1998- 99 TRINITY COUNTY GRAND JURY ROSTER

FRED ALLINGHAM WEAVERVILLE

GERALD L. BOOSINGER WEAVERVILLE

DAVID BORBA WEAVERVILLE

ROGER CINNAMOND BURNT RANCH

ALLEN C. COX LEWISTON

JUDY DERRYBERRY WEAVERVILLE

DONALD ECKELS TRINITY CENTER

RUSS FRASIER MAD RIVER

LYNN GUNK BIG BAR

JOHN B. LINDBERG TRINITY CENTER

ERIK E. LONG HAYFORK

JUDITH MABEN LEWISTON

HOWARD McCALL LEWISTON

KEITH B. RADCLIFFE, JR. TRINITY CENTER

JOHN RAPF HYAMPOM

LYN PAUL RELPH DOUGLAS CITY

CLARA STEWART WEAVERVILLE,

DOROTHY V. TORRES TRINITY CENTER

HOMER ZUGG WEAVERVILLE,

FOREMAN: Gerald Boosinger

FOREMAN PRO TEM: Homer Zugg

SECRETARY: Lyn Relph

ASST. SECRETARY: Dorothy Torres

June 30, 1999

The Honorable John K. Letton

Presiding Judge of the Superior Court

P. O. Box 1258

Weaverville, CA 96093

Dear Judge Letton:

We the 1998- 99 Trinity County Grand Jury are honored to present to you and the citizens of Trinity

County the 1998- 99 Grand Jury Final Report.

The primary function of the Grand Jury is to serve as a reporting entity. Our report is based upon those

areas of county government identified by the Grand Jury to be investigated during the period of our tenure.

Allegations, complaints and suggestions from citizens, together with investigations initiated by the Jury, culminated

in the recommendations contained in this report.

The Jury was able to complete our final reports in time to review department responses while still impan-eled.

This is the third year for this process and allows the Jury to evaluate the response and make additional

recommendations where necessary. We feel this effort has resulted in thoughtful, timely and complete replies from

the respondents.

The 1998- 99 Grand Jury is grateful for the time and patience of various county personnel and officials for

the ongoing education and information resources graciously made available. We appreciate their hard work and

dedication.

Of the nineteen jurors who authored this report, four also served on the 1997- 98 Grand Jury. The jurors

collectively reside in all areas of Trinity County and I offer my deep appreciation to each juror for his or her

dedication, consistency, hours upon hours of devoted labor and for the achievements that make this report pos-sible.

We have attempted to fulfill our duties to the best of our abilities and want to thank you for the opportunity

of being able to serve our county.

Respectfully submitted,

S/ S

Gerald L. BOOSINGER, Foreperson

19998- 99 Trinity County Grand Jury

1998- 99 TRINITY COUNTY GRAND JURY

COMMITTEE ROSTER

JUDICIAL FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION

Homer Zugg, Chr. Fred Allingham, Chr.

Russ Frazier Erik Lono

John Lindberg Don Eckels

Lyn Relph Roger Cinnamond

Lynn Gunn John Rapf

Judith Maben

HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES EDITORIAL

Howard McCall, Chr. Lyn Relph

Fred Allingham Dorothy Torres

Allen Cox

Dorothy Torres

Clara Stewart

David Borba

Keith Radclife

Judy Derryberry

Secretary - Lyn Relph

Assistant Secretary - Dorothy Torres

iii

TRINITY COUNTY GRAND JURY

1998- 1999

FINAL REPORT

FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE

This report was approved

on December 10, 1998

Filed on March 11, 1999

1998- 99 TRINITY COUNTY GRAND JURY

FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION

COMMITTEE FINAL REPORT

ADMINISTRATIVE STRUCTURE AND

DECISION- MAKING

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND ALL

DEPARTMENTS

PURPOSE:

The 1997- 98 Grand Jury recommended that the suc-ceeding

grand jury evaluate the administrative structure

of Trinity County government and the processes by

which decisions were being made. As part of this evalu-ation,

the Grand Jury sought an answer to two ques-tions:

Is the position of County Administrative Officer neces-sary

in the County administrative structure and deci-sion-

making process?

How are decisions made at the administrative level?

BACKGROUND:

The administrative structure of Trinity County govern-ment

is divided into two basic parts: the Board of Su-pervisors

and its direct and real authority over the non-elected

department heads and employees of the county;

and the more independent elected department heads such

as Auditor/ Controller, County Clerk/ Recorder/ Assessor,

District Attorney/ Coroner, Marshal, Sheriff and Trea-surer/

Tax Collector over whom the supervisors have

limited authority based primarily on budgeting decisions.

In the formal structure ( see attached Trinity County

Organizational Chart) the appointed department heads

report through the County Administrative Officer ( CAO)

who works directly for the Board of Supervisors and

serves as the formal and direct source of information

related to non- elected departments while, according to

the chart, elected departments formally speak on their

own behalf before the board. Informally, the appointed

department heads have free and direct access to the

board as well.

The question of whether a CAO is necessary to the

structure and process of county government apparently

is raised every couple of years. At least in part this ques-tion

appears to be based on the desires for less govern-ment

on the part of some citizens who believe the elected

and appointed officials could share the tasks of a CAO.

METHOD OF INVESTIGATION:

The Grand Jury interviewed all current members of the

Board of Supervisors and most of the elected and ap-pointed

department heads. Each was asked questioned

related to the county administrative structure and deci-sion-

making process. In addition, we went one step fur-ther

since there is not a public evaluation process of the

CAO, and asked direct questions related to the role of

the current CAO in that structure and process.

FINDING # 1:

It is apparent that the role of the CAO now and in the

past has been dependent, to a great measure, on both

the make- up and temperament of the Board of Supervi-sors

and the make- up and temperament of the individual

in the CAO role.

With only two exceptions, those interviewed believed

the role of CAO was essential to efficient and effective

county decision- making. The position was seen as a fun-nel

for the gathering of information to go to and from

the Board of Supervisors.

A clear majority felt the current CAO was effectively

performing the duties of the CAO and gave the current

CAO credit for team- building among elected and ap-pointed

department heads and opening up the decision

making process including access to the Board of Super-visors.

