation, but would

recommend that Directors

make their public comments

as general as possible

PRA 87100 1 Director voting on

matter affecting own

property

Unavoidable given

qualifications to be a

Director, again see GC

87103.

Voted to approve general

district policy but recused self

when came to vote affecting

own property. Might have

been handled better, but no

violation

PRA 87100

1090

2 General discussion of

conflict of interest

( COI), instance of

calling for attorney

Unclear where

violation might be

here, in this instance

the Board is confused

about application of

statute

No violation, but education

and legal advice needed by the

Board

COI 1090 1 Director obtained

benefit to self only

Director paid for

needed work out of

own pocket with no

charge to District. No

contract was involved.

Appears to be within

District Policies.

No violation since no contract

involved. Only question

would be whether Director

failed to obtain approval

before proceeding as per

District Policies.

COI 1090 1 Director sharing

concerns about impact

of a policy/ decision on

personal business

Sharing an opinion

during open session

discussion, when it

applies to others in the

district, is not a COI.

Director abstained from voting

to avoid COI as they

understood it at the time.

Labor

Laws

None

speci-fied

? Allegations were

related to Brown Act

not specific labor laws

Could not evaluate

allegation without

reference to specific

laws

No further comment

In reference to a public board, the Brown Act GC 54950 states “ It is the intent of the law

that their actions be taken openly and that their deliberations be conducted openly.”

Paraphrasing the Attorney General’s preamble to a Summary of the Brown Act, the open

meeting principle initially appears simple, but when it is applied to real life situations,

application of the law can be quite complex. Technical violations of the Act are rather

easy to accomplish-- the purpose of the act is to make sure that the business of the District

is done in public and fairly to all concerned. Closed sessions should be held for certain

personnel matters ( appointment, employment, performance evaluation, discipline, or

dismissal), public security, pending litigation, labor negotiations, and real property

negotiations ( Sections 54956.8, 54956.9, 54957, 54957.6). All other business should be

conducted in open session in full view of the public.

There are civil remedies and criminal sanctions for violations of the Brown Act.

According to Sections 54960 and 54960.1 of the Brown Act, “ Individuals or the district

attorney may file civil lawsuits for injunctive, mandatory, or declaratory relief, or to void

action taken in violation of the Act.” According to 54959, “ The district attorney may

seek misdemeanor penalties against a member of a body who attends a meeting where

action is taken in violation of the Act, and where the member intended to deprive the

public of information which the member knew or has reason to know the public was

entitled to receive.” The key to deciding whether to prosecute or not is intent. Did the

public official willfully violate the law? If so, then they can be prosecuted either by the

Attorney General or the District Attorney if they rise to the level of willful intent to

disregard or violate.

Government Code Sections 87100 to 87300 address conflicts of interest where there is a

financial interest in a board decision. Government Code Sections 1090 to 1099 address

conflicts of interest relating to contracts. Conflict of interest law is a very complex

subject that depends upon specific facts and circumstances, intent, and whether there is a

material effect that is distinguishable from other landowners in the district. CWC

2110( a) requires that directors be landowners within the district and residents of the

division they represent. Landowners, almost without exception, pay assessments to the

district whether they use water to irrigate or not. Therefore, directors of an irrigation

district cannot avoid discussing or voting on matters that affect their financial interest.

That being said, directors should recuse themselves from discussing or voting on matters

that affect only their property or financial interests if for no other reason than to avoid the

appearance of a conflict of interest. Directors should also avoid the appearance of

preferential treatment wherever possible and follow the same procedures that any

landowner in the district would follow when requesting or utilizing the services of the

district. The key to violations in this instance would be whether board actions or

decisions affected only that director’s property or financial interests ( or that of a small

subset of landowners, including the directors). It is our understanding that merely

discussing how a proposed action or decision might affect that director personally as a

landowner in the context of a public discussion in an open meeting would not constitute a

conflict of interest especia lly in a small district like the ECID. In the specific instance

that the complainant noted, the Director could have been talking about, or for, any

number of landowners in the District even though they specifically referenced the effect

upon their own bus iness.

