SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF BUTTE

ONE COURT STREET

OROVILLE, CA 95965- 3394

( 530) 538- 7611

June 30, 2000

1999- 2000

BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY

FINAL REPORT

The Grand Jury Final Report has been filed on this date pursuant to Penal Code Section 933. A copy of

the Report is enclosed. The following code section sets out the time requirements for comment to the

Report.

PENAL CODE SECTION 933

Section 933. [ Findings and recommendations; comment of governing bodies, elective officers, or agency]

( a) No later than the end of each fiscal or calendar year of a county, each grand jury impaneled

during that fiscal or calendar year shall submit to the presiding judge of the superior court a

final report of its findings and recommendations that pertain to county government matters

other than fiscal matters during the fiscal or calendar year. Final reports on any appropriate

subject may be submitted to the presiding judge of the superior court at any time during the

term of service of a grand jury. A final report may be submitted for comment to responsible

officers, agencies, or departments, including the county board of supervisors, when applicable,

upon finding of the presiding judge that the report is in compliance with this title. One copy of

each report found to be in compliance with this title shall be placed on file with the county clerk

and remain on file in the office of the county clerk.

( b) No later than the end of each fiscal or calendar year, each grand jury impaneled during that

fiscal or calendar year shall submit to the presiding judge of the superior court a final report of

its findings and recommendations that pertain to fiscal matters of county government during the

fiscal or calendar year of the county.

( c) No later than 90 days after the grand jury submits a final report on the operations of any public

agency subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of the public agency shall

comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations

pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body, and every elective county officer

or agency head for which the grand jury has responsibility pursuant to Section 914.1 shall

comment within 60 days to the presiding judge of the superior court, with an information copy

sent to the board of supervisors, on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters

under the control of that county officer or agency head and any agency or agencies which that

officer or agency head supervises or controls. In any city and county, the mayor shall also

comment on the findings and recommendations. All such comments and reports shall

forthwith be submitted to the presiding judge of the superior court who impaneled the grand

jury. A copy of all responses to grand jury reports shall be placed on file with the clerk of the

public agency and the office of the county clerk, or the mayor when applicable, and shall

remain on file in those offices. One copy shall be placed on file with the applicable grand jury

final report by, and in the control of the currently impaneled grand jury, where it shall be

maintained for a minimum of five years.

[ Amended by Stats 1987 c. 690 § 1; Stats 1988 c. 1297 § 5]

PENAL CODE SECTION 933.05

Section 933.05. [ Grand Jury Reports; Responses]

( a) For purposes of subdivision ( c) of Section 933, as to each grand jury finding, the responding

person or entity shall indicate one of the following:

( 1) The respondent agrees with the finding.

( 2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response

shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of

the reasons therefor.

( b) For purposes of subdivision ( c) of Section 933, as to each grand jury recommendation, the

responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions:

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

implemented action.

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

future, with a time frame for implementation.

( 3) The recommendation requires further analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter

to be prepared for discussion by the officer or director of the agency or department being

investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when

applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of

the grand jury report.

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

reasonable, with an explanation therefor.

( c) However, if a finding or recommendation of the grand jury addresses budgetary or personnel

matters of a county department headed by an elected officer, both the department head and

the board of supervisors shall respond if requested by the grand jury, but the response of the

board of supervisors shall address only those budgetary or personnel matters over which it has

some decision making authority. The response of the elected department head shall address

all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her department.

( d) A grand jury may request a subject person or entity to come before the grand jury for the

purpose of reading and discussing the findings of the grand jury report that relates to that

person or entity in order to verify the accuracy of the findings prior to their release.

( e) A grand jury shall provide to the affected agency a copy of the portion of the grand jury report

relating to that person or entity two working days prior to its public release and after the

approval of the supervising judge. No officer, agency, department, or governing body of a

public agency shall disclose any contents of the report prior to the public release of the final

report.

[ Added by Stats. 1996, c. 1170 § 11

1999- 2000 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Final Resolutions 1

Foreperson’s Letter to the Presiding Judge.................................................................................. 2

Acknowledgments4

A Brief History and Overview of the Grand Jury ........................................................................... 5

Grand Jury Statement.................................................................................................................... 7

REPORTS

City of Oroville...................................................................................................................... 8

Oroville Police Department ............................................................................................... 10

Butte County Jail................................................................................................................ 14

Butte County Juvenile Hall ................................................................................................ 19

Chico Police Department .................................................................................................. 21

Butte County Office of Auditor- Controller ......................................................................... 22

Butte County Libraries ....................................................................................................... 25

Butte County Family Support Division............................................................................... 29

Butte County Behavioral Health - Oroville Outpatient Clinic............................................ 32

Pioneer Union Elementary School District -

Berry Creek Elementary School ....................................................................................... 34

Butte County Airport Land Use Commission ( ALUC) ...................................................... 36

Butte County Department of Public Works ( BCDPW) ..................................................... 38

Animal Control Program.................................................................................................... 43

Butte County Fair ............................................................................................................... 46

1999- 2000 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

( continued)

APPENDIX I

Summary of Requested Respondents to the

1999- 2000 Grand Jury Final Report ................................................................................. 48

APPENDIX II

List of Offices, Departments, Boards and Commissions

Visited, Interviewed, Observed, Reviewed, Investigated or

Consulted by the Jury........................................................................................................ 50

APPENDIX III

Membership of the 1999- 2000 Grand Jury ...................................................................... 53

APPENDIX IV

Communicating with the Grand Jury................................................................................. 54

APPENDIX V

Comments to Responses - 1998- 1999 Grand Jury Final Report.................................... 55

RESPONSES TO THE 1998- 1999 GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT

Butte County Clerk- Recorder............................................................................................ 56

Response to: November 1998 Election

Butte County Board of Supervisors................................................................................... 61

Response to: November 1998 Election

Public Works Department

Administrative Offices

Local Agency Formation Commission ( LAFCO)

Juvenile Hall

Veterans Memorial Halls

Lime Saddle Community Service District

Social Welfare Department

Chief Administrative Officer, County of Butte ................................................................... 79

Response to: November 1998 Election

Administrative Offices

Local Agency Formation Commission ( LAFCO)

Juvenile Hall

Veterans Memorial Halls

Lime Saddle Community Service District

Local Agency Formation Commission ( LAFCO).............................................................. 90

Response to: Local Agency Formation Commission ( LAFCO)

Lime Saddle Community Service District

1999- 2000 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

( continued)

RESPONSES TO THE 1998- 1999 GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT ( continued)

Mayor, Town of Paradise................................................................................................... 92

Response to: Fire Department and Police Department retention

Butte County Personnel Director ...................................................................................... 94

Response to: Department of Social Welfare

Butte County District Attorney............................................................................................ 96

Response to: Administrative Offices

Butte County Counsel 98

Response to: Administrative Offices

Butte County Director of Development Services.............................................................. 99

Response to: Local Agency Formation Commission ( LAFCO)

Lime Saddle Community Service District

Butte County Director of Public Works ........................................................................... 102

Response to: Department of Public Works

Butte County Sheriff ................................................................................................. 104

Response to: County Jail

Chief Probation Officer, Butte County Probation Department ....................................... 107

Response to: Juvenile Hall

Butte County Office of the Auditor- Controller................................................................. 115

Response to: Audit and Finance

Public Guardian/ Public Administrator,

Butte County Department of Social Welfare .................................................................. 118

Response to: Department of Social Welfare

Vice Mayor, City of Oroville ............................................................................................. 125

Response to: City of Oroville Personnel Policy

- 1 -

1999- 2000

BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY

FINAL REPORT

FINAL RESOLUTIONS

WHEREAS, the 1999- 2000 Butte County Grand Jury has concluded the business of its term and has

reached certain conclusions; and

WHEREAS, the Butte County Grand Jury desires to disclose the substance of those conclusions for

the benefit of local government, its agencies and the citizens of Butte County;

BE IT RESOLVED that the attached reports, commendations, findings and recommendations are

adopted as the Grand Jury Final Report and submitted to Gerald Hermansen, Presiding Judge,

Superior Court of California, County of Butte, to be entered as a public document pursuant to

California law.

The above Resolution PASSED AND ADOPTED by the 1999- 2000 Butte County Grand Jury in

Oroville, California, on the 30th day of June, 2000.

- 2 -

Butte County Grand Jury

P. O. Box 110

Oroville, California 95965

( 530) 538- 7667

June 30, 2000

The Honorable Judge Gerald Hermansen,

Presiding Judge

Superior Court of California, County of Butte

One Court Street

Oroville, California 95965

Dear Judge Hermansen,

It has been an honor for the members of the first Grand Jury of the New Millennium to serve the citizens of

Butte County. We appreciate the opportunity to gain personal insight into the government of our county.

As foreman, I have realized the importance of working together for the benefit of all. From the beginning, a

cooperative attitude prevailed. Even the four members who resigned because of health, family or time

commitments left their imprint on portions of this, our Final Report. The alternate jurors who replaced them

served admirably and contributed greatly to our investigations and reviews of various county entities. To

each of these and the final eighteen dedicated citizens, I am forever indebted for their loyalty and support.

At the onset, we committed ourselves to our " watchdog" role. We made mandated agency visitations and

we added agencies that had not been visited in recent years. In addition, we undertook to complete and

report on the carry- over investigation of the City of Oroville begun by the 1998- 1999 Grand Jury. The scope

of the initial investigation was quite large. For many reasons, including the changing political climate, the

1999- 2000 Grand Jury narrowed the thrust of the investigation and prioritized the issues involved. Our

conclusions, findings and recommendations are included in this Final Report.

Continuing an innovation of the previous Grand Jury, we invited every department head and county

supervisor to tell us about his or her departmental or governmental functions. As before, this proved to be a

very valuable experience for all, and we recommend that future grand juries do this as part of the

orientation process.

Previous Final Reports have pointed out the futility of expecting a grand jury member to function at the

highest level in one year! It takes most of the year just to become familiar with the multitude of county

agencies and their functions. As one of three 1998- 1999 Grand Jury " holdovers," I can certainly

understand that feeling. The members of this

Grand Jury are no exception since the last months of our term of service witnessed an awakening and an

eagerness to participate with a more learned attitude.

" Holdovers" are especially important when there are carry- over investigations that have far- reaching

boundaries and require much re- telling to new grand jury members. An insufficient number of holdovers

cannot adequately bring the new members up to date. In the future, if several volunteer to serve another

year, it might suggest a large- scale investigation is still in progress. The carry- over investigation mentioned

fell into that category and no amount of re- telling could substitute for first- hand information. Under similar

- 3 -

conditions, we recommend more consideration be given to grand jurors who request and volunteer for

additional service.

This Grand Jury became painfully aware of the misleading information that was published by the media.

When unsupported accounts of " Grand Jury investigations" appeared in local newspapers, grand jury

confidentiality became a concern. Tempting as it was, we did not respond to the media because of possible

political implications. In spite of our determination not to get involved in political issues, speculation about

grand jury proceedings and investigations was used to promote the agenda of some individuals and groups.