There are regular meetings of the administrative

staff to deal with issues in general and in setting the

agenda for meetings of the Board of Supervisors. This,

along with a more congenial Board of Supervisors, has

generally made decision- making easier, more coopera-tive

and effective.

Most acknowledged that the role of the CAO changes

depending on who is wearing the hat and that continu-ance

of the current decision- making environment is de-pendent

on a CAO willing to share decision- making and

a Board of Supervisors wishing to work together and

with department heads in a collegial manner.

RECOMMENDATION # 1:

Other than expressing appreciation for what most de-scribed

as a positive and clear change in the decision-making

process, we have no recommendations other

than to continue on the same course.

FINDING # 2:

The 1997- 98 Grand Jury made recommendations re-lated

to evaluations of elected and appointed depart-ment

heads. It appears that evaluation of the CAO is an

informal, on- going process based on the individual ob-servations

and interactions of each supervisor with the

CAO. While the CAO essentially serves at the pleasure

of the board, and this informal evaluation may be com-fortable

for the parties involved, there are drawbacks.

County residents are generally not aware of the roles

the CAO plays in government nor how well those roles

are performed and thus do not have the necessary in-formation

to assess the value of the CAO position.

The CAO’s tenure requires pleasing five individual mem-bers

rather than meeting the needs of the Board of Su-pervisors

as a unit.

RECOMMENDATION # 2:

On an annual basis the CAO should be outlining goals

and objectives for the CAO office for the upcoming

year. This should be done at a regular, public meeting of

the board. In this way the supervisors, as well as citi-zens,

will have a more concrete method of assessing

what the CAO should be doing and how well the CAO

is performing.

CONCLUSION:

The Grand Jury was pleasantly surprised at how well

the county operates at the administrative level. Both

elected and appointed officials and administrators showed

a clear understanding of their roles in the administrative

structure and decision- making process and presented a

fairly positive outlook for continued good will and co-operation

in the future.

30- DAY RESPONSE REQUESTED FROM: Board

of Supervisors and CAO

Response of the County Administrative Officer

Date: March 23, 1999

To: Honorable John K. Letton,

Superior Court Judge

From: Jeannie Nix- Temple, County

Administrative Officer

RE: Response to 1998- 99 Trinity County

Grand Jury Finance and Administration

Committee Final Report Admin-istrative

Structure and Decision

Making

I appreciate the Grand Jury’s investigation and recom-mendations

relating to the County’s administration and

decision- making process. I am pleased that the Grand

Jury received such positive responses from the Board

of Supervisors and the department heads who were in-terviewed.

Recommendation # 1

The method for County decision making has followed

an evolutionary process, which is still being refined. I

am grateful that County department managers bring such

a wealth of knowledge to the table, and that County

Supervisors regularly participate on committees. They

support and often require a team approach to decision

making.

Recommendation # 2

For the past several years at annual budget hearings, the

CAO and department heads have provided the Board of

Supervisors with their goals and objectives. Progress on

these goals and objectives is evaluated at the mid- year

budget review. The Board of Supervisors has an oppor-tunity

at that time to request modifications to the goals

if it wishes, or to request that new goals be added. In

addition, the Board of Supervisors regularly gives me

direction and requires that I provide regular progress

reports.

Despite these efforts, the public is not always aware of

my duties or how well I carry out my responsibilities. I

believe that the Board of Supervisors is aware of my

accomplishments.

Response of the Board of Supervisors

June 1, 1999

Jerry Boosinger

Trinity County Grand Jury

P. O. Box 1258

Weaverville, CA 96093

RE: Finance and Administration Committee Final

Report Administrative Structure and

Decision- Making Board of Supervisors and all

Departments

Dear Foreperson:

The Trinity County Board of Supervisors relishes the

pleasant surprise that the Grand Jury expressed in its

observation of Trinity County’s administrative function.

Team building and efficiency have been, for the last

number of years, the focus of the Board direction and

efforts of our county administrative office and depart-ment

heads. .

The Board concurs with the findings, recommendations

and conclusion of the 1998- 99 Finance and Administra-tion

Committees’ Final Report on Trinity County’s ad-ministrative

structure and decision making.

Sincerely,

TRINITY COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

ROBERT REISS, Chairman

This report was approved on

April 8, 1999

Filed on May 3,1999

1998- 99 TRINITY COUNTY GRAND JURY

FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION

COMMITTEE FINAL REPORT

COMPLAINT ON HAYFORK FIRE PROTEC-TION

DISTRICT

PURPOSE:

The Grand Jury received a two- fold complaint from the

Hayfork Fire Protection District ( HFPD) alleging mis-treatment

arising out of their interest to expand their

District and their inability to receive necessary budget

information in a reasonable and understandable format.

BACKGROUND:

The HFPD contacted the Trinity County Local Agency

Formation Commission( LAFCO) in 1994 expressing their

interest in expanding their current district by annexing

the area beyond the district boundaries known as their

“ Sphere of Influence.” HFPD had already been serving

this area voluntarily in cooperation with the California

Department of Forestry ( CDF). HFPD believed that by

expanding their district to include their Sphere of Influ-ence”,

they would receive a commensurate revenue in-crease.

Subsequently, they submitted a check for $ 500.00 to

LAFCO as the prescribed fee for processing the annex-ation

application.

In August of 1995 the Executive Officer of LAFCO

sent a detailed letter outlining the procedures for annex-ation.

This included LAFCO’s assessment, based on dis-cussions

with the State and with another fire district,

that no additional revenue would accrue to the district

for the area annexed.

When the HFPD realized that there would be no rev-enue

increases, they put their annexation request on hold

while they tried to clarify the reasons for this. They

contacted two members of the County Board of Super-visors,

the County Auditor and others trying to deter-mine

why there would be no revenue increases. They

also requested a refund of the $ 500.00 annexation fee.

Neither LAFCO, the Auditor’s Office, nor the Planning

Department were able to explain to the HFPD’s satis-faction

why an increased geographic area of service

would not result in an increase in revenues.

METHOD OF INVESTIGATION:

The Grand Jury interviewed officials of the HFPD,

LAFCO, the County Auditor and officials of a different

Special District. Written materials submitted by the vari-ous

parties were reviewed as well.