The ECID experienced a difficult year in terms of turnover on the Board ( reference the

2005- 2006 Grand Jury report and recommendations) and within the District. Two

Directors resigned their positions. Two District employees quit-- the District Mana ger and

the Sec./ Bookkeeper. Relationships between the Board and some of the District

employees were strained as evidenced by the meeting minutes from the January through

May 2006, meetings in particular. In a small district, it is difficult to not name names and

talk about employees performance of duties in the course of reporting on district

operations. This circumstance creates gray areas when an outside entity such as the

Grand Jury is trying to determine if a Brown Act violation has occurred relative to 54957.

The complainant did not provide any other government codes relating to labor laws that

could be evaluated. Apparently “ Skelly Due Process” hearings are one avenue of legal

recourse for affected employees. Another labor issue was asking emplo yees to perform

duties outside of their written job descriptions. In the private sector, such situations are

common and not unexpected. In a small district with a small staff, such a request would

not be uncommon or unexpected either. It is clear to the Grand Jury Committee that

relationships between the Board and some employees had deteriorated to the extent that

such a request would become an issue. It is not clear that any laws were violated in that

instance. The affected employees ( or former employees) may still be able to seek civil

legal remedies against the Board if they chose to do so.

Numerous times the complainant noted the lack of a policy manual or by- laws. A review

of the materials obtained during the investigation revealed that the Board and the District

do have a lengthy set of policies that govern district operations and to a certain extent

describe the powers of the Board. Board’s counsel indicated that there is not a legal

requirement that there be a policy manual. The Brown Act, The Political Reform Act, the

California Water Code, and other laws govern how the Board and the District operate. It

appears that the Board relies on this body of law and its own “ Rules and Regulations” as

its “ by- laws.” The earliest record of District “ Rules and Regulations” is dated 1930, and

the most recent revision is dated May 10, 2006. In September 2006, the Board published

an updated list of 44 policies and placed these in a binder for each Director. There is also

a “ Director’s Quick Reference Guide of the El Camino Irrigation District” which contains

many aspects of “ by- laws.” The Quick Reference Guide was “ approved” by the Board

late in 2006, however they do not constitute official by- laws. A review of the minutes

and attendance at the February 13, 2007, meeting suggest the need for an official set of

by- laws that would help guide the Board and inform the public about the Board’s

responsibilities.

Findings

1. The ECID Board of Directors violated the Brown Act when it voted on the

appointment of a Director to fill a vacant seat in closed session. In this instance,

the Board did not understand the law and subsequently sought legal advice and

attempted to correct their mistake. The Grand Jury Committee believes that the

Board acted more out of ignorance of the law than intention to violate.

2. The Board did discuss employees in open session during the March through May

meetings, but this is not necessarily a violation of the Brown Act. In the end, the

employees requested that their cases be discussed in open session. Eventually,

two of the employees quit their positions. The Grand Jury Committee

acknowledges that the Board’s handling of the employee discussions probably

contributed to their resignations from the District and to a considerable amount of

ill will and frustration. The former employees may still have the ability to pursue

civil legal remedies against the District.

3. Conflict of interest laws, GC 87100 and 1090, were not violated based upon the

information the Grand Jury Committee was able to obtain within the course of its

investigation. However, the Board should continue to be sensitive to the issue and

avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest especially where their property or

financial interests are involved. On several occasions it appeared that the

Directors did recuse themselves from voting on motions that affected only their

own interests.

4. The Board has made progress in complying with the Brown Act in the conduct of

their meetings as evidenced by a review of the meeting minutes from August

through December, 2006, and by what was observed at the meeting on February

13, 2007. They are sensitive to the issues surrounding the Brown Act and conflict

of interest laws. However, as of February 13, 2007, the Board apparently is still

struggling with compliance. The need for a simple set of by- laws that would

govern Board organization and adopt Robert’s Rules of Order for the conduct of

meetings was reinforced by what was observed at the Feb. 13, 2007, meeting.

Recommendations

1. All Board members should receive training in both The Ralph M. Brown Act, The

Political Reform Act, and applicable Conflict of Interest laws ( i. e. Govt. Code

1090 et seq and 87100 et seq). The Fair Political Practices Commission has on-line

ethics training for local boards that can be accessed by anyone with a

computer and a modem or wireless connection. All Board members should

receive ethics training every two years as prescribed by law. All Board members

should fill out Form 700 and submit it to the state as required by law on an annual

basis.