We greatly appreciated the assistance of Judge Hermansen, County Counsels Susan Minasian, Bruce

Alpert and Dave McClain, as well as District Attorney Michael Ramsey. Our liaison, A. Lynn Woods,

Deputy Court Executive Officer, deserves a special " thank you" for attending to our legal and budgetary

matters. We also wish to thank Court Clerks

Richard Holst, Synda Sayre and Joette Willis of the Jury Commissioner's Office who kept us informed and

supplied us with needed documents and supplies.

The officers, committee chairs and committee members of the 1999- 2000 Grand Jury are to be

commended for their dedication in dealing with citizen's complaints and finalizing the material contained in

this report. Officers Rick Storey ( Foreman- Pro Tem), Darlene Thomasson ( Recording Secretary), Sondra

Nation ( Corresponding Secretary) and Steven Ross ( Sergeant- At- Arms) contributed above and beyond

expectations. Members who served as committee chairpersons were Lillian Miskey, Sondra Nation, David

Padilla, Joy Reeder, Melvin Richins, Steven Ross, Ida Stelle and Rick Storey. Sondra Nation, Darlene

Thomasson and C. C. Pace accepted " double duty" by editing and compiling the Final Report.

For me, it has been positive experience not to be forgotten.

Sincerely,

Charles " Chuck" Boydstun, Foreman

1999- 2000 Butte County Grand Jury

1999- 2000 Butte County Grand Jury Final Report

- 4 -

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The 1999- 2000 Butte County Grand Jury is enormously appreciative and hereby acknowledges and

thanks the following people and organizations for making our efforts and this Final Report possible:

· Gerald Hermansen, Presiding Judge of the Superior Court of California, County of Butte, for his

support and guidance;

· County Counsel Bruce Alpert, Former County Counsel Susan Minasian and Chief Deputy County

Counsel David McClain for their willing and timely support whenever requested;

· District Attorney Michael Ramsey for his willing and timely support;

· The staff of the Superior Court of California, County of Butte, including A. Lynn Woods, Deputy Court

Executive Officer, and Court Clerks Richard Holst, Synda Sayre and Joette Willis for their

administrative assistance;

· The Court Bailiffs whose reassuring presence provided for our security;

· The Chico Police Department, Oroville Police Department, Chico Public Library and the Oroville

Mercury Register for providing meeting places apart from the County Courthouse;

· The leaders of Butte County who often took time away from their busy schedules and pressing

business of the County in order to answer questions, find materials and generally respond to our

needs, impressing us by their professionalism, efficiency and abiding helpfulness; and

· Our endlessly patient and understanding families and employers who supported us while we

performed this public service.

Clerk- Recorder Candace Grubbs and the superb staff of the County Recorder’s Office make

Grand Jury reports available on their web site:

http:// clerk- recorder. buttecounty. net/ election/ grandjury/ index. html

1999- 2000 Butte County Grand Jury Final Report

- 5 -

A BRIEF HISTORY AND OVERVIEW OF THE GRAND JURY

( with appreciation to various other grand juries for much of the following information)

The California State Constitution calls specifically for the use of grand juries in the governance of the state,

and in 1849 the California Legislature authorized grand juries in each county. The Legislature passed laws

in 1880 that required grand juries to review and investigate the activities of county government, and in 1983

the State added municipalities and districts to the purview of grand juries. Beyond alleged misconduct of

public officials, just seven other states provide for grand jury investigations of county and city government.

Only California and Nevada laws require the annual impanelment of grand juries with the specific civil duty

of local government “ watchdog.” Certain larger jurisdictions-- such as the Cities/ Counties of San Francisco

and Los Angeles-- impanel separate criminal ( indictment) and civil ( watchdog) grand juries each year.

Some counties impanel a separate criminal grand jury only when needed. The Butte County Grand Jury

serves in both capacities.

How is the jury selected?

Each fiscal year the county Superior Court summons a large number of qualified citizens who have resided

in the county for over a year and are at least 18 years of age. The court makes it clear that service on the

Grand Jury is voluntary. Potential jurors should be reasonably intelligent, of good character and must

possess a working command of the English language. From a pool of willing candidates, the Court makes

a good faith effort to select qualified men and women who are diverse in age and socioeconomic, ethnic

and educational backgrounds, and who represent the varied geographic areas of the county.

Superior Court judges and staff interview the body of qualified and willing candidates and choose 30

potential jurors. Nineteen members make up a full jury. At the discretion of the presiding judge, as many

as 10 members from the previous year’s jury may “ holdover” to serve a second term. In order to constitute

the full panel of 19, names are drawn at random, and new jurors are added to the existing holdovers.

Jurors serve for a term of twelve months beginning in July. Over the course of the year and as necessary,

alternates are called in sequential order from the pool of remaining potential jurors.

How does it work?

The presiding judge appoints a foreperson to preside at meetings. The Grand Jury organizes itself into

officers and committees and determines which of the various departments and functions of county, city and

joint powers government it will review. It also reviews compliance with the recommendations of previous

Butte County Grand Juries.

Inquiries on the part of the jury, letters and complaints from citizens, and dictates of the State Penal Code

collectively determine the jury’s work. The Grand Jury aims to identify policies in government that may

need improvement. All actions of the jury-- including any communication from the public and all

deliberations and votes-- are completely confidential. The jury does publish a report of its significant findings

and recommendations. The jury’s final report, however, typically reflects only a small part of the jury’s

actual endeavors over the course of its term.

State law requires specific and detailed responses from departments upon which the jury renders findings

and recommendations in its reports. Elected officials have 60 days to respond; public agencies have 90

days.

1999- 2000 Butte County Grand Jury Final Report

- 6 -

The work of a grand jury is demanding. Most members can expect to invest approximately 500 hours of

time over the course of their term, but the work can be both gratifying and personally rewarding. Service on

a jury leads one to a much- improved understanding of the organization and business of local government,

and to the personal satisfaction of having contributed to its improvement.

1999- 2000 Butte County Grand Jury Final Report

- 7 -

GRAND JURY STATEMENT

The 1999- 2000 Butte County Grand Jury, impaneled on July 9, 1999, pledged itself to conduct its business

in an ethical manner, to be responsive to citizen complaints, to visit and review offices and agencies as

mandated, to undertake to visit and review various other agencies, to accomplish the goals it set for itself

and, at the end of its term, to render a comprehensive Final Report to the citizens and agencies of Butte

County.

Further, the 1999- 2000 Butte County Grand Jury pledged itself to uphold the following values throughout its

term:

· to recognize its purpose and duties in accordance with the laws of the State of California;

· to maintain the confidentiality and integrity of all Grand Jury proceedings;

· to recognize the importance of applying to all individuals the same objective standards of conduct and

responsibility;

· to respect every individual’s right to privacy;

· to recognize that the Grand Jury functions lawfully as a legal entity and that no single grand juror, when

acting alone, has any power or authority to represent the Grand Jury;

· to remain vigilant to detect and avoid any personal conflicts of interest that may arise during the course

of performing the business of the Grand Jury;

· to recognize the importance of relying on the opinions and expertise of others more skilled in particular

matters regarding the business of public office and government;

· to respect the discretionary policy- making or operational powers of public officials; and

· to recognize the importance of maintaining accuracy and integrity in our activities, and to keep our

reports confined to matters within the scope and power of our authority.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

1999- 2000 Butte County Grand Jury Final Report

- 8 -

CITY OF OROVILLE

BACKGROUND

The 1998- 1999 Grand Jury received a citizen complaint concerning the November 1998 city mayoral

election. There were questions as to the procedures and results of a subsequent recount of the votes. The

Final Report of that Grand Jury summarizes its investigation, findings and recommendations. Although

there was no evidence of irregularities, the Elections Office has taken measures to insure additional security

and validity to future voting.

While conducting the election investigation, the 1998- 1999 Grand Jury became aware of possible

improprieties involving the City of Oroville management, personnel issues, Revolving Loan Fund

( RLF)/ Enterprise Fund loans and misappropriation of city funds. There were allegations of harassment of

persons involved in election politics and favoritism among elected and appointed members of city

government. Allegedly, city jobs were not always put out to bid, nor were contracts always awarded in

accordance with the City’s Procedural Policy. A report regarding the City of Oroville Personnel Policy was

listed as Appendix V in the 1998- 1999 Final Report. Though response from the former Oroville City

Administrator/ Personnel Director is mandated, to date no response has been received.

The investigation of Oroville city government was so lengthy and involved that the term of the 1998- 1999

Grand Jury expired before completion. A new Grand Jury directive which became effective January 1,

1999, allowed unfinished matters to be carried over to the Grand Jury of the following year.

To insure fair and impartial evaluation, outside legal counsel was retained, and numerous individuals were

subpoenaed to testify under oath as to accusations of mismanagement, misappropriation of funds and

favoritism in business loans. Concerns were expressed regarding inequalities of hiring practices and

personnel procedures indicated that Memorandum of Understanding ( MOU) guidelines were not always

followed. Transcripts were secured and reserved for use by the Grand Jury.

The following findings are the result of the continuing investigations of the 1999/ 2000 Grand Jury.

Subsequent interviews of the Oroville City Council as well as past and present city employees led to the

following findings and recommendations.

COMMENDATION

We commend the city employees for maintaining services during this difficult period.

FINDINGS

· A conflict of interest existed when the former mayor prepared an RLF/ Enterprise Fund loan paper and

then voted to grant the loan.

· Outside legal counsel noted that contracts between the city and its officials or council should not occur.

Title 9 of the Government Code ( Statute 87.100), states that no official can influence a decision in

which he/ she has a financial interest. Documentary evidence and oral testimony on Oroville

RLF/ Enterprise Loans were forwarded to Housing and Urban Development ( HUD). No response has

yet been received.

· The former City Administrator took travel and school expenses after being directed by the City Council

not to do so.

1999- 2000 Butte County Grand Jury Final Report

- 9 -

· Two incidents of misappropriation of city funds by the former City Administrator were turned over to the

Butte County District Attorney’s Office on advice of outside legal counsel. The District Attorney’s office

determined that the problem had been one of lack of communication rather than criminal in nature.

· Personnel decisions were made by the former City Administrator after being relieved of that authority

without the City Council’s knowledge or approval.

· All seven members of the Oroville City Council ( prior to the May 2000 recall election) acknowledged

that they have accomplished little during the past two years. A lack of compromise, cooperation,

teamwork and professionalism resulted in non- productivity for the City of Oroville.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The Grand Jury recommends that:

· Members of the City Council remove themselves from voting on all issues where there is a conflict or

an appearance of a conflict of interest.

· The Oroville City Council strive to create a better and more productive work environment with respect

and communication foremost in dealing with each other. Recent interviews indicate willingness to be

more productive and responsive to their constituents.

· The City Council insure the environment within the city government operations does not spawn another

volatile situation.

· Employment requirements not be arbitrarily changed and re- changed to meet the qualifications of

those seeking to fill the vacancies.

· Personnel and MOU policies be followed consistently.