FINDING # 1:

The Grand Jury compliments the Auditor’s office for

their willingness to provide timely help and assistance to

the Special Districts of Trinity County. However, bud-get

information provided to the Special Districts by the

Auditor’s office is not

always clear and easily understood by people not famil-iar

with accounting language.

RECOMMENDATION # 1:

The Grand Jury recommends that the Auditor’s office

prepare a manual for all the Special Districts that out-lines

the process and sources of funding to the Special

Districts. This manual should include definitions of terms

and a timeline of the annual budgetary process.

The Grand Jury requests that a draft of the manual be

prepared as soon as possible and submitted to the Grand

Jury for review and comments. A final manual would

then be forwarded by the Auditor to all Special Districts

in Trinity County.

FINDING # 2:

The Grand Jury finds that the process the Special Dis-tricts

must use to expand their districts can be compli-cated,

lengthy and not easily understood. However, the

Grand Jury finds that the Auditor’s office, Planning

Department and LAFCO all did the best they could to

explain the process and help the HFPD determine

whether or not they should go ahead with annexation.

The amount of money refunded to the HFPD from the

annexation fee appears to be proper due to the amount

of time expended by LAFCO on the annexation pro-cess.

Because of the current method of distributing General

Fund revenue, there is no method by which Special Dis-tricts

can increase their share of the General Fund rev-enue

through annexation. The only way for the HFPD

to obtain a reliable, consistent and permanent increase

in revenue at this time would be to hold an election in

the affected areas to gain voter approval for a special

tax district.

RECOMMENDATION # 2:

We recommend that if the Hayfork Fire Protection Dis-trict

still wishes to serve their “ Sphere of Influence”,

but requires additional revenue to do so, the district go

directly to the affected voters to seek approval for a

special tax to pay for those services.

30 DAY RESPONSE REQUESTED FROM: County

Auditor and LAFCO.

Response of the County Auditor- Controller

To: Trinity County Board of Supervisors

From: Brian Muir, Auditor - Controller

Date: May 14, 1999

Subject: 1988/ 99 Grand Jury Finance & Administration

Committee Final Report - Complaint on Hayfork

Fire Protection District

The Grand Jury found that information provided to the

Special Districts by the Auditor’s office is not always

clear and easily understood by people not familiar with

accounting language and recommended that the Auditor’s

office prepare a manual describing the process and sources

of funding for Special Districts.

Unfortunately, property tax apportionment and special

district accounting is not easily understood by people

without an accounting background. As an example, the

State Board of Equalization’s property tax manual con-sists

of three complicated volumes.

I don’t believe the citizens of the County would be well

served to have the Auditor’s staff devote time in an

attempt to make an manual for non- accountants. There

is an accounting manual for Special Districts already

available from the State Controller’s office. The

Auditor’s office will prepare a timeline of the budgetary

and apportionment process, and, as always, the staff

will be available to assist with problems.

Response of Executive Officer of LAFCO

June 9, 1999

To: Board of Supervisors

FROM: John Jelicich, Planning Director

SUBJECT: 1998/ 1999 Grand Jury Finance & Ad-ministration

Committee Final Report re:

“ Complaint on Hayfork Fire Protection

District”.

Finding # 1:

This finding pertains to the Auditor’s office. I have no

comment.

Recommendation # 1:

This recommendation pertains to the Auditor’s office. I

have no comment.

Finding # 2:

I agree with the finding. I again offer to work with the

Hayfork Fire Protection District, if I can be of any help

to them. I realize that they are experiencing some diffi-cult

times.

Recommendation # 2:

I agree with the recommendation. Obtaining voter ap-proval

for funding of fire protection service would be an

appropriate way to serve areas which are currently not

within the district. If other methods become available, I

would be pleased to discuss them with the district.

Sincerely,

John Alan Jelicich,

Planning Director and Executive Officer for LAFCO

Response of the Board of Supervisors

July 20, 1999

Jerry Boosinger

Trinity County Grand Jury

P. O. Box 1258

Weaverville, CA 96093

RE: Finance and Administration Commit-tee

Final Report

Follow- up to 1997098 Grand Jury Re-port

re

Complaint on Hayfork Fire Protection

District

Dear Foreperson:

The Trinity County Board of Supervisors acknowledges

receipt of the above referenced report and thanks the

Grand Jury for its work. The Board’s response is as

follows:

Recommendation # 1 The Board concurs with the Grand

Jury on the efficient timeliness and help given by the

Auditor’s office to Special Districts. However, the Board

agrees with the opinion of the Auditor/ Controller, that

special district accounting is not easily understood by

people without an accounting background and agrees

that the Auditor/ Controller’s office should not be re-quired

to prepare a manual for non- accountants, when

there is already a manual in place and readily available.

Recommendation # 2

The Board concurs.

Sincerely,

TRINITY COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

ROBERT REISS, Chairman

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

This report was approved

on December 10. 1998

Filed on May 3, 1999

1998- 99 TRINITY COUNTY GRAND JURY

FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION

COMMITTEE FINAL REPORT

TRINITY COUNTY WATERWORKS

DISTRICT # 1

PURPOSE:

The Grand Jury received a citizen’s complaint about the

decision- making process by which the Hayfork sewer

project was approved and implemented. The Grand Jury

determined the complaint and accompanying back- up

materials warranted an investigation.

BACKGROUND:

A sewer system has been seen as an essential element

of economic development for Hayfork for many years.

The closure of the mill and, therefore, the need for the

development of other economic resources, made the

sewer system a priority to any new economic develop-ment.

Using Community Development Block Grant

( CDBG) planning funds, the Trinity County Waterworks

District # 1 ( the Water District) designed a sewer sys-tem,

sought out additional sources of revenue to pay the

majority of the costs of the system, and determined the

annual assessment that would be required of those ben-efiting

from the system. They then produced a Feasibil-ity

Study.

There were numerous public meetings specifically re-lated

to the sewer system as well as the regular meetings

of the Water District Board. Property owners who were

to be assessed had the opportunity to cast a protest or

supportive vote in a ballot available only to those to be

assessed. A distinct majority voted to support the sewer

system and the assessment.