2. The Board should adopt by- laws that:

a. Describe the organization of the Board, Director responsibilities, and

decision- making processes;

b. Structure the Board to serve an oversight function over the District,

leaving the daily operations of the District to the District Manager;

c. Contain a Conflict of Interest Code pursuant to GC 87300;

d. Establish a standard set of criteria for granting waivers to District policies,

fees, and procedures;

e. Include Robert’s Rules of Order as a standard for running their meetings.

The existing Director’s Quick Reference Guide, with legal review and

input, could be the basis for a set of by- laws.

3. The Board should hire a District Manager as soon as possible, so that the

Directors do not have to run the District in the interim.

4. We do not recommend investigation or prosecution by the District Attorney at this

time. Education is the key for avoiding civil or criminal penalties in the future.

5. The 2007- 2008 Grand Jury should attend at least one ECID Board meeting to

monitor compliance with the Brown Act and Conflict of Interest laws.

Response Required

1. All of the ECID Directors should complete ethics training ( particularly relating to

the Brown Act and Conflict of Interest laws). The 2007- 2008 Grand Jury should

revisit this issue with the Board.

2. The Board should further revise their Quick Reference Guide or come up with

updated by- laws that will help clarify governance of the District for the benefit of

the Board and the public. The by- laws or District policy statement should include

a conflict of interest code pursuant to GC 87300. A copy of these documents

should be provided to the 2007- 2008 Grand Jury.

Citizen Complaint

Tehama County Sheriff’s Department

Summary: The Law Enforcement Committee investigated a compliant that the Tehama

County Sheriff’s Department failed to investigate crimes against a Tehama County

Citizen. The investigation determined the compliant was unfounded.

Introduction: A citizen’s complaint was made against the Tehama County Sherriff’s

Department, alleging failure to submit reports to the District Attorney’s Office, Failure to

investigate serious crimes and hate crimes and a false arrest by a Tehama County

Sheriff’s Deputy.

Method of Investigation: On February 1, 2007, members of the Grand Jury met with

and interviewed the Tehama County Sheriff and the Under Sheriff about the matter. We

requested and received, a document listing the call history, involving the Sheriff’s

Department responses to the involved address. The Sheriff also gave members a copy of

a recent letter from the California Attorney General’s Office. The letter explained that

the Tehama County Sheriff’s Department did not abuse it’s authority by determining no

crime had been committed; in reference to a stalking complaint that was received. We

requested and received a copy of several crime reports, generated from the address in

question.

Discussion: The group reviewed several documents. The call history showed the

complainant called the Tehama County Sheriff’s Department 113 times for assistance

since 1996, which is how far back the call history log goes. A review of the call history

determined most of the calls were for vandalism, stalking, assault, burglary and theft.

The Under Sheriff explained the complainant’s property is adjacent to Cottonwood

Creek. For years access to the property was made through another adjoining private

property. After some kind of disagreement, access through the other private property was

denied, forcing the complainant to access her property across Cottonwood Creek. During

the winter months, the water in the creek increases, cutting off access. The access issue

increases tension between the complainant and the adjoining property owner. The

increase in tension also coincides with the increase of calls to the Sheriff’s Department

from the complainant.

A review of several crime reports was completed by Grand Jury members. The crime

report documentation indicated the Sheriff’s Department was forwarding reports to the

District Attorney’s Office that required further action. A review of the crime report

where the complainant was arrested was evaluated. The report had elements of probable

cause, supporting the arrest of the complainant by the Sheriff’s Department.

Findings:

1) The Tehama County Sheriff’s Department has responded to every call for

assistance made by the complainant.

2) The Tehama County Sheriff’s Department had made necessary reports for

crimes committed and forwarded appropriate reports to the District Attorney’s

Office.

3) The arrest of the complainant by the Tehama County Sheriff’s Office on July

2, 2002 met the criteria for a probable cause arrest.

Recommendation: None

Response Required: None.

Citizen Complaint

Red Bluff Police Department

Summary:

The Law Enforcement Committee investigated a compliant that the Red Bluff Police

Department falsified a crime report in order to maintain good relations with a local

business owner. The investigation determined the compliant was unfounded.