RESPONSE REQUESTED FROM

· Oroville City Council

· Oroville City Administrator

· Oroville City Personnel Director

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

1999- 2000 Butte County Grand Jury Final Report

- 10 -

OROVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT

ADMINISTRATION

BACKGROUND

During the term of the 1998- 1999 Grand Jury, certain concerns regarding the Oroville Police Department

came to light. The problems were reviewed, interviews conducted and information gathered. Due to the

complex nature of the matters being discussed and the limited term of the 1998- 1999 Grand Jury, the

investigation was carried forward to the 1999- 2000 Grand Jury for completion and preparation of the final

report.

The 1999- 2000 Grand Jury conducted its investigation by interviewing current and former employees of the

Oroville Police Department, including the former Chief of Police as well as current and former police

officers within the department. All members of the then- serving City Council were interviewed. Everyone

who came before the Grand Jury did so voluntarily, showing respect for the Grand Jury members and

conducting themselves in a polite, professional and helpful manner. In an effort to gather as much

information as possible, confidential questionnaires were sent out to all Oroville Police Department

employees.

The 1998- 1999 Grand Jury and the 1999- 2000 Grand Jury would like to thank everyone who completed

and returned a questionnaire, who appeared before the Grand Jury to detail their problems and concerns

and who revisited past experiences in order to give the Grand Jury a full picture of the turmoil and dynamics

within the department. Matters dealt with by the courts, or which are pending in the courts, are not

discussed in this report.

The former Chief of Police resigned during the term of the 1999- 2000 Grand Jury. An interim chief was

appointed by the City Council while a new chief is being sought. It is the understanding of the Grand Jury

that the interim chief is addressing many of the concerns expressed in this report.

COMMENDATION

Even with all of the problems and rifts within the Oroville Police Department, past and present

employees were able to perform their duties for the City of Oroville.

FINDINGS

· Personnel Leaving the Oroville Police Department. The Grand Jury was concerned with the

number of long- time employees leaving the department and finding employment elsewhere. It

appeared that the department leadership did not conduct exit interviews on a regular basis. City

Council members reported that they did not follow up to determine the cause of the departures.

· Division Along Political Lines. A large concern was that of Police Department personnel

taking the “ side” of various officeholders and office seekers, forming alliances within the

department along political lines. It appears that all sides made inappropriate comments to their

co- workers, contributing to the further decline of department morale. This problem was allowed

to continue to the point that many employees felt that if they were not on the “ correct” side of an

issue, their job was in jeopardy. Whether or not this was the actual case, the feeling that they

were being targeted to leave the department prompted them to look for more secure job

situations and, in some cases, career changes.

· Resolving Problems. The Grand Jury was interested in knowing why no grievances or

complaints were filed through the proper channels to address employee concerns. It appeared

1999- 2000 Butte County Grand Jury Final Report

- 11 -

that many had lost faith in the system and felt that there would be no proper investigation or

satisfactory outcome since the problems were well known and had not been addressed to that

point.

· Officer- Instructors at the Police Academy. Some discussion took place regarding officers

teaching classes at the Police Academy during regular working hours, driving a city vehicle back

and forth to the classes and accepting payment from the Academy while at the same time

receiving pay from the department. It was pointed out by a former high ranking Oroville police

officer that the department benefits considerably from having officers with enough expertise to

become instructors, since it increases the reputation of the department within the law

enforcement community and enhances the ability to recruit Academy graduates.

· Attending City Council Meetings. Concern was expressed regarding police officers attending

City Council meetings while wearing their uniforms and carrying their weapons, in other words

“ under the color of authority.” Although it is commendable for officers to take part in the activities

of their community, to many other attendees it was intimidating to have armed policemen in a

room where the community’s business was taking place.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The Grand Jury recommends that:

· Lines of communication and a working relationship be maintained between the Police

Department and the City Council so problems may be discussed and solved.

· Policies and procedures for personnel leaving the department be followed and exit interviews be

conducted and reviewed. If an inordinate number of personnel leave the department ( or, for that

matter, any other city department), all involved parties, including Police Department

Administration and the Oroville City Council, have the responsibility to attempt to determine the

causes. It is crucial that the department retain qualified and experienced personnel.

· Although various police organizations support individual candidates and issues from time to time,

carrying on campaigns within the workplace jeopardizes work relationships, productivity and

morale. Civic- minded people can disagree but still respect each other’s individuality.

· Procedures for airing conflicts and discussing problems be reviewed so that employees who feel

pressured, intimidated or treated in an inappropriate manner are able to turn to the established

procedures in the confidence that they will have an opportunity to voice their concerns.

· A policy regarding officer- instructors be established and guidelines clarified so that all

employees and interested parties understand the benefits, as well as the costs, to the

community.

· Unless requested to attend a public meeting in order to keep the peace in a professional

capacity, officers not attend any meeting in uniform or displaying a weapon. When attending a

civic function, an officer is merely another citizen exercising his or her rights in the community.

1999- 2000 Butte County Grand Jury Final Report

- 12 -

OROVILLE POLICE STATION

BACKGROUND

On March 2, 2000, the Grand Jury visited the Oroville Police Station and inspected the premises. Grand

Jury members were treated in a very courteous and professional manner. Officers accompanying the

Grand Jury answered questions and were extremely helpful. All areas of the facility were open to

inspection.

FINDINGS

· Entryway. There were inadequate security systems at the entryway leading from the parking lot

to the small reception area.

· Emergency Systems. There were no fire detection or warning systems, including sprinklers, in

the building. For the safety of employees, and given the sensitive nature of the materials and

evidence stored there, it seems ill- advised for the facility to remain unprotected. There were no

outside stairways or emergency exits from the upstairs area.

· Communication System. Recent repairs were made to the antenna, but radio communication

failure is an ongoing concern.

· Computers. Computer systems are “ down” intermittently. It is the understanding of the Grand

Jury that when the Police Station was erected, future computer and other electrical wiring needs

were not taken into account and that the electrical system was not properly grounded.

· Staffing. At the time of the Grand Jury visit, the department was not fully staffed.

· Maintenance and Upkeep. Police station employees, as well as several volunteers, have been

routinely performing the janitorial duties, including emptying trash cans and cleaning the kitchens

and restrooms. Since there has been no budget for kitchen supplies such as microwave ovens

and the like, department personnel have purchased equipment and supplies and provided them

to the police station on their own and with their own funds.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The Grand Jury recommends that:

· Better security measures be considered and implemented by the department.

· An immediate review of safety, fire exits, fire extinguisher needs and emergency procedures is

needed.

· The communication equipment, including the antenna system, be examined regularly and

routinely maintained.

· An inspection and evaluation of the building’s electrical wiring system be made and a plan put

into place to upgrade it to accommodate the current and future needs of the department.

· An increased number of dispatchers be hired to eliminate temporarily transferring employees

from other areas to cover incoming calls.

1999- 2000 Butte County Grand Jury Final Report

- 13 -

· Contract with a professional janitorial service so that personnel, as well as volunteers, can better

serve the community by devoting their time to their professional responsibilities and areas of

expertise.

RESPONSE REQUESTED FROM

· Oroville City Council

· Interim Chief of Police

· Oroville City Personnel Director

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

1999- 2000 Butte County Grand Jury Final Report

- 14 -

BUTTE COUNTY JAIL

BACKGROUND

Every Grand Jury is charged with inspecting the Butte County Jail at least one time during its term. The

1999- 2000 Grand Jury made two visits; the first visit was announced, the second visit was unannounced.

On September 27, 1999, the Grand Jury conducted an announced inspection of the Butte County Jail. A

correctional officer led the Grand Jury through the facility, answered all questions and was extremely

helpful and open. All areas of the jail were open to inspection.

On February 15, 2000, an unannounced visit to the jail was made. Admittance to the facility was without

incident; all areas were open to inspection. A correctional officer accompanied Grand Jurors on the tour,

answered all questions and explained the procedures and functions of each area of the facility.

At the time of the second visit, Sheriff Scott A. Mackenzie and the newly appointed undersheriff met briefly

with the Grand Jury. They were both very helpful and offered to meet with the Grand Jury to discuss any of

the Sheriff Department’s activities, answer any questions or give further details.

Questionnaires were given to the Butte County jail employees in order to obtain their opinions and

suggestions.

Response to Last Year’s Final Report

The following issues were presented in the Final Report of the 1998- 1999 Grand Jury:

The Grand Jury noted that “ no plans exist for a remodel of the women’s area ... due in part to the

much larger population of male inmates vs. female inmates.” Sheriff Mackenzie responded, “ failure

to remodel the women’s area is due to lack of funds - not inmate population.”

“ The inmates most often voiced complaints about poor food, bad television program choices and lack

of special programs such as Alcoholics Anonymous.” The Sheriff responded, “ Alcoholics

Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous programs have been and are operational. The frequency of

visits depends upon the number of volunteers of those organizations.”

A concern regarding prisoner safety was discussed when the Grand Jury stated that “ cable and

electrical cords that plug into the TVs are accessible to the prisoners.” The Sheriff responded, “... this

recommendation, while supported, is beyond the control of the Sheriff’s Office to implement. This

recommendation has been forwarded to ... Buildings and Grounds Manager.” Sheriff Mackenzie

reported that the Buildings and Grounds Manager made the suggested changes.

Regarding staff shortages and mandatory overtime, the Sheriff responded, “ On 8/ 1/ 99, all positions

were filled and all extended working hours were returned back to normal working hours.” Problems

still exist and are addressed below.

Recommendations were made to “ correct the staffing shortage and address concerns about losing

personnel because of low wages.” The Sheriff responded, “ This recommendation, while supported, is

beyond the control of the Sheriff’s Office to implement ... the Board of Supervisors should make

every effort to correct the staffing shortage and address the concerns about losing personnel

because of low wages.” Problems still exist and are addressed below.

The prior Grand Jury noted that “ the inmate monitoring station is understaffed.” The Sheriff

responded, “ Additional staff has been requested by this office in this year’s budget presentation to the

Board of Supervisors.”

1999- 2000 Butte County Grand Jury Final Report

- 15 -

Sheriff Mackenzie’s response to the 1998- 1999 Final Report can be found in it’s entirety in the

Response Section to this 1999- 2000 Final Report.

1999- 2000 Grand Jury Review

The 1999- 2000 Grand Jury makes the following observations:

General. As many as fifty people per day cycle through the facility. The average length of stay is

said to be ten days; however, some inmates stay as long as three years. Weekend prisoners are

kept separate from others. For non- English speaking inmates, interpreters are on- call. Also, four of

the prison officers are bilingual. Ministers have special visitation privileges. Inmates are allowed

outside five times per week, one hour at a time, on a rotating basis. The outside areas are small and

only a few people can be out at one time.

Initial Intake. Renovations to the booking area are complete and the facility is fully operational.

Examination Upon Intake. Examination rooms are located inside the entrance. Medical

evaluations, alcohol levels and other tests can be performed right away.

Non- English Speaking Inmates. The Inmate Orientation Handbook is also available in other

languages for non- English speaking prisoners. Interpreters are also used on an on- call basis; four

officers are bilingual.