The complainant alleged several improprieties by which

the project was administratively approved, including the

lack of an Environmental Impact Report ( EIR), an at-tempt

by the Water District Executive director to mis-lead

the public about the existence of an EIR, the num-ber

of projected versus actual ballots cast by affected

property owners. Based on the latter, the complainant

also thus challenged the accuracy of the assessment to

be charged.

METHOD OF INVESTIGATION:

The Grand Jury interviewed the complainant, Water

District officials and the County Planning Director about

the sewer project process. Various documents related to

the project were also reviewed.

FINDING # 1:

It appears that good faith efforts were made to commu-nicate

the project need, costs, sources, etc., to the im-pacted

property owners through special and regular meet-ings

of the Water District Board and written communi-cations

from the Water District Executive Director to

impacted owners.

RECOMMENDATION # 1:

None

FINDING # 2:

The Water District contracted with the Trinity County

Planning Department to perform a review of potential

environmental impacts. Planning Department staff de-termined

that there would not be any significant disrup-tion

to the environment and a Negative Declaration was

filed. It appears the Negative Declaration was appropri-ate.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

None

FINDING # 3:

There was a difference in the number of Effective Dwell-ing

Units ( EDU’s) projected in the Feasibility Study and

the actual number of ballots cast. This was due to the

necessity to negotiate with school districts and others on

the number of EDU’s assigned to them. The negotia-tions

are a requirement, not an option. According to

Water District officials, this will not change the assess-ment

amount contained in the Feasibility Study. It will

remain at $ 13.52 per EDU.

However, due to limited grant money to assist lower

income owners, some will have to bear the cost of fill-ing

their septic tanks and the cost of pumping sewage to

the sewer connection. The Water District has discussed

this with several local- lending institutions who, accord-ing

to the Water District, will be willing to loan the needed

funds without requiring collateral.

RECOMMENDATION # 3:

The Grand Jury would hope that the Water District make

every effort to keep the assessment at the projected

level as a means of keeping faith with those who cast

supportive ballots for the project based on that assess-ment.

The Grand Jury would recommend that the Water Dis-trict

attempt to obtain additional grant money targeted

to lower income persons, such as additional CDBG

funds, to assist in septic tank and pumping issues.

CONCLUSION:

Officials have a serious obligation to provide citizens

with as much information as needed to make informed

decisions about projects the size of the Hayfork sewer

system. It appears that Water District Officials and oth-

ers took many steps to ensure that affected property

owners knew what was taking place. This effort seems

sufficient in our opinion although there may still be some

citizens dissatisfied.

30- DAY RESPONSE REQUESTED: None

Response of the Board of Supervisors

May 4, 1999

Jerry Boosinger

Trinity County Grand Jury

P. O. Box 1258

Weaverville, CA 96093

RE: Finance and Administration

Committee Complaint on Hayfork

Sewer Project - Trinity

County Waterworks District # 1

Dear Foreperson:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Grand

Jury Finance and Administration Committee’s report on

the Hayfork Sewer Project complaint.

The Board of Supervisors agrees with the findings and

recommendations of the report.

The Board agrees that the economic development in

Trinity County will be enhanced by infrastructure im-provements

and that those improvements should be made

with ample involvement of the public.

The Board of Supervisors thanks the Grand Jury for its

time and efforts in preparing this report.

Sincerely,

TRINITY COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

Robert Reiss, Chairman

This report was approved

on May 13, 1999

Filed May 25, 1999

1998- 1999 TRINITY COUNTY GRAND JURY

HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

COMMITTEE FINAL REPORT

EVALUATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH

RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE 1997- 98

GRAND JURY BY CHILD PROTECTIVE

SERVICES IN ADMINISTRATION OF THE

TRINITY COUNTY

FOSTER CARE PROGRAM

PURPOSE:

The Child Protective Services Division of the Trinity

County Health and Human Services Department was

investigated by the 1997- 98 Trinity County Grand Jury

and many deficiencies were found in the operation and

administration of the division. Several recommendations

were made by the 1997- 98 Grand Jury which, it was

felt, would improve the services rendered to the chil-dren

of Trinity County, in the county foster care pro-gram,

and would bring the program into compliance with

state laws and mandates. The 1997- 98 Grand Jury re-quested

the 1998- 99 Grand Jury continue with the in-vestigation

of Child Protective Services Division in or-der

to evaluate these recommendations.

BACKGROUND:

The 1997- 98 Grand Jury found a general lack of re-sponsibility

by Child Protective Services ( CPS) person-nel,

in complying with their mandates and obligations in

the administration of the county foster care program.

Administrative and supervisory controls were found not

to be in place or were not effectively managed. A state

audit by the California Department of Social Services,

during May- June 1997, found that the division’s record

keeping did not meet acceptable standards.

The 1997- 98 Grand Jury received citizen complaints

( regarding CPS) subsequent to publishing the Health and

Social Services Final Report and requested the 1998- 99

Grand Jury to complete the investigation of these com-plaints.

METHOD OF INVESTIGATION:

The Health and Human Services Committee interviewed

each current member of the CPS staff, the acting super-visor

of CPS, the Director of Trinity County Health and

Human Services Department, and a representative sample

of the foster families from all areas of Trinity County. A

representative of the Sheriff’s Department, the County

Probation Department and the Trinity High Schools was

also interviewed in order to ascertain whether or not

these entities of government felt that CPS was perform-ing

its mandated tasks in a proper, efficient and timely

manner.

Administrative responses to the 1997- 98 Health and

Human Services Committee Final Report and to the

Oversight Report of Child Welfare Services by the Cali-fornia

Department of Social Services and the Correc-tive

Action Plan submitted by CPS were reviewed and

followed up as appropriate.

FINDING # 1: Information

The 1997- 98 Grand Jury found that the level of foster

child information provided initially to foster parents was

frequently inadequate, and it recommended that CPS

provide the foster parent( s) with the background infor-mation

necessary to effectively aid in meeting the needs

of foster children.

Foster parents interviewed indicated that they are now

getting available information. A form is now being used

that documents the information provided to the foster

family, and a system for ascertaining compliance is now

in place.