Introduction:

A citizen’s compliant was made alleging the Red Bluff Police Department had falsified

or inappropriately changed a crime report. The case involved a relative of a contract

vendor, who did vehicle maintenance for the police department. The compliant alleged

the contract vendor had threatened to discontinue his service to the police department, if

the report was not changed.

Method of Investigation:

Members of the Grand Jury met with the Chief of the Red Bluff Police Department on

December 21, 2006. Members conducted an interview with The Chief about the

allegation.

Discussion:

The Chief was familiar with the case and relayed the following. Upon response of a Red

Bluff Police Department Officer to a crime in progress call, the officer found and made

contact with the suspect, who was detained by private security personnel. After the

investigation, a report was prepared by the officer. The officer was fairly new to patrol

and still on probation. The officer was instructed by his supervisor to file a Felony

charge associated with committing the alleged crime. The business owner ( who is a

relative of the suspect), came to the front counter of the Police Department and returned

several sets of vehicle keys to the receptionist, explaining he wasn’t going to be working

on police vehicles any longer. Several days later, the Captain in charge of the vehicle

fleet, made contact with the contract vendor to see why the keys were returned with no

explanation. The contract vendor relayed to the captain that since the Red Bluff Police

Department had charged his son with a Felony, the contract vendor felt he could no

longer work on the Red Bluff Police Department Vehicles. The contract vendor further

explained that he believed the Police Department did not do business with Felons.

During the conversation with the Captain, the contact vendor related the facts of the

arrest, as he knew them. At the end of the conversation, the Captain determined the

relative was arrested for shoplifting. The Captain, knowing shoplifting was generally

charged as a misdemeanor, returned to the police station and reviewed the report. The

report reflected a Felony charge for allegedly committing petty theft at a local store. The

Captain contacted the officer and asked him to change the report to reflect a more

appropriate misdemeanor charge. The officer complied and the case was filed with the

District Attorney’s Office.

Findings:

1) The Red Bluff Police Department responded to the compliant in a timely

manner.

2) The juvenile had initially been charged with a felony because of

recommendations made by an overzealous supervisor.

3) The patrol supervisor had recommended the Felony charge for unknown

reasons.

4) The contract vendor felt obligated to return the Police Department vehicle

keys based on a possible conflict of interest. The contract vendor believed the

Police Department did not contract work out to a business that may have an

alleged felon on the premises.

5) The changing of the report from a felony to a misdemeanor appeared to be in

line with department policy.

Recommendation:

The Police Department develop a written Standard Operating Procedure for report review

by supervisors to ensure all reports are reviewed consistently.

Response Required:

The Red Bluff Police Department provide proof the SOP on report review has been

developed and implemented.

Citizen’s Complaint

CPS

Summary:

The Grand Jury’s Health and Welfare Committee received a citizen’s letter of complaint

alleging that Tehama County Child Protective Services ( CPS) was not carrying out an

official inquiry into the health and welfare of a child living in a foster home.

Introduction:

A citizen’s letter of complaint was received by the 2005- 2006 Grand Jury on May 16,

2006, alleging a child, placed in a foster home, was not being cared for properly, i. e.,

room conditions in home, no heat, no phone. Furthermore, the citizen alleged that CPS

was not investigating the foster home or communicating in a timely manner. The citizen

requested that the Grand Jury investigate CPS and the foster home occupied by the child.

Method of Investigation:

On July 11, 2006, the Grand Jury received a citizen’s complaint from the 2005- 2006

Grand Jury. The citizen’s complaint was assigned to the Health and Welfare Committee

for review.

On August 23, 2006, the Health and Welfare Committee reviewed the complaint.

On August 24, 2006, the Grand Jury Committee contacted County Counsel for an

appointment to discuss the citizen’s complaint. County Counsel suggested that the Grand

Jury Committee contact the District Attorney due to a conflict of interest

.

On August 30, 2006, the District Attorney spoke at the Grand Jury Committee meeting.

At the meeting, the Grand Jury Foreman requested files for review. The District Attorney

stated that relevant files would obtain the files by juvenile court order from CPS.