Docile Waiting Room. Prisoners in the intake process can wait in a well- monitored common room

instead of a cell if they are docile and cooperative. With its rows of bolted- down plastic chairs and a

television set, the room is pleasant, open and resembles a hospital waiting room more than a jail.

Several prisoners were sitting in the area at the time of the Grand Jury visit. They appeared to pose

no threat to officers or each other. Some concerns still exist among officers that a prisoner could

become violent or harm someone else before officers are able to restrain the prisoner. It is the

understanding of the Grand Jury that there has not been such an occurrence.

New Medical Facility. The new facility is fully operational. The facility seems to be managed in a

very professional manner and gives excellent care and concern to the prisoners.

A social worker, an additional doctor and another physician’s assistant have been added. Additional

RNs were hired so that there is now an RN on every shift. Dental care has also been added. Pay is

commensurate with others in the same field.

For non- emergency situations, an inmate can submit a sick slip prior to 12 midnight, be put on the

sick roster and be examined the next day. Examination is usually conducted by the physician’s

assistant. There is an examination room in every building ( section). The physician’s assistant can

refer the inmate to a doctor or specialist. A portable EKG is available, if needed. The facility is

staffed by RNs and LVNs, with Oroville Hospital only a few minutes away in case of emergency.

A co- pay system is in place: $ 3 doctor visit; $ 1 prescriptions. Three special cells are available in case

of communicable airborne disease, such as tuberculosis. The Grand Jury was told that the medical

facility exceeds Title 15 guidelines and is inspected by various government agencies on a regular

basis.

Emergency Procedures. The jail is equipped with a fire suppression and sprinkler system. Fire

drills are conducted once a week; staff and inmates all participate. Evacuation plans for floods and

earthquakes are in place and have been well thought out.

Women’s Facility. At the time of our first visit, the facility was near capacity. On the second visit, it

was at 50% capacity. The inmates are usually occupied only with watching television, although a

selection of books is available. The women are housed in the old jail. Instead of large, bright

1999- 2000 Butte County Grand Jury Final Report

- 16 -

common areas as in the men’s facilities, the women are housed in smaller barred cells which makes

for a generally depressing atmosphere. The women’s facility has been recently repainted in an

attempt to lighten the area.

Men’s Facility. Most of the inmates are housed in large areas ( called pods) with single rooms

around a common area with tables and a television. The men’s facility is modern and provides space

for the prisoners to move about. The areas are monitored by officers in the control towers through

one- way glass. This system appears to be a very efficient way to monitor a large number of prisoners

with minimum staff.

Food Services. The kitchen was very clean at the time of the Grand Jury’s visit and seemed to be

well- staffed and well- run. Staff was busy preparing the evening meals. Meals are served in cells as

was recommended in the 1997- 1998 Grand Jury Final Report. According to the Food Services

Supervisor, inmates receive well- balanced and nourishing meals. Breakfast and dinner are

prepackaged; lunch consists of a large hot meal. One complete meal from each mealtime is kept in

the kitchen’s freezer in case any problems, questions or illnesses occur.

COMMENDATIONS

The Grand Jury commends the Butte County Sheriff Department’s jail employees for their

outstanding service, dedication and professionalism while working under the stress of long hours

and inadequate compensation. This Grand Jury expresses our appreciation on behalf of Butte

County and its citizens.

FINDINGS

· Central Control Room. The Central Control Room consists of a locked, secure room with an

officer on duty at all times to monitor hallways, doors and exits using a state- of- the- art computer

system. Bullet proof glass, security doors and special entry procedures are in place. There is

very limited access to the Central Control Room officer. Because of the secure nature of the

Control Room, the officer on duty may be at some risk in the event of an emergency.

· Mentally Ill Prisoners. Many of the mentally ill in Butte County have become repeat offenders

and are well known to the jail staff. In times past, these people would have been patients

monitored by mental health care professionals but funds are no longer available. They are now

expected to care for and monitor themselves. Often, they do not take the medications necessary

to keep their conditions stabilized. The result is that the mentally ill commit crimes and are

brought to the jail. During incarceration, the person resumes medication and becomes

stabilized, but upon release and without monitoring, falls back into the prior state. This has

become the pattern.

Although jail staff have been trained in the handling of mentally ill inmates, they are not mental

health care professionals. It is unfortunate that the mentally ill are stuck in a pattern of repeat

incarcerations when they really need medications and monitoring of their illnesses.

The Sheriff’s Department has reapplied for a Mentally Ill Offender Grant and continues to seek

support from elected officials and representatives. Such a grant would fund programs to

identify and monitor the mentally ill by providing additional mental health care professionals to

the jail, as well as to the Butte County Health Department. This would be of benefit to the

entire county.

· Mandatory Overtime. Although mandatory overtime temporarily ended ( see Sheriff

Mackenzie’s response to the 1998- 1999 Grand Jury’s recommendation), it was subsequently

reinstated due to continued personnel shortages. A Consent Decree of the Superior Court

1999- 2000 Butte County Grand Jury Final Report

- 17 -

requires that every position in the jail be filled every day. Even in the best of circumstances with

all staff positions filled, there are still no backup employees for staff vacations, sick days, required

training days, etc. To staff all stations as required, an inordinate amount of overtime has been

necessary.

· Salary Scale. The Grand Jury has, year after year, reported on the low wages paid to jail

employees. There has been no resolution to date. Although jail employees are represented by

the Butte County Employees Association, funds have not been made available to correct this

grossly deficient situation. It has been stated that Butte County correctional officers earn

considerably less than officers at comparable facilities and less than Butte County deputies.

· Morale. The general morale seems to be improving under the current administration, and Sheriff

Mackenzie continues to address morale issues. However, some staff members feel that shift

supervisors have “ their own way of doing things,” that staff is being “ left out of the loop” as far as

information, input and suggestions are concerned. It was suggested that improved

communication between shifts would be very beneficial to both morale and job performance.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The Grand Jury recommends that:

· Emergency procedures be reviewed and posted conspicuously in the Control Room making it

clear who has the authority and responsibility to notify Control Room personnel as situations

progress and are resolved and at what time the Control Room officer can safely leave, or must

leave, the Control Room.

· County departments cooperate to obtain the necessary funding to identify and monitor the

mentally ill. Consider this a high priority since the entire community would benefit from such a

program.

· The Butte County Board of Supervisors work with the Sheriff’s Department to determine the

necessary and realistic staffing requirements for Butte County Jail’s operation. Unless an

employee expressly requests it, require no overtime hours on an ongoing, mandatory basis.

Since adequate staffing must be available at all times, consider a budget increase to allow

funding for those extra positions. In a cooperative effort, the Board and the Sheriff’s Department

look for new and creative ways to staff the jail, recruit part- time and on- call personnel to fill in as

needed and take any other steps to ease the burden on jail employees.

· The Butte County Board of Supervisors immediately conduct a survey of similar facilities to

determine to what extent Butte County jail personnel are underpaid. Short- term and long- term

plans be made to remedy the pay situation since the county could be faced with continuing

expenditures of both time and money with on- going recruitment and training of new personnel.

Every effort be made to retain Butte County Jail employees by providing adequate pay and

incentives to excel.

· Implement standard procedures across the board so that employees are fully aware of their

duties and responsibilities.

· Many staff members are under stress, working long hours and spending less “ down time” with

their families. Working with prisoners is a difficult job and improving morale is a high priority.

1999- 2000 Butte County Grand Jury Final Report

- 18 -

RESPONSE REQUESTED FROM

· Butte County Board of Supervisors

· Sheriff Scott A. Mackenzie

BUTTE COUNTY JUVENILE HALL

BACKGROUND

As one of its legal mandates, the 1999- 2000 Grand Jury visited the Butte County Juvenile Hall on

November 1, 1998, and on March 23, 2000. The first visit was announced, the second unannounced.

Juvenile Hall is operated by the Butte County Probation Department and is the main community resource

for juveniles who are deemed to be in need of secure confinement. The sixty bed- Hall is constructed to

house both male and female juveniles. Unfortunately, the daily average population last year was sixty- two.

The ages of those confined ranged from approximately ten to eighteen years.

Response to Last Year’s Final Report

The 1998- 1999 Grand Jury listed a number of findings and recommendations ranging from excessively hot

water in Unit A to concerns of safety in many areas of Juvenile Hall. The response received from the Butte

County Probation Officer and subsequent interviews with the Director of Juvenile Hall indicate satisfactory

outcomes in most areas of concern.

The Probation Officer outlined training for counselors in drug counseling and detection and described the

methods used to detect contraband in the Hall. Juvenile Court safety concerns have been addressed

insofar as the Probation Department is able, given the constraints of the present Juvenile Hall building.

Both the Probation Officer and the Director listed a number of community agencies that come to the Hall to

help meet some of the needs of the juveniles. Lack of space at the Hall results in some of the meetings

taking place in the hallways.

1999- 2000 Grand Jury Review

During the two visits to Juvenile Hall, the 1999- 2000 Grand Jury interviewed the Director of Juvenile Hall,

other employees and some of the juveniles detained there. The Grand Jury was allowed access to all

areas of the Hall on both visits.

All parts of the Hall appeared clean and presentable. The dining room has cheerful table cloths, and

various areas of the Hall have bright colors on the walls. By contrast, the individuals’ rooms are drab. A

large storeroom held old files, cleaning materials and food items.

Juvenile Hall is ably administered by its present director who has been in that position many years. The

staffing levels, made up of full- time and part- time counselors, were considered to be adequate at the time

of the Grand Jury’s visits.

The school at Juvenile Hall is administered by the Butte County Office of Education. The director of the

school described the various ways his staff works to keep the juveniles on track in their schooling.

1999- 2000 Butte County Grand Jury Final Report

- 19 -

Medical services are provided by a private medical vendor. A nurse comes in seven days a week. A

psychiatric technician comes in six hours a week, and a psychiatrist comes in one hour a week but is on call

twenty- four hours a day. The Department of Behavioral Health provides counselors and drug counseling

for a limited number of hours each week.

Juvenile Hall has become a place where the juveniles with behavioral health problems are held because

there are no other facilities or services for them.

As with previous Grand Juries, this year’s Grand Jury also noted the inadequate space of Juvenile Court

which is held in the Hall. In the actual courtroom, the close proximity of the judge, attorneys, juveniles and

family members is hazardous to all. The juveniles awaiting their turn in court must sit on the floor in a

hallway. The waiting room for family members is not large enough to accommodate everyone on a busy

day; many stand outside in the parking lot.

FINDINGS

· Juvenile Court is still in such cramped quarters that it is hazardous for the judge, court staff,

attorneys, juveniles and family members.

· Juveniles with behavioral health problems are being held at Juvenile Hall because there is no

other facility.

· The large storeroom is being used to store incompatible items such as files and cleaning

materials because of insufficient storage space elsewhere.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The Grand Jury recommends that:

· Juvenile Court be relocated to a safer environment as soon as possible and not be delayed until

the new Juvenile Hall is built.

· Alternative housing be found for juveniles who have behavioral health problems.

· Storage room be provided with space dividers between the various categories of items located

there.