RECOMMENDATION # 1:

No further action is required other than to continue with

present practices.

FINDING # 2: Complaint Processing

The 1997- 98 Grand Jury found that some citizen com-plaints

were not acted upon in a timely manner. It was

recommended that CPS develop a procedure for pro-cessing

all complaints in an expeditious manner and that

complainants be notified whether or not any actions have

been taken with regards to the complaint and if not why

no actions were taken. Procedures have been devel-oped

and, reportedly, are being followed.

RECOMMENDATION # 2:

Continue present practice.

FINDING # 3: Licensing

The 1997- 98 Grand Jury determined that CPS had not

been following procedures mandated be law in the re-licensing

of foster homes. The Grand Jury strongly rec-ommended

compliance in this matter.

CPS has employed a Social Worker who has completed

extensive training in the licensing of foster homes and in

the administration of the foster care program. This So-cial

Worker has met individually with all parents in the

county foster care program. He has also conducted a

group meeting with the majority of the foster families.

Re- licensing of current foster homes has been completed.

Foster families interviewed have expressed positive com-ments

about the changes that have been implemented in

this area.

RECOMMENDATION # 3:

None.

FINDING # 4: Telephone

The 1997- 98 Grand Jury found that phone calls to CPS

were either not always being answered or were not be-ing

returned in a timely manner. It was recommend that

procedures for handling and responding to incoming tele-phone

calls be implemented and adhered to.

New telephone procedures are now in place and re-sponse

time has been markedly improved. CPS now

has a paging system in place through which they can

contact case workers, in an emergency, and a 24- hour

response time for all messages is policy. However, fos-ter

families continued to register some complaints in this

area as late as January, 1999.

RECOMMENDATION # 4:

Management should make certain that established policy

is adhered to.

FINDING # 5: Clothing Allowance

The 1997- 98 Grand Jury determined that the clothing

allowance for foster children in Trinity County was sub-stantially

below that provided by nearby counties, and

that payment of the clothing allowance was not being

provided in a consistent or timely manner. It was rec-ommended

that the clothing allowance be reviewed im-mediately

and that the allowance be brought closer to

nearby county levels.

A revised clothing allowance for the foster children has

been presented to and passed by the Trinity County

Board of Supervisors. Foster families have begun to

receive the new amounts.

RECOMMENDATION # 5:

The Grand Jury recommends that the clothing allow-ance

continue to be reviewed on an annual basis and

that adjustment be made accordingly.

FINDING # 6: Activity Documentation

An Oversight Report on child welfare services prepared

by the California Department of Social Services, in May-

June 1997, found that CPS was below the 90% compli-ance

level in documenting its activities. The state re-quired

a Corrective Action Plan to bring CPS into com-pliance

with state law in regards to this matter. At the

time that the 1998- 99 Grand Jury commenced its ten-ure,

no Corrective Action plan had been submitted to

the state.

The Corrective Action plan was completed by CPS and

sent to the state in September 1998. It should be noted,

however, that many elements outlined in the plan had

already been implemented or were in the process of

being corrected. Quarterly reviews by the CPS supervi-sor

are being done to insure documentation is both timely

and completed. Training to familiarize staff with the

mandates of division and state rules and law is also be-ing

undertaken.

RECOMMENDATION # 6:

None.

FINDING # 7: Timely Payment

The 1997- 98 Grand Jury determined that payment for

foster care was not being received in a timely manner. It

was recommended that procedures be implemented to

ensure that payment would be made in a timely manner.

CPS has assigned a case worker to interface with the

eligibility division to make certain that all steps are taken

to comply with this requirement.

RECOMMENDATION # 7:

None.

FINDING # 8: Payment Amount

The 1997- 98 Grand Jury found that inequities existed in

the level of support payments for foster care when Trin-ity

County is compared to other nearby counties. It was

recommended that a review of foster care payments be

made and, if allowed by law, adjustments be made.

Foster care payments have been adjusted and are now

more closely aligned with those of surrounding coun-ties.

Foster families are expressing their appreciation and

approval of this change.

RECOMMENDATION # 8:

Periodic reviews of the level of support payments should

be made to ensure that those provided by Trinity County

are in line with those provided by nearby counties.

FINDING # 9: Counseling

The 1997- 98 Grand Jury found that requested profes-sional

counseling for foster families was not scheduled

in a timely manner or in some cases was denied. Rec-ommendations

were made for procedures, in this re-gard,

to be reviewed and, where necessary, upgraded.

CPS has developed a manual that details procedures to

be followed when counseling is requested. Regular staff

meetings are now held to resolve any problems that ex-ist

in this matter.

RECOMMENDATION # 9:

None

FINDING # 10: Placement Procedures

It was reported to the 1997- 98 Grand Jury that juvenile

offenders had been placed in foster homes where there

were small children. This is against state regulations. It

was strongly recommended the CPS, the Sheriff’s de-partment,

and the Probation Department review and

upgrade the placement procedures with regard to this

matter.

It was found that this complaint was an isolated case

and that procedures to prevent such occurrences were

already in place. Better adherence to established poli-cies

is a focus of all departments involved.

RECOMMENDATION # 10:

None.

FINDING # 11: Cross Training

The 1997- 98 Grand Jury found that there was a lack of

qualified cross- trained personnel to assume duties dur-ing

employee absences. A cross training program and

other procedures were recommended to ensure that the

daily operations of the division continue in a timely and

efficient manner.

Staff changes and low staff level have made this a diffi-cult

goal to achieve. Recruitment of a new division su-pervisor

and additional staff members has been under-taken

and is ongoing.

RECOMMENDATION # 11:

It is recommended that the recruitment of a new super-visor

for the division be continued with the greatest dili-gence.

Filling of the additional staff positions should also

be given high priority.

FINDING # 12: Feedback System

The 1997- 98 Grand Jury found that there was no mecha-nism

built into the county foster care system that would

allow foster families to provide feedback as to the qual-ity

and quantity of the services provided them by CPS.

It was recommended that a formal written instrument

be developed and disseminated to each foster family at

least on an annual basis.