The Grand Jury Foreman received the released files from CPS on October 18, 2006.

On October 26, 2006, the Grand Jury Committee reviewed the released files.

On October 31, 2006, Grand Jury Committee members met with District Attorney

Investigators to determine the welfare of the child and to discuss the next course of

action.

On November 6, 2006, the District Attorney Investigator’s final report was received by

the Grand Jury Committee.

Discussion:

On July 11, 2006, the Grand Jury received a citizen’s complaint from the 2005- 2006

Grand Jury. The complaint was assigned to the Health and Welfare Committee for

review.

On August 23, 2006, the Grand Jury Committee reviewed and discussed the citizen’s

complaint and found it worthy of investigation. The Grand Jury Committee decided the

next step was to contact County Counsel.

On August 24, 2006 members of the Grand Jury Committee contacted County Counsel to

begin the investigation into the health and welfare of the child. After discussing the

citizen’s letter of complaint with County Counsel it was suggested that the Grand Jury

Committee contact the District Attorney due to a conflict of interest.

After speaking with the District Attorney it was deemed necessary to obtain files by

juvenile court order from CPS to insure the child’s health and welfare were favorable.

The released files were received by the Grand Jury Foreman on October 18, 2006. After

members of the Grand Jury Committee reviewed the released files on October 26, 2006 it

was found that the information contained within the files was inconclusive to the child’s

current health and welfare.

The Grand Jury Committee contacted the District Attorney to schedule a time to

investigate the child’s foster home and living conditions. It was suggested that members

of the Grand Jury Committee meet with the District Attorney Investigators who

investigated the child’s health and welfare.

Grand Jury Committee members met with the District Attorney Investigators on October

31, 2006 and discussed the child’s health and welfare. After speaking with the

investigators it was deemed unnecessary to visit the child’s foster home as the child had

been removed from the foster home in July, 2006 and placed in the mother’s custody by

court order. The child’s health and welfare is being monitored and is still under the

jurisdiction of CPS.

Findings:

1. Based on the results of our investigation, it was found that the citizen’s complaints

were not valid.

2. It was found that Child Protective Services and its employees were following proper

protocol and that no state or local laws, pertaining to the care and placement of the child,

were violated.

3. It was also found that the child was in a safe and supervised environment and that no

further action was required.

Recommendations:

No further action.

Response Required:

None

Commendations:

It was a pleasure working with the District Attorney Investigators. The Grand Jury

Committee appreciated the thoroughness of their investigation.

Citizen Complaint

Tehama County Animal Services

Summary: The Law Enforcement Committee investigated a complaint, alleging Animal

Services was not providing mandated services and unfairly targeted a community by

performing an enforcement sweep. The investigation concluded the allegation was

unfounded.

Introduction: A citizen’s complaint was made against the Tehama County Animal

Services. The compliant alleged Animal Services was not complying with the State of

California Health and Safety Code, by not offering “ low cost animal clinics”. The

compliant also alleged Animal Services had targeted citizens of the Paskenta Area for

dog license violations and not responded promptly to a call regarding a vicious dog.

Method of Investigation: Members of the Grand Jury met with Department of

Agriculture Director on November 30, 2006. The Director answered general questions

about the operation of Animal Services, under the Department of Agriculture. The

Director provided members with a copy of the current budget for animal services.

Members of the Grand Jury met with the acting Director of Animal Services on

December 21, 2006. The Animal Services Director provided documentation of calls for

service and citations issued, from the Paskenta Area. The acting Animal Services

Director was interviewed on general policies and procedures of Animal Services.

Discussion: The “ Low Cost Clinics” were provided by the county several years ago,

when the county had a fulltime veterinarian on staff. Due to recruitment issues, a

veterinarian is not on staff any longer. Low cost clinics are currently offered by local

feed and seed stores, which appear to meet the need. The citations issued to the Paskenta

Area, were issued by an Animal Control Officer that is no longer with the agency. The

documentation on file was reviewed and no obvious issues of retaliation were found. The

response of animal services to a “ Dangerous Dog” call in Paskenta was reviewed. It was

determined that Animal Services was within policy by not immediately responding to the

call. This was based on the dog no longer being an immediate threat to attack on

humans. The members were concerned over Animal Services routine response taking 5

days. The personnel who were responsible for the response are no longer with Animal