RESPONSE REQUESTED FROM:

· Butte County Probation Office

· Butte County Board of Supervisors

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

1999- 2000 Butte County Grand Jury Final Report

- 20 -

CHICO POLICE DEPARTMENT

The 1999- 2000 Grand Jury visited the Chico Police Department twice. The first visit offered an opportunity

to visit with the ( then new) Chief of Police during which he explained some of the procedures, duties and

plans of the department. The second visit provided a tour of the facilities. Prior to the visits, questionnaires

were distributed to, and received from, employees of the department.

The Chico Police Department’s administration consists of the chief, two captains and three lieutenants.

They are included in a force of seventy- one sworn officers. The sworn officers include nine sergeants,

thirty- eight patrolmen, six traffic officers, seven investigators ( which includes one lieutenant and two

sergeants), six traffic officers, two gang officers, two canine officers and one officer assigned to Butte Anti-

Drug Special Supervision ( BASS). The non- sworn staff includes fourteen dispatchers, one manager and

four supervisors. All other employees are clerical, making a total of one hundred fifteen employees and

three officers- in- training to replace any leaving the force.

All areas of the Police Department were open to review by the Grand Jury, including the holding cells,

booking process and fingerprinting. There are two dispatchers on duty during each shift. The officer in

charge of Youth Services explained the effectiveness of having officers assigned to the local high and junior

high schools and explained the methods used in dealing with gang activities.

Chico citizens assist the Chico Police Department by membership in volunteer organizations, such as

Volunteers in Police Service ( V. I. P. s), the Chaplains Program, Student Neighborhood Assistance Program

( SNAPS) and the Neighborhood Enforcement Teams ( NET).

To insure community safety at special events, such as the celebration of St. Patrick’s Day and Halloween,

the department puts extra officers on duty. They are assisted by officers from other agencies, V. I. P.

volunteers and other citizen volunteers.

The Chico Police Department is professionally operated and organized and the facility is well- equipped and

maintained. Employee survey results indicated good morale and sufficient training. There is a positive and

open attitude in the Chico Police Department toward the community and an appreciation of the

community’s response.

To provide community access and information, the Chico Police Department established a web site at:

www. ci. chico. us/ police/ index/ htm

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

1999- 2000 Butte County Grand Jury Final Report

- 21 -

BUTTE COUNTY OFFICE OF AUDITOR - CONTROLLER

BACKGROUND

The Butte County Auditor- Controller’s Office has the responsibility for providing accurate and timely

financial information to the Board of Supervisors, county departments and the citizens of Butte County.

Review of Office of Auditor- Controller

On December 9, 1999, Grand Jury members visited the Butte County Auditor- Controller’s Office to discuss

current departmental operations. Confidential questionnaires were distributed to employees in order to

gather additional information.

During the course of our review, a number of concerns were raised in connection with the efficient operation

of the department. Some of the issues which have been, and continue to be, addressed are:

Customer advocacy. Staff members are encouraged to be more customer focused in order to

assist the public.

Self- sufficiency. Very little work is now “ out- sourced.” Most of the work tasks are performed in-house

which keeps the costs down.

Personnel. There are vacant positions which remain difficult to fill because of the competition with

private industry to recruit qualified individuals. Unfortunately, the extra work has been distributed

among current staff members which has taken its toll in higher stress levels and lower morale of

employees.

Space. Although recent upgrades have been made to office space, the department would function

better if more space were provided. Specifically, storage space is an ongoing problem. The

department uses an off- site storage facility which means frequent trips to and from the site in order to

store and retrieve materials. This is very time consuming.

Technology. When computer problems occur, the department needs technical support provided

quickly since it relies heavily on its computer systems. Having access to the most current computer

advances is key to the efficient functioning of the department. There were no Y2K computer

problems.

Auditor’s Report

As mandated, a copy of the Independent Auditor’s Report for the year ended June 30, 1999, was received

and reviewed by the Grand Jury. The audit was completed by the Certified Public Accountants Macias, Gini

& Company. Their report included review of county assets, expenditures, fiduciary responsibilities, fund

balances, liabilities and revenues.

Reports Sent to the Grand Jury

The 1998- 1999 Grand Jury requested that the monthly fund balance report for expenses charged to the

Grand Jury be submitted to the Grand Jury each month but did not receive the report until late in the year.

In its Final Report, the 1998- 1999 Grand Jury stated as follows, in relevant part:

“... The Grand Jury requested a monthly fund balance report for expenses charged to the Grand

Jury’s budget allotment. The Auditor- Controller assured the group that information would be

1999- 2000 Butte County Grand Jury Final Report

- 22 -

forthcoming in a regular and timely manner. The Grand Jury did not receive the promised

information until Judge Hermansen interceded in April of 1999. ...”

In January 1999, the Auditor- Controller’s Office was contacted by that Grand Jury to report that it also had

not been receiving the monthly reports.

The Auditor- Controller again reviewed the process with his staff and directed them to submit the requested

monthly reports. It was discovered that the reports had been, in fact, sent to the Grand Jury as promised

each month, but the reports were not forwarded to the Grand Jury. The Auditor- Controller subsequently

directed his staff as to the process of submitting the report to insure prompt and proper delivery to the

Grand Jury. There have been no further problems with receipt of the monthly reports.

COMMENDATION

The Grand Jury wishes to recognize the efforts of the Auditor- Controller and his staff for their

current and continued helpfulness and exchange of information.

FINDINGS

· Inability to fill the currently vacant staff positions has been detrimental to morale and the work

environment of the Auditor- Controller’s Office.

· Although off- site storage space may have been a good short- term solution, its ongoing use has

adversely affected the efficiency of the department.

· The department is vulnerable to computer downtime due to limited technical support.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The Grand Jury recommends that:

· Qualified candidates be aggressively sought to fill the vacant positions.

· Storage facilities closer to departmental offices be found in a timely manner.

· Technical support be more readily available to perform emergency computer repair and a long-range

plan be determined by the Auditor- Controller’s Office to address the software and

equipment needs of the department.

RESPONSES REQUESTED FROM

· Butte County Board of Supervisors

· Butte County Auditor- Controller

· Butte County Personnel Director

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

1999- 2000 Butte County Grand Jury Final Report

- 23 -

BUTTE COUNTY LIBRARIES

BACKGROUND

A review of the Butte County Libraries was undertaken by the Grand Jury. Visits were made to the Oroville,

Gridley, Biggs and Durham Branches ( Chico and Paradise Branches were visited in 1998- 1999).

County budget deficits in the 1980s resulted in severe staff reduction, deep cuts in material purchases and

elimination of the bookmobile services.

The State Public Library Fund and various grants pay for:

New books and materials;

Extension of library hours;

Increased staff time ( Durham and Biggs have paid librarians for the first time in ten and fifteen years,

respectively);

Partial reinstatement of the bookmobile services to small rural communities ( five days per month);

and

Enhancement of youth and literacy programs.

Construction bonds for the Chico and Gridley Libraries were retired on June 30, 1999.

Recently, the Durham Library roof was repaired, the interior and exterior of the building were painted and

new carpet was laid.

The newly installed Internet Catalog System will link the Oroville, Chico, Paradise and Gridley Libraries.

Citizens may be able to access the catalogs from their homes starting sometime in the first half of the year

2000.

COMMENDATIONS

Library associations and donations from community members continue to play an important part in

keeping the libraries open and operating.

The Grand Jury recognizes Butte County Library staff members and volunteers for their years of

dedication, creativity and hard work. They are tremendous assets to our communities and their

accomplishments include several special activities such as story time, finger play, songs, movies,

crafts and chess, children and teen areas and development of computer stations at most locations.

Since 1991, the Butte County Literacy Program has helped more than 104 families ( 225 children)

enhance their reading skills.

FINDINGS

· Although the coming year looks stable, future budgets will again be strained as Butte County

struggles to pay for the many needs of our growing area.

· The new Internet Catalog System may be intimidating to those who are not computer literate.

1999- 2000 Butte County Grand Jury Final Report

- 24 -

Biggs Library:

Uneven steps to the second story pose a real problem, especially for the elderly and handicapped;

There is only one entrance/ exit to the library;

This library has no restrooms; and

The library has no computers.

Gridley Library:

The exterior needs better maintenance ( i. e., windows and walkways);

Restroom doors are very heavy, especially for the handicapped and small children; and

Stacked empty cartons and clutter create a safety hazard in the emergency exits.

Durham Library:

A tall hedge hides the library and blocks a clear view for those exiting the parking lot.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The Grand Jury recommends that:

Biggs Library:

Immediate attention be given to providing a restroom in the current library; and

Relocation of the library be considered to a larger, single story building ( or first floor) with two

entrances/ exits, restrooms, heating/ cooling and off- street parking.

Durham Library:

The property owner be contacted to discuss trimming the front hedge low enough to provide a clear

view of the library and a safer exit for those leaving the site.

All Butte County Libraries:

In each branch, a clearly visible floor plan be posted showing emergency exits and location of fire

extinguishers. Overhead sprinkler systems and/ or smoke detectors need to be checked frequently.

Entrances, exits and aisles be kept clear at all times.

Future remodeling plans include some lowered counter space at the main desk for easier access by

the handicapped and children.

Brief training sessions be provided for those who are not computer literate to help them feel more

comfortable with the new Internet Catalog System.

1999- 2000 Butte County Grand Jury Final Report

- 25 -

The Butte County Library staff continue its efforts to supplement the county budget through grant

funding.

RESPONSE REQUESTED FROM

· Butte County Library Director

· Biggs City Council

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

1999- 2000 Butte County Grand Jury Final Report

- 26 -

BUTTE COUNTY FAMILY SUPPORT DIVISION ( FSD)

BACKGROUND

The Grand Jury visited the Family Support Division to learn about the procedures for handling cases, the

current accounting system and the new state system initiated on January 1, 2000.

The Child Support Enforcement Program ( CSEP) is a cooperative federal, state and county program

established in 1975 to help strengthen families and reduce welfare spending by enforcing court ordered

child support obligations ( Title IV- D of the Social Security Act).

California designated the Department of Social Services ( CDSS) as its administrative agency and the

district attorney in each county as the agency responsible for establishing, modifying and enforcing the

obligations of child support, including health insurance.

The child support process includes:

Opening cases from:

County welfare department referrals ( approximately 70%);

Private parties requesting child support services ( approximately 30%); and

Other state referrals.

Locating responsible parents through:

Federal Parent Locator Service ( FPLS);

California Parent Locator Service ( CPLS); and

Employment Development Department’s New Employment Registry ( EDD- NER).

Establishing paternity - using genetic testing, when necessary.

Establishing a support order that includes medical, dental and vision insurance through the court or

between parties.

Enforcing the order by:

Using a wage assignment;

Intercepting income tax refunds or lottery winnings;

Withholding or denying licenses of obligors who are more than 30 days delinquent in payment

of court ordered support;

Placing liens on real or personal property; and

Allowing the Franchise Tax Board Child Support Collection Program to collect money from

bank accounts and wages on cases that are 90 days past due. The FTB can also confiscate

property such as land, boats and motorcycles.