Such an instrument has been developed and will be pro-vided

to the foster families by the time this report is

published.

RECOMMENDATION # 12:

None.

FINDING # 13: List of Homes

Last year’s Grand Jury found that the list of Licensed

Homes for Trinity County, published by CPS, was con-stantly

out of date. It was recommended that the list be

maintained in a current condition at all times. It was also

recommended that in- home visits to foster homes be

scheduled in a timely manner to ensure appropriate re-licensing

of the homes ( see Finding # 3).

The list of licensed foster care homes has been updated

and is now being maintained in a current condition. Timely

in- home visits, as required by law, are now being made

and proper re- licensing is being accomplished.

RECOMMENDATION # 13:

It is recommended that present practices be continued

and that they be monitored to ensure that they are main-tained.

FINDING # 14: Management Meetings

The 1997- 98 Grand Jury reported that administrative

personnel at all levels of the CPS foster care program

have been lax in ensuring that the program operates in

the best interest of the children. It was recommended

that a meeting or meetings of representatives from all

cognizant departments be convened to initiate correc-tions

of the operating problems of the foster care pro-gram.

The present Grand Jury has been advised that

such meetings have been, and are being, held and that

the meetings include representatives of all cognizant de-partments.

RECOMMENDATION # 14:

None.

FINDING # 15: Security

During the course of the present Grand Jury’s investiga-tions,

it was determined that potentially serious security

issues were present in the CPS offices; i. e. , files were

being left on desk tops, there was no lock- up system to

secure the files, files were misplaced, there was no sign-out

system for files and the alarm system was ineffec-tive.

The following changes have been made to rectify these

concerns: locks on the CPS building have been changed;

there is only one designated janitor; no outside groups

meet in the building at night; case files are now entered

into the computer system, so less paperwork is required,

and confidentiality issues have been cleared with the

state and Board of Supervisors. CPS is to be commended

for their swift and thorough action on this matter.

RECOMMENDATION # 15:

A sign- out / sign- in system should be established to en-sure

the security of confidential files. And a paper trail

for tracking files should be created and implemented.

CONCLUSION:

The Grand Jury finds vast improvements over condi-tions

relating to the Trinity County foster care program

as they were reported in the 1997- 98 Grand Jury Re-port.

For the most part, those deficiencies that were

reported have been addressed, and if not fully satisfied

are on their way to being satisfied. New personnel and

management involvement have infused the CPS Divi-sion

with a new outlook which greatly benefits its cli-ents,

children at risk. Continuing the policies and pro-grams

which have been newly implemented will improve

the division even more. However, future Grand Juries

are hereby alerted to past problems of the Child Protec-tive

Services Division and should be aware of these prob-lems

when performing future reviews of the division.

30 DAY RESPONSE REQUESTED FROM: Director

of Health and Human Services Department.

Response of the Director of Health and Human

Services Department

Date: July 1, 1999

To: Trinity County Grand Jury

Health and Human Services Commit

tee

From: Linda Wright, Director

Trinity County Health and

Human Services

Re: Evaluation of Compliance with

Recommendation of the 1997- 98

Grand Jury by Child Protective

Services in Administration of the

Trinity County Foster Care Program

The following is my response to the 1998- 99 Grand

Jury Health and Human Services Committee’s Final

Report regarding Trinity County’s Health and Human

Services administration of the Trinity County foster care

program.

Recommendation # l:

I concur with the Grand Jury’s recommendation. We

will continue with the present practices.

Recommendation # 2:

1 agree. Child Protective Services will continue to moni-tor

procedures and make additional improvements as

warranted.

Recommendation # 3:

I concur with the Grand Jury’s recommendation.

Recommendation # 4:

I agree and will continue to ensure that existing proce-dures

are adhered to.

Recommendation # 5:

I support the recommendation made by the Grand Jury.

Recommendation # 6:

I agree with the recommendation. Ongoing training will

occur to ensure that new staff as well as “ seasoned”

social workers keep abreast of case documentation re-quirements.

Recommendation # 7:

I concur with the Grand Jury’s recommendation.

Recommendation # 8:

I agree. Trinity County staff will conduct periodic re-views

of rates provided by surrounding counties.

Recommendation # 9:

I concur with this recommendation. Ongoing efforts to

through Trinity County’s Children’s Systems of Care

grant will support and enhance the procedures that are

presently in place.

Recommendation # 10:

I agree and reference my response in # 9 above.

Recommendation # 11:

I agree. There is an ongoing recruitment for a Children’s

Services Supervisor. I am working closely with north-ern

directors and Cooperative Personnel Services to as-sist

with the ongoing need for qualified social workers in

the Northstate. We currently have five social workers,

an interim supervisor and a senior administrative clerk

in the Children’s Services Section.

Recommendation # 12:

I concur. The survey instrument is currently in place.

There will be ongoing evaluations of the effectiveness

of this tool and modifications will be made as feedback

from the foster parents dictates.

Recommendation # 13:

I agree. We will continue with current practices to en-sure

that our foster home listing is up to date.

Recommendation # 14:

I agree. Bi- monthly meetings are being conducted with

representation from Health and Human Services, Be-havioral

Health, Probation, the Office of Education,

Human Response Network, as well as our County Ad-ministrative

Officer and Superior Court Judge.

Recommendation # 15:

I agree that a sign- in/ out sheet would be beneficial to

verify who has accessed confidential files. Our auto-

mated system for Child Welfare Services does provide

a paper trail for files which will be utilized once the

system is fully implemented.

Conclusion:

I would like to express my appreciation for the consci-entious

review performed by the Grand Jury Health and

Human Services Committee. We are dedicated to con-tinued

evaluation of service delivery by Child Protec-tive

Services, to ensure that all children in Trinity County

are provided with a safe, secure and loving environ-ment.

Response of the Board of Supervisors

July 12, 1999

Jerry Boosinger

Trinity County Grand Jury

P. O. Box 1258

Weaverville, CA 96093

RE: Health and Human Services Committee Final

Report Evaluation of Compliance with

Recommendations of the 1997- 98

Grand Jury by Child Protective Services in

Administration of the Trinity County Foster

Care Program

Dear Foreperson:

Recommendation # 1: Information

The Board accepts the recommendation for no further

action required other than to continue with present prac-tices.