Services and could not be interviewed. The report on the July 2005 response for the

Dangerous Dog, in Paskenta was reviewed. The report was prepared and submitted to the

District Attorney’s Office, per the policy. The case was not filed because of an issue

with lack of cooperation from some of the witnesses. During this investigation the

Directors position for Animal Services and two Animal Control Officer positions were

vacant. This hampered the investigation by not having access to employees from the

previous year. On January 16, 2007 the following responsibilities were transferred from

Animal Services to the Tehama County Sheriff’s Department:

1. Field Enforcement

2. Court System

3. Fines.

The Animal Control Officer positions were transferred to the Sheriff and are currently

being filled. This transfer will allow the candidates to have background investigations

done prior to being hired. This was not previously done in Animal Services.

Findings:

1) Animal Services is compliant with the Health and Safety Code 121690( e) and

( f) by allowing local feed stores to hold the low cost clinics. Although not as

convenient as having clinics rotate through local communities, it does meet

the intent.

2) The Standard Operating Procedure Manual has not been finalized for Animal

Services.

3) The emergency response to Paskenta in July 2005 seemed to be within policy.

The follow- up or routine response took too long. No documentation on what

caused the long delay.

4) Citations issued to dog owners in Paskenta during July of 2006 appeared to

follow past practice. No evidence of targeting could be found.

Recommendation:

1). The transfer of enforcement to the Tehama County Sheriff’s Department should

resolve many issues the Grand Jury was investigating with Animal Services.

2) The 07/ 08 grand Jury should complete a routine visit with the Animal Services and the

newly formed Division of Animal Regulation of the Sheriff’s Office.

Response Required:

1). The completion of the Standard Operating Procedures should be verified by

Department of Agriculture – Animal Services.

Citizen’s Complaint

Ad Hoc Election Committee

Summary:

The Grand Jury received a complaint from the Office of the Tehama County Clerk &

Recorder regarding allegatio ns previously made against the County Elections Department

and its handling of the 2006 primary election in June and in the General election in

November. An Ad Hoc Committee was formed namely the Election Complaint

Committee.

Introduction:

The Grand Jury presumes that this complaint was motivated by a departmental desire to

obtain an independent review of the local election procedures. At the core of the

allegations were questions whether proper ballot procedures were followed in light of the

candidacy of Clerk Recorder Elect. We decided to look into it because it did involve an

important topic concerning the integrity of the local electoral process, i. e., handling and

custody of absentee ballots and access keys to PO Box 250.

Method of Investigation:

The Ad Hoc Election Complaint Committee began its inquiry by ascertaining more

information about the previous complaint against Elections. The complaint can be

summarized as follows: Compromise of the Electoral Process, specifically handling and

custody of absentee ballots and access to PO Box keys. The Committee also discovered

that a similar complaint had been made to the California Secretary of State, Dept. of

Elections. The committee conferred with the state investigator who was handling that

complaint. The investigator conveyed that his office had found nothing improper about

the procedures utilized by the County Elections Department, and that while most of his

investigation was finished it nevertheless was not concluded as of this writing. Our own

investigation took us to the Clerk Recorder who confirmed that State Elections personnel

were present during the June 2006 election at the request of County Elections, as were the

Logic and Accuracy Board ( including a member of the 2005- 2006 Grand Jury), a

representative from Sequoia Voting Systems, and Assistant County Counsel. Questions

regarding the PO Box keys were addressed by interviewing staff and inspection of the

location of the keys in question.

Discussion:

The Election Complaint Committee requested that the Office of the Tehama County

Clerk Recorder provide written documentation detailing procedures involved in, and

safeguards in place relating to the process of handling and maintaining the integrity of

Absentee Ballots. The office was very cooperative and accommodating. They complied

with a thorough and detailed narrative as attached.

Findings: 1) Regarding PO Box 250 keys: Our investigation found no evidence of

any impropriety. The keys are kept in the possession of the Clerk &

Recorder’s Office.

2) The Clerk & Recorder’s office diligently endeavors to ensure the

integrity of the election process.

Recommendations:

None.

Response Required:

None.