1999- 2000 Butte County Grand Jury Final Report

- 27 -

Distributing payments:

Welfare cases - amount collected is used to repay federal, state and county governments for

aid given to the family; and

Non- welfare cases - payments are sent directly to the custodial parent.

The new state Department of Child Support Services ( DCSS) mandated by passage of Assembly Bills 150

& 196 and Senate Bill 542 became operational on January 1, 2000. Transition from the county district

attorney to the new agency must be completed by January 1, 2003.

DCSS will work cooperatively with the Attorney General, the Franchise Tax Board, the Employment

Development Department, the Department of Motor Vehicles and all the agencies that issue professional

and vocational licenses.

California counties are required to maintain all levels of staffing and funding as of January 1, 1999, for

administering the child support program.

Complaints to the Grand Jury indicate some people are experiencing difficulties with the Butte County

Family Support Division when attempting to resolve discrepancies and alleged accounting errors.

FINDINGS

· The FSD facility is too small to accommodate the 120 plus employees and their work stations.

· Record keeping is complicated by such factors as current family composition, frequent moving of

family members, language barriers and level of education.

· There is a shortage of caseworkers fluent in the many languages spoken in this area.

· The current system lacks a reliable county- to- county computer tracking system.

· Many non- custodial parents cannot pay since some are minimally skilled, low- income workers,

others have competing demands of another family, some are incarcerated and many cannot be

found.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The Grand Jury recommends that:

· Future Grand Jury members closely monitor the transition to the new state Department of Child

Support Services.

· Attention be given to the development of the single, statewide, automated system and the

bilingual status report shared by the Legislature, the California State Association of Counties and

the California Family Support Council.

· In the interim, the Butte County Family Support Division make every effort to insure that

information on each case transferred to the state is current and accurate.

· Furnish requested information or audit expeditiously.

1999- 2000 Butte County Grand Jury Final Report

- 28 -

· Those who challenge the FSD actions be given an in- person hearing with a mediator who has the

authority to correct errors. Inform obligor as to the documents and information needed for the

hearing.

RESPONSE REQUESTED FROM

· Butte County Family Support Division Director

· Butte County District Attorney

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

1999- 2000 Butte County Grand Jury Final Report

- 29 -

BUTTE COUNTY BEHAVIORAL HEALTH

OROVILLE OUTPATIENT CLINIC

BACKGROUND

In response to complaints concerning the condition of the building that houses the Behavioral Health

Outpatient Clinic in Oroville, the Grand Jury:

Studied the 1998 Indoor Air Quality Report, the 1999 Air Quality Assessment and the 1999

CAL/ OSHA “ Notice of No Violation After Inspection” form;

Visited the Oroville Outpatient Clinic at 18- C, County Center Drive on two occasions; and

Interviewed the Butte County Behavioral Health Director.

Some renovation took place before the Grand Jury’s first visit:

The roof was repaired several times through the years, and again just recently;

The men’s restroom was painted and new linoleum was laid;

New carpet was installed in the main hall; and

The mold- contaminated walls, floors, ceiling and plumbing fixtures that were in the janitor’s closet

and the “ shot room” were removed. New building materials, cabinets and fixtures, fresh paint and

linoleum helped to convert this area into a break room with a kitchenette.

Additional renovation took place before the Grand Jury’s second visit:

The two air conditioners were repaired and new air ducts were installed;

A recent ceiling leak in one room was repaired;

The remodeling of the lobby allowed room for another much needed desk;

The offices and rooms have new carpet or linoleum;

Most of the interior is painted; and

A new emergency exit was installed at the end of the main hall.

The Building and Grounds Maintenance Department is still working on the renovation of this building.

COMMENDATION

The Oroville Outpatient Clinic staff members are to be commended for their fortitude, patience and

flexibility. They have worked with their patients in an inadequate building for many years, but

hopefully, the renovation will provide a healthier environment, even though it is still overcrowded.

1999- 2000 Butte County Grand Jury Final Report

- 30 -

FINDINGS

· The building that houses the Behavioral Health Oroville Outpatient Clinic is inadequate for the

staff and their increasing caseload ( currently averaging 60- 70 per day).

· The 27 staff members must share 17 small offices; one person’s office is a chair.

· Some desks and equipment are located in the hallway.

· There are no emergency warning systems, such as smoke detectors.

· Limited parking, close to the facility, poses a problem for the staff and clients.

· Repairs to the building, erected in the 1940s, are a drain on the budget.

RECOMMENDATIONS

· The Grand Jury recommends that the Behavioral Health Oroville Outpatient Clinic be relocated

to a larger, more modern county building as soon as possible.

RESPONSE REQUESTED FROM

· Butte County Chief Administrative Officer

· Butte County Behavioral Health Department Director

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

1999- 2000 Butte County Grand Jury Final Report

- 31 -

PIONEER UNION ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT

BERRY CREEK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

BACKGROUND

At the end of the 1998- 1999 Grand Jury’s term, a complaint was received and the matter was held over for

review by the 1999- 2000 Grand Jury.

The citizens who lodged the complaint met with the 1999- 2000 Grand Jury to discuss their concerns.

Subsequently, members of the Grand Jury met with the Superintendent of Pioneer Union Elementary

School District, who is also the Principal of Berry Creek Elementary School ( Superintendent/ Principal), at

the school grounds in Berry Creek. He was very cordial and responded candidly to all questions posed by

the Grand Jury.

School property used for fundraising activities. Fresh bread is baked by cafeteria staff and

offered for sale once a week at a central location in Berry Creek. Monies received are divided

between the kitchen fund and the PTA fund and are used to make purchases for the benefit of the

school and the children. The Superintendent/ Principal assured the Grand Jury that since the activity

benefits the children of Berry Creek Elementary School, this is proper use of school facilities and

supplies.

Sale and transfer of a relocatable school building. A relocatable school building was put up for

bid and was subsequently sold. The complaining citizens were concerned about the proper transfer

of title and any possible liability of the school district. The Superintendent/ Principal supplied

documentation to the Grand Jury showing that the property was duly transferred and that the school

district has no outstanding liability with respect to the relocatable building.

School’s photocopier used in political campaign. Because of the size and relative isolation of

Berry Creek, the school acts as a community center for Berry Creek residents. The Superintendent/

Principal feels it appropriate and necessary to make certain accommodations for those residents.

Since there is no other place in Berry Creek to make photocopies, he offers this service to the

community at their own expense. He did agree, however, that in the case of a candidate in an

election, copies should be made elsewhere and that a notice will be posted stating such.

COMMENDATIONS

The Grand Jury commends the Superintendent/ Principal for his efforts on behalf of the Berry Creek

school children. His care and concern for the students was apparent to Grand Jury members who

visited with him at Berry Creek Elementary School.

FINDINGS

· School Board Member Not A Resident of Berry Creek. A Berry Creek School Board Member

who owns property in Berry Creek but moved to Oroville continued to serve on the School Board.

The Superintendent/ Principal explained that Berry Creek and Oroville have a unique relationship.

Children attend Berry Creek Elementary School, then travel to Oroville for the higher grades.

The community of Berry Creek sits inside the larger Oroville School District. For this reason, it is

difficult to determine whether or not a person residing outside of Berry Creek, but within Oroville,

is eligible to be a member of the Pioneer Union Elementary School Board.

1999- 2000 Butte County Grand Jury Final Report

- 32 -

RECOMMENDATIONS

· The Grand Jury recommends that a determination with respect to who can serve on School

Board be made and posted in order to prevent any confusion on this issue.

RESPONSE REQUESTED FROM:

· Superintendent, Butte County Office of Education

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

1999- 2000 Butte County Grand Jury Final Report

- 33 -

BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION ( ALUC)

BACKGROUND

The 1999- 2000 Grand Jury received a complaint regarding the Chico Municipal Airport and requesting an

investigation to determine whether Butte County’s Airport Land Use Commission ( ALUC) is being fully

supported by other agencies in its efforts to carry out its state mandated responsibilities as set forth in the

Cal- Trans Airport Land Use Handbook, the official planning tool for ALUC.

As of 1967, the California State Legislature requires each county with a public use airport to appoint an

ALUC. Seven commissioners serve on the Butte County ALUC; two appointed by the Board of Supervisors,

two by the mayors of the incorporated cities, two by the managers of the public use airports in the county

and one by the first six members. Each member selects his/ her own alternate. ALUC is required to adopt a

Comprehensive Land Use Plan ( CLUP) setting land use standards for the protection of the health and

safety of persons on the ground and for the orderly growth of airports.

When ALUC determines that a proposed plan, rezone or legislative action is not consistent with the adopted

land use plan, the submitting agency or individual must either change the plan or appeal to the Board of

Supervisors to override ALUC’s decision. Because public health and safety are involved, the legal

requirements for the Board of Supervisors to override ALUC are stringent and are to be based on

established legal requirements.

FINDINGS

· The Butte County Board of Supervisors has overridden ALUC’s recommendations regarding the

development of the Stephen’s project, a large parcel of land in an overfly zone west of the Chico

Municipal Airport. ALUC favors industrial development on the Stephen’s land while the Board is

considering residential development.

· The maps for the Chico Municipal Airport Master Plan are outdated.

· The U. S. Army Corps of Engineers has the Chico Municipal Airport expansion on hold because

they are waiting for a completed airport project proposal.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The Grand Jury recommends that:

· The Butte County Board of Supervisors consider the value of compromise when trying to reach

agreements on the development of land adjacent to county airports, with the final decision being

consistent with the Cal- Trans ALUC handbook.

· ALUC

( 1) employ a registered California surveyor to establish property lines and update Chico

Municipal Airport maps; and

( 2) provide the Corps of Engineers a current and complete airport project proposal.

RESPONSE REQUESTED FROM

· Butte County Board of Supervisors

· Butte County Airport Land Use Commission

· Manager, Chico Municipal Airport

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

1999- 2000 Butte County Grand Jury Final Report

- 34 -

BUTTE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ( BCDPW)

ADMINISTRATION

In October 1999, the Grand Jury visited the administration offices of the BCDPW. They met with the

director and the executive engineer. The director arranged for an informative tour through the county yards

and stores and presented the Grand Jury with current documentation generated from each of the six

divisions.

The BCDPW is responsible for the county highway network, administration of the six county districts and

right- of- way services covering a total of 1,678 square miles. The director is required to investigate and

resolve public service request issues, meet with contractors, service and utilities companies. The director

reviews encroachment permits and violations, confirms locations of underground facility and coordinates

plans established by BCDPW engineers. The director answers directly to the Butte County Board of

Supervisors.

BCDPW has approximately 115 full- time employees and administers a $ 13 million annual budget, financed

by county, federal and state aid funds. Ninety- five percent of funding comes from state and federal

assistance and 5% locally from Butte County, none of which is property tax money.

Departments benefiting from the public works annual budget:

Administration and Engineering

Public Transit

Yards & Stores

Road Programs - Operations

Planning & Land Development

Solid Waste Disposal

ENGINEERING

The Engineering Department has 24 employees and is involved in most activities within the BCDPW.