Recommendation # 2: Complaint Processing

The Board accepts the Grand Jury’s recommendation

to continue and improve present practices regarding com-plaint

processing.

Recommendation # 3: Licensing

The Board concurs with the Grand Jury’s findings on

licensing practices and accepts the recommendations.

Recommendation # 4: Telephone

The Board accepts the Grand Jury’s recommendation

on telephone procedures and the need for further im-provements

when possible.

Recommendation # 5: Clothing Allowance

The Board supports the Grand Jury’s recommendation

to continue to review the clothing allowance on an an-nual

basis and that adjustments be made accordingly.

Recommendation # 6: Activity Documentation

The Board acknowledges the Grand Jury’s findings and

that an ongoing training is taking place.

Recommendation # 7: Timely Payment

None.

Recommendation # 8: Payment Amount

The Board agrees and concurs with the Grand Jury’s

recommendation.

Recommendation # 9: Counseling

CPS needs to update and follow the manual on proce-dures

when needed. The Board concurs with the ongo-ing

efforts.

Recommendation # 10: Placement Procedures

The Board agrees and references the response as in

Recommendation # 9.

Recommendation # 11: Cross Training

The Board agrees with the recommended recruitment.

We know this is now ongoing until staff positions are

filled.

Recommendation # 12: Feedback System

None.

Recommendation # 13: List of Homes

The Board accepts and concurs with the Grand Jury’s

recommendations.

Recommendation # 14: Management Meetings

The Board agrees and feels that the recommendations

are currently being followed by the Director.

Recommendation # 15: Security

The Board concurs.

Conclusion:

The Board of Supervisors express appreciation for the

hard work performed by the Grand Jury. We accept the

recommendations and shall follow these where possible.

We believe in all aspects of our County’s Child Protec-tive

Services and those that serve to fulfill the needs

required for compliance.

Sincerely,

TRINITY COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

ROBERT REISS, Chairman

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

This report approved

on May 13, 1999

Filed May 25, 1999

1998- 99 TRINITY COUNTY GRAND JURY

FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION

COMMITTEE FINAL REPORT

EVALUATION OF TRINITY COUNTY

PERSONNEL

PURPOSE:

The purpose of this report is to follow- up on the 1997-

98 Grand Jury’s report on the county personnel evalua-tion

process.

BACKGROUND:

After sending out a questionnaire to a small sample of

county employees working in the Courthouse building,

the 1997- 98 Grand Jury found several problems with

the county personnel evaluation process that could re-sult

in certain legal liabilities in case of an adverse per-sonnel

action. It also found that county personnel did

not find the evaluation process particularly constructive

or useful.

That Grand Jury requested that the succeeding jury fol-low-

up to determine if its recommendations were being

followed.

METHOD OF INVESTIGATION:

The 1998- 99 Grand Jury sent questionnaires to each

county department with a request that the questionnaire

be copied and provided to each of the county’s 400+

employees. 148 questionnaires were returned.

In addition the Grand Jury talked to the Personnel Of-ficer

to obtain her perception about any progress that

may have been obtained or problems that remained.

FINDING # 1:

130 of the 148 respondents indicated they had been

evaluated for their last rating period which means 18

were not evaluated.

105 felt the evaluation was constructive and useful. Con-versely,

31, including 6 who said they had not been

evaluated, did not think so. Twelve chose not to answer

this question.

Only 42 indicated there was any follow- up to the evalu-ation

during the rating period. 96 say there was no fol-low-

up during that period.

75 responded that they felt the evaluation system was

adequate and 23 said they did not think it was. In the

comment section of the questionnaire, there were some

concerns raised about the evaluation process that indi-cated

a wide range of problems, although no particular

problem appeared to be universal.

This year’s questionnaire results appear to confirm those

of last year where some departments are doing quite

well in terms of evaluations and a couple are not. If one

extrapolates the numbers from our sample of 148 re-turned

questionnaires, over 12% or at least 50 county

workers have not been evaluated as they should have

been and this might leave the county vulnerable in terms

of employee disciplinary or termination actions.

RECOMMENDATION # 1:

We concur with the recommendations made last year

by the 97- 98 Grand Jury and would ask all readers of

this report to re- read that report and take action to com-ply

with it.

FINDING # 2:

Almost 70% of respondents said there was no follow-up

to the formal evaluation they received. This raises a

concern that employees rated as not meeting minimum

requirements are not being provided a remediation plan,

and those meeting or exceeding those requirements may

not be receiving appropriate kudos when deserved.

RECOMMENDATION # 2:

• Where remediation is required, the Personnel Officer

should ensure that a plan is developed and followed

until an employee meets the requirements or is termi-nated.

• Where employees are performing above the minimum

standards, some form of recognition program should be

established to reward such performance. The county

should also consider establishing a formal system

whereby citizens, as “ customers” having contact with

county employees, can report positive or negative con-tacts

based on their perception of the service provided

or not provided. This would allow superiors to identify

those who might need additional training in dealing with

their public, or those who are doing a superior job when

dealing with the public.

30 DAY RESPONSE REQUESTED FROM: Board

of Supervisors, the Chief Administrative Officer and

County Personnel Officer.

Response of the Board of Supervisors

August 17, 1999

Jerry Boosinger

Trinity County Grand Jury

P. O. Box 1258

Weaverville, CA 96093

RE: Finance and Administration Committee Final

Report Evaluation of Trinity County Personnel

Dear Foreperson:

The Trinity County Board of Supervisors acknowledges

receipt of the above referenced report and thanks the

Grand Jury for its work. The Board’s response is as

follows:

Recommendations # 1 and # 2:

The Board concurs with the Grand Jury’s findings and

recommendations.

Sincerely,

TRINITY COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

S/ S

Robert Reiss, Chairman

Response of Trinity County County Administrative

Officer

To: Pat Hamilton, Foreperson

Trinity County Grand Jury

Date: September 20, 1999

RE: Evaluation of Trinity County Personnel

I was just notified that I failed to provide a response to

this grand jury report. l apologize. I guess that what I

remembered was my response from the previous year

on this subject.

Recommendation # 1:

• As suggested, I have reread the 97/ 98 report on

this subject. I feel that in the past year the issue of

performance evaluations has risen to a much higher level

due to the recommendation of the 97/ 98 grand jury.

Each department head either elected or appointed is now

required to report to the Board of Supervisors every

other month on the progress in their department. One of

the questions each must answer is how many evalua-tions

are due, overdue or completed within the report-ing

period. This information is useful when it comes

time for evaluations, and budget approvals. I cannot say

that we have achieved perfection but we are moving in

that direction.

Recommendation # 2

• It is currently the responsibility of the depart-ment

head to develop a plan for improvement of em-ployees

within their department. Either County Counsel

or I meet with department heads in need of assistance in

this area. Some of them require very little help.

• The County currently provides a method for

the public to comment on positive or negative contacts

with county employees. Forms are available at all re-ception

desks. The forms, when completed, are returned

to the Board of Supervisors. Department heads are re-quired

to respond to those reports.

• We currently have an incentive program. De-partment

heads have an opportunity to nominate good

employees at regular department head meetings for “ em-ployee

of the quarter.” Out of the 4 quarterly winners,

one is selected as “ employee of the year.” The em-ployee

of the year is given a plaque, which is presented

to them at a regular Board of Supervisors meeting by

the Chairman. In addition, the department heads put on

a “ employee appreciation picnic” every year. They pro-vide

and cook the food. The County also provides in-centives

for good ideas and safe work practices.

Again, I apologize for failing to respond earlier.

Please return to: Board of Supervisors

Post Office Box 1258

Weaverville, California 96093

County of Trinity

Please Help Us To Serve You Better

Date:______________

1. Name of the County Department in which you were

conducting business:_______________________

2. Name of the County employee assisting

you:_______________________________________

3. Were you greeted with, “ May I help you?:

Yes ____ No____

4. How would you rate the treatment you received?:

Very good____ Good____ Fair ____ Poor____

5. Do you feel this person tried to be:

Helpful ____ Didn’t care____

6. Was everything explained to your satisfaction?:

Yes____ As well as possible____ Not at all____

7. How would you rate your overall experience with

this department?:

Very good____ Good____ Fair____ Poor____

8. Comments:

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

This report was approved

on April 8, 1999

Filed May 3, 1999

1998- 99 TRINITY COUNTY GRAND JURY

FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION

COMMITTEE FINAL REPORT

PUBLIC DISSEMINATION OF TRINITY

COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORTS

PURPOSE:

The Grand Jury of any County serves as a watchdog on

government to ensure that government is following the

rules, spending taxpayers money wisely and providing

citizen access to governmental services. As part of its

responsibility to the citizens it represents, the Grand Jury

produces a report outlining the various areas of govern-ment

reviewed, its findings and any recommendations

the Grand Jury may have to improve government op-erations

or correct problems.

BACKGROUND:

Grand Jury reports of findings and recommendations go

through a specific process before they become public

reports. They are reviewed to ensure there are no bla-tant

legal problems associated with them, and after this

review sent to relevant department heads. Within a few

days the reports become public information. Some of

the reports are examined and reported on by the local

newspaper. Others are not. At the end of a Grand Jury

year, all the reports are printed together in a bound copy

and made available to the public.

However, the public may or may not know about this

process and only had newspaper reports on the work of

the Grand Jury. To increase public access and review of

the Grand Jury work, the past several Trinity County

Grand Juries have opted to have their reports dissemi-nated

by having them printed in one of the local adver-tising

publications, “ The Trade Mark.” The expense of

this has been part of the Grand Jury budget approved

by the Board of Supervisors and has been the option of

individual Grand Juries.

The report of the 1997- 98 Grand Jury was not available

in the bound document, nor printed in “ The Trade Mark”

until March of 1999.

METHODOLOGY:

Discussions were held with members of the 1997- 98

Grand Jury, the Clerk of the Court and the current 1998-

99 Grand Jury.

FINDING # 1:

Misunderstandings between the 1997- 98 Grand Jury and

responsible County officials resulted in the delayed print-ing

and publishing of the 1997- 98 Grand Jury report

until March of 1999, over 8 months after the end of the

Grand Jury year and at least 5 months after the latest

expected publication date. This resulted in some citi-zens,

who had issues before the 1997- 98 Grand Jury,

resenting the fact that the jury apparently did not ad-dress

their issue. It also resulted in some confusion among

citizens about which year was being discussed in the

report.

RECOMMENDATIONS # 1:

It is our recommendation that:

The 1998- 99 Grand Jury and future Grand Juries con-tinue

to publish their reports in a local newspaper to

ensure the widest dissemination of the report to the public.

Extra copies of the Grand Jury report should be printed

along with those inserted in the local newspaper and

made available to the public through markets, post of-fices

and other public locations.

As each individual report of the Grand Jury becomes

eligible for public dissemination, that report be entered

into the Internet at the Trinity County Web Page mak-ing

it available to all who have computer and Internet

access.

CONCLUSION:

Each Grand Jury, in order to ensure the above takes

place, should request, in writing, actions to be taken by

responsible county officials in writing, requesting an

acknowledgement from the responsible party should be

obtained.

30 DAY RESPONSE REQUESTED FROM: Board

of Supervisors, CAO and County Clerk.

Response of the Board of Supervisors

July 12, 1999

Jerry Boosinger

Trinity County Grand Jury

P. O. Box 1258

Weaverville, CA 96093

Re: Finance and Administration Committee Final

Report

Public Dissemination of Trinity County Grand

Jury Reports

Dear Foreperson:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Grand

Jury’s Finance and Administration Committee report

regarding Public Dissemination of Trinity County Grand

Jury Reports. The Board of Supervisors agrees that

Grand Jury reports continue to be published in a local

newspaper, that copies be made easily available to the

public and that the reports be posted on the Trinity

County Web Page.

Sincerely,

TRINITY COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

S/ S

Robert Reiss, Chairman

Response of the County Administrative Officer

May 25, 1999

To: 1998- 99 Trinity County Grand Jury

Trinity County Board of Supervisors

From: Jeannie Nix- Temple