In 1999, the Assistant Director and the Senior Engineer retired. It was the director’s decision to combine

two positions and hire one person. The director also adopted the new “ project manager form” for

organization in the engineering division, a newly applied standard used nationwide.

The types of involvement may include, but are not limited to, the following:

Contract Administration for outside contractors;

Preparing scope of work for contractors;

Research of drawings and specifications for existing facilities;

Permit reviews;

Quality control documentation;

Job inspections;

Equipment purchases;

Development of division budget;

Equipment, material and resource scheduling;

Underground storage utility location and coordination; and Surveying

1999- 2000 Butte County Grand Jury Final Report

- 35 -

PUBLIC TRANSIT

BACKGROUND

The Butte County Transportation Systems Specialist, under the direction of the BCDPW Director,

administers contracts for Butte County Transit ( BCT), Oroville Area Transit System ( OATS), Oroville

Express and the Paradise Express. Funding agreements exist with Chico for Chico Area Transit System

( CATS) and the Chico Clipper, Oroville for OATS and Express, and Gridley for the Flyer.

BCT provides fixed- route service to the general public and services the communities of Chico, Oroville,

Gridley, Biggs, Paradise and Magalia.

The Butte County Association of Governments ( BCAG) holds a public meeting annually to determine

“ unmet transit needs” throughout the county, and with the Special Service Transportation Advisory

Committee ( SSTAC), determines reasonable needs to be funded.

From the annual TDA Fund of approximately $ 2 million this year, BCDPW has budgeted to spend only $ 1.3

million for the use by BCT. The remaining funds have been earmarked for other projects such as bicycle

paths or street and road projects.

BCT maintains a large and varied route system, with supporting funds derived from:

Transportation Development Act ( TDA) 1/ 4 cent of the 7.25% state sales tax;

Butte County Association of Governments ( BCAG);

Special Service Transportation Advisory Committee ( SSTAC); and

The incorporated cities of Biggs, Chico, Gridley, Oroville and Paradise which also contribute funds to

support BCT services.

COMMENDATION

The Grand Jury commends the continued and efficient operation of public transportation and funds

over the past ten years, and again this millennium year.

YARDS AND STORES

BACKGROUND

Five employees staff Yards and Stores and are responsible for equipment operations and safety

inspections, automotive and light truck repair, and engine and axles rebuilding. This division is responsible

for fueling, emission check programs, electrical systems, brakes, steering and miscellaneous mechanical

problems.

The 1998- 1999 Grand Jury recommended that the underground fuel storage tanks be removed or

replaced. As of January 2000, the underground tanks have been successfully disposed of, and a card- lock

fueling system is now in use.

Special maintenance programs:

Emergency road service for county vehicles;

Fleet cost accounting;

California Highway Patrol ( CHP) biannual inspection programs;

1999- 2000 Butte County Grand Jury Final Report

- 36 -

“ Department of Air Quality Repair” for BAR 90 Smog Check Programs; and

Vehicle Fault diagnostics for contract services.

Yards and Stores is also responsible for operational duties such as:

Training on new equipment and systems;

Safety Training;

Maintaining all parts inventory;

Delivery of equipment to out- source vendors; and

Fabrication of special equipment for county departments.

FINDINGS

· During the Grand Jury tour of the shops and stores, it appeared that personal vehicles were

being worked on in the county shops.

· Lost and misplaced tools are replaced at county expense.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The Grand Jury recommends that:

· Management monitor the auto repair shops to determine that only authorized vehicles are being

repaired.

· Distribution and use of county tools and materials be recorded in order to control the rate of loss.

ROAD PROGRAMS - OPERATIONS

BACKGROUND

The BCDPW is responsible for the Butte County highway network including maintenance and operations.

Road Operations employ approximately 80 full- time employees and contracts for labor assistance from the

Private Industry Corporation ( PIC) which is considered to be a very cost- effective program for Butte County.

Specific responsibilities include:

Road maintenance ( paved, gravel, sanding);

Bridge maintenance;

Tree maintenance and weed control;

Snow removal ( selected crews);

Curb & gutter repair;

Chico streets/ tree program ( unincorporated areas);

Repair and construct concrete and stone retaining walls;

Maintenance work zone setup; and

Various special activities.

1999- 2000 Butte County Grand Jury Final Report

- 37 -

Employee training and testing are not adequate for new operators of the county’s heavy equipment and the

time allowed for safety classes is insufficient. Employees requested more frequent drug testing including

random picks from management.

SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL

BACKGROUND

The Solid Waste Division is responsible for overseeing the Neal Road Landfill, regulating the local waste

collectors, providing safe disposal opportunities for household hazardous waste and implementing

programs that divert waste from landfills. The division coordinates these activities with the cities in Butte

County as well as other public agencies such as the Regional Water Control Board, Department of Toxic

Substance Control and the California Integrated Waste Management Board.

Prior to 1989, waste management systems in Butte County relied on a free enterprise system to provide

waste collection and recycling services. In 1989, the Butte County government accepted the responsibility

of providing solid waste collection and recycling services as required by the Integrated Waste Management

Act ( AB939). Waste companies are hauling garbage to other counties resulting in a loss of revenue for

Butte County.

In the late 1990’ s, the waste industry underwent a tremendous consolidation both nationally and locally.

The number of waste service providers has decreased and the size and power of some waste companies

has increased.

FINDINGS

· The local consolidations have created a de facto monopoly of services in some areas.

· Residents have experienced rate increases, and/ or decreases in service.

· A loss of revenue for local programs could eventually force a cutback or elimination of important

county services, such as cleanup programs and collection of household hazardous waste

products.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The Grand Jury recommends that:

· The rates and level of services be closely monitored.

· Increased county control of the waste management systems is needed to guarantee a

reasonable level of service for all county residents.

· The county develop and continue to institute a waste management system for all unincorporated

Butte County based on waste service agreements and local ordinances.

RESPONSE REQUESTED FROM

· Butte County Board of Supervisors

· Director, Butte County Department of Public Works

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

1999- 2000 Butte County Grand Jury Final Report

- 38 -

ANIMAL CONTROL PROGRAM

A review of animal control services in Butte County has not been conducted by a grand jury since 1989- 90.

Visits were made to several facilities, and interviews were conducted with appropriate personnel.

BACKGROUND

The history of animal control services in Butte County shows various attempts to provide needed and

requested services. These include the passage of animal control laws, decisions to provide only the " state

mandated" rabies control services, contracting with private vendors and the assignment of the

administrative responsibility for animal control to various county agencies.

During times of severe budget problems, elimination of animal control services was considered. Increased

public demand for those services and voter support have produced the current program. In 1997, Butte

County voters approved passage of County Service Area ( CSA) 164, which provides for the collection of a

$ 5 per parcel fee to augment the funding of animal control services in the unincorporated areas of the

county.

For several years, animal control was a function of the Butte County Sheriff's Office. Since 1996, the Animal

Control Program has been administered as a section of the Department of Public Health, Environmental

Health Division and is overseen by the Environmental Health Program Manager. Staffing consists of one

supervisor, four officers and a clerk. Staffing and funding are based on the levels originally authorized in

1996 and have remain unchanged. The Animal Control Program is responsible for animal control

enforcement and education in the unincorporated areas of Butte County. The program includes rabies

control, sheltering, complaint responses, issuing permits and licenses, public safety and abuse cases.

Current funding sources for the Animal Control Program include the General Revenue, fees from CSA 164

and animal licensing fees. Increases in license revenue are limited by the lack of adequate staffing to

enforce license laws. Of the animals brought into shelters, 90% have no license. The State of California

mandates rabies control but provides no funding.

Butte County contracts for sheltering with the Northwest Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals

( NWSPCA) in Oroville. Since 1996, the cost per sheltered animal has risen from $ 18.14 to $ 40.25. Inflation

accounts for part of the increase. Additional increases result from Senate Bill 1785 ( Hayden) passed in

1999. The bill, requiring increased shelter time prior to euthanization, has resulted in additional expense

and overcrowded facilities. The shelter must accept all animals despite lack of space to accommodate

them. Until space becomes available, incoming animals are sheltered with local veterinary hospitals, again

at additional expense. A low animal adoption rate ( 15- 20%) generates little revenue from fees to support

expenses.

For purposes of comparison, the grand jury also visited and interviewed staff at several shelter facilities:

Oroville. NWSPCA contracts with both the City of Oroville ( on a fixed amount basis) and with Butte

County ( on a per animal rate) to provide shelter services. This facility houses and handles more

animals than any other facility in Northern California. Though well maintained, the facility shows

definite signs of age and overcrowding. Euthanization is performed on- site by a registered technician.

Paradise. The Police Department is responsible for animal control and operates the shelter. The

funding provides for two part- time, paid staff. The shelter typically handles between 1100 - 1300

animals annually. During busy times, the task of euthanizing may fall to a single staff person, forced

to use outdated procedures because of lack of assistance. Limited public hours contribute to reduced

opportunity for adoption, retrieval of lost animals and other needed services. The shelter is supported

by the efforts of Paradise Animal Shelter Helpers.

1999- 2000 Butte County Grand Jury Final Report

- 39 -

Chico. The Police Department is responsible for animal control. Butte Humane Society contracts to

operate the city- owned shelter. A staff of paid full and part time employees and non- paid volunteers

manage and maintain the facility. Adoptions average 100 animals a month, or a 40- 50% adoption

rate. The shelter contracts with local veterinarians to perform necessary euthanizations .

COMMENDATIONS

Professional staff are doing a commendable job in spite of budgetary restrictions. The Grand Jury

especially commends the dedicated volunteer organizations for providing vital support to the

operation of local shelters and the funding of public service programs promoting humane animal

treatment and responsible pet ownership.

FINDINGS

· Local shelters operate at maximum capacity. Inadequate shelter space has been the result of

increased needs and the impact of state mandates.

· Butte County Animal Control Program lacks sufficient educational outreach efforts.

· Due to inadequate staffing at the Paradise facility, outdated methods of euthanization are being

used.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The Grand Jury recommends that:

· The County Public Health Department:

seek funding for additional shelter capacity; and

direct increased funding and efforts to support education and public awareness to promote

humane animal treatment and responsible pet ownership.

· Paradise Animal Control review euthanizing procedures to ensure they conform to current

humane standards and are administered by qualified, licensed technicians.

RESPONSE REQUESTED FROM

· Butte County Public Health Director

· Paradise Police Department

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

1999- 2000 Butte County Grand Jury Final Report

- 40 -

Butte County Fair

BACKGROUND

The Butte County Fair, located in Gridley, is one of eighty- one fairs held in California, twenty- four of which

are county fairs. The Fair is a non- profit organization with an eight member Board of Directors and a Chief

Executive Officer. The Fair maintains four year- round employees and up to one hundred twenty workers

during the fair in August.

Being a non- profit organization, the Butte County Fair is funded through taxes levied on licensing fees for

parimutuel horse racing. This year’s funding is set at $ 135,000 with any additional monies coming from

state approved grants. Because of state funding, all budgets are approved by the state and reviewed by the

Department of Food and Agriculture. In addition to state review, yearly independent audits are also

required.

To remain active throughout the year, the fair grounds maintains rentals of various buildings for special

shows, weddings, Gridley High School sporting events and class space. Butte County Fair events include:

May: Butte County Youth Expo

June: Butte County Dog Show ( one of the larger events)

August: Butte County Sportsman’s Expo

September: Butte County Cemetery Show

The events listed above are just a few of the scheduled occurrences for 2000. Building rentals take place

on a year- round basis. All usage on facility grounds and of facility equipment has been clearly outlined by

the Board of Directors in the Butte County Fair Association Interim Use of Facilities Contracts.

The Butte County Fair also provides local groups and youth the opportunity to participate in the community

while gaining valuable community service hours and raising funds for their organizations. These groups

include, but are not limited to, local Future Farmers of America ( FFA), 4- H chapters, Lions Club and many

more.

Improvements made in 1999- 2000 will aid in maintaining a safe and wholesome atmosphere upon which

county fairs were founded and include:

Addition of new sidewalks throughout the grounds;

A new restroom which is ADA ( Americans with Disabilities Act) approved;

Electrical upgrades for motor home hook ups;

Lighting upgrades throughout the grounds;

Grant funding for tree pruning of ninety- three trees;

Grant funding for the purchase of a new tractor for grounds maintenance; and

Roof maintenance.

COMMENDATION

With limited funds and only four year- round employees, the CEO of the Butte County Fair has made

significant improvements to the grounds and set forward a plan of action in the development of this

facility. This plan of action includes continued building improvements, electrical upgrades, tree

maintenance, new sidewalks, new restrooms and roof maintenance.

1999- 2000 Butte County Grand Jury Final Report

- 41 -

FINDINGS

One area of concern is the south entrance to the fair. This entrance is adjacent to the Gridley Highway, a

heavily traveled route. During fair time, this location is poorly lit and is congested due to limited parking.

This also poses a pedestrian safety problem as lines develop at the gate or while crossing from the

temporary parking lot.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The Grand Jury recommends that a review of possible safety hazards at the main entrance on Gridley

Highway be made by the Board of Directors, the CEO and City of Gridley to determine the best possible

solution. Possible solutions to this problem may include:

· Increase lighting;

· increase the number of warning signs on the street in each direction prior to the crossing; and/ or

· Open the old north entrance to the fair to increase parking by the pool area.

RESPONSE REQUESTED FROM

· Chief Executive Officer, Butte County Fair

· Board of Directors, Butte County Fair

· Gridley City Council

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

1999- 2000 Butte County Grand Jury Final Report

- 42 -

APPENDIX I

SUMMARY OF REQUESTED RESPONDENTS TO THE

1999- 2000 GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT

RESPONDENT REPORT( S)

County Offices:

Superior Court of California,

County of Butte

Butte County Juvenile Hall

Butte County Board of Supervisors Butte County Jail

Butte County Juvenile Hall

Butte County Office of Auditor/ Controller

Butte County Airport Land Use Commission

( ALUC)

Butte County Department of Public Works

( BCDPW)

Butte County Sheriff Butte County Jail

Butte County District Attorney Butte County Family Support Division

( FSD)

Butte County Probation Office Butte County Juvenile Hall

Director, Butte County Family Support Division Butte County Family Support Division

( FSD)

Butte County Personnel Director Butte County Office of Auditor/ Controller

Butte County Office of Auditor/ Controller Butte County Office of Auditor/ Controller

Director, Butte County Department of Public

Works

Butte County Department of Public Works

( BCDPW)

Butte County Airport Land Use Commission Butte County Airport Land Use Commission

( ALUC)

Butte County Chief Administrative Officer Butte County Behavioral Health - Oroville

Outpatient Clinic

Director, Butte County Public Health Animal Control Program

Director, Butte County Behavioral Health

Department

Butte County Behavioral Health - Oroville

Outpatient Clinic

Director, Butte County Library Butte County Libraries

Superintendent, Butte County Office of

Education

Pioneer Union Elementary School District

Berry Creek Elementary School

1999- 2000 Butte County Grand Jury Final Report

- 43 -

RESPONDENT REPORT( S)

Chief Executive Officer and Board of Directors,

Butte County Fair

Butte County Fair

City Offices:

Oroville City Council City of Oroville

Oroville Police Department

Oroville ( Interim) Chief of Police Oroville Police Department

Oroville City Administrator City of Oroville

Oroville City Personnel Director City of Oroville

Oroville Police Department

Manager, Chico Municipal Airport Butte County Airport Land Use Commission

( ALUC)

Paradise Police Department Animal Control Program

Gridley City Council Butte County Fair

Biggs City Council Butte County Libraries ( Biggs Branch)

1999- 2000 Butte County Grand Jury Final Report

- 44 -

APPENDIX II

List of Offices, Departments, Boards and Commissions

Visited, Interviewed, Observed, Reviewed, Investigated

or Consulted by the Grand Jury

Grand Jury Orientation - Butte County Officials and Department Heads:

Members of the Butte County

Board of Supervisors:

Jane Dolan District 2

Mary Anne Houx District 3

Curt Josiassen District 4

Auditor- Controller

Assessor

Behavioral Health Director

Chief Administrative Officer

Clerk- Recorder

County Counsel

Development Services Director

District Attorney

Farm and Home Advisor

Fire Warden

Information Systems Director

Library Director

Personnel Director

Probation Officer

Public Health Director

Public Works Director

Sheriff- Coroner

Treasurer- Tax Collector

Welfare Director and Assistant

City of Oroville

Oroville City Council

Review of 1998- 1999 Grand Jury documents

Testimony of Former and Current City Employees

Survey of City Employees

Butte County Counsel

Grand Jury Counsel

Butte County District Attorney

Oroville Police Department

Former Chief of Police

Testimony of Former and Current Employees

Review of 1998- 1999 Grand Jury documents

Butte County Counsel

Grand Jury Counsel

Butte County District Attorney

Survey of Employees

On- Site Facility Inspection

1999- 2000 Butte County Grand Jury Final Report

- 45 -

Butte County Jail

Butte County Sheriff

Director of County Jail

Survey of Employees

On- Site Facility Inspections

Juvenile Hall

Chief Probation Officer

Director of Juvenile Hall

Counselors, Instructors and Volunteers

Interview of juveniles being held in Juvenile Hall

On- Site Facility Inspections

Chico Police Department

Chief of Police

Youth Services Officer

Survey of Employees

On- Site Facility Visits

Butte County Office of Auditor- Controller

Auditor- Controller

Survey of Employees

On- Site Visit

Butte County Libraries

On- Site Facility Visits:

Oroville Public Library

Durham Public Library

Gridley Public Library

Biggs Public Library

Butte County Family Support Division

Butte County District Attorney

Director, Butte County Family Support Division

Butte County Behavioral Health - Oroville Outpatient Clinic

Director of Butte County Behavioral Health

On- Site Facility Inspection of 18C County Center Drive

Pioneer Union School District

Superintendent/ Principal

Interview of complainants

On- Site Facility Visit

1999- 2000 Butte County Grand Jury Final Report

- 46 -

Butte County Airport Land Use Commission ( ALUC)

Butte County Board of Supervisors Representative

ALUC Representative

Manager, Chico Municipal Airport

On- Site Facility Visit

Public Works

Director, Public Works

On- Site Facility Visits:

Administration & Engineering

Yards & Stores

Butte County Transit

Road Program- Operations

Solid Waste Disposal

Planning Commission

Survey of Employees

Butte County Animal Control

Director, Butte County Division of Environmental Health

On- Site Inspection Visits to Each Facility

Director, Oroville NWSPCA

Director, Humane Society, Chico

Paradise Animal Shelter

Butte County Fair Grounds

Chief Executive Officer

On- Site Visits

1999- 2000 Butte County Grand Jury Final Report

- 47 -

APPENDIX III

MEMBERSHIP OF THE 1999- 2000 GRAND JURY

Charles “ Chuck” Boydstun, Foreman Magalia

Rick Storey, Foreman Pro- Tempore Chico

Darlene Thomasson, Recording Secretary Chico

Sondra Nation, Corresponding Secretary Magalia

Steven Ross, Sergeant- at- Arms Oroville

Madeleine Caton Paradise

Joe Davis Chico

Veronica Krater Oroville

Virginia Lollar Chico

Michele Miller Paradise

Morgan Miller Paradise

Lillian Miskey Chico

C. C. Pace Yankee Hill

David Padilla Durham

Joy Reeder Palermo

Melvin Richins Gridley

Ida Stelle Chico

Joan Townsend Biggs

Sara Weigel Oroville

1999- 2000 Butte County Grand Jury Final Report

- 48 -

APPENDIX IV

COMMUNICATING WITH THE GRAND JURY

Citizen Concerns Regarding Local Government

The Grand Jury frequently receives letters of grievance from citizens, civic groups and government

employees. Although the California Penal Code does not assign the Grand Jury any specific duties

regarding complaints, the jury can, and frequently does, look into such matters as part of its watchdog

responsibility. All concerns brought to the attention of the jury are handled in strictest confidence.

Grievances that individuals convey to the jury should pertain to matters of policy or procedure. Inevitably,

some issues brought to the jury involve matters over which the jury has no jurisdiction and are, therefore,

dismissed. All concerns directed to the jury must be expressed in writing and should include a signature,

date and return address. Each jury develops its own procedures to facilitate this process, but under no

circumstances will a concern be discussed over the phone.

Since the Grand Jury is not required by law to act on citizen concerns, the jury can decline individual

complaints for any good reason, including the urgency of more pressing matters or for lack of merit

( misdirected, frivolous or trivial complaints).

Public Response to this Report

The Grand Jury welcomes your response to this report. Please use this form to send your comments to the

address below. Attach additional sheets as necessary.

Send to:

Final Report Comments

Butte County Grand Jury

P. O. Box 110

Oroville, CA 95965- 3303

1999- 2000 Butte County Grand Jury Final Report

- 49 -

APPENDIX V

COMMENTS TO RESPONSES -

1998- 1999 GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT

Effective January 1, 1997, state law requires that all agencies and public officers promptly submit

responses to grand jury final reports, and to address every finding and recommendation pertaining to that

agency or officer. ( Penal Code § 933.05; see beginning pages of this Final Report for Penal Code

excerpts.)

The 1999- 2000 Grand Jury has published, as part of its Final Report, responses to the findings and

recommendations of the 1998- 1999 Grand Jury Final Report. The 1998- 1999 Grand Jury Final Report is

available for public review at all Butte County Libraries and on- line at the Butte County Recorder’s Office

web site ( http:// recorder. buttecounty. net/ election/

grandjury/ index. html).

The 1999- 2000 Grand Jury wishes to thank those who responded to last year’s Final Report and

recognizes their contribution to the community and to the Grand Jury process. The time and effort taken to

review the 1998- 1998 Grand Jury Final Report and to prepare and submit responses to the Presiding Judge

is greatly appreciated.

THE FOLLOWING AGENCY AND OFFICERS DID NOT RESPOND AS REQUIRED BY PENAL CODE §

933.05:

Butte County Veterans Service Office

Oroville City Administrator

City of Oroville Personnel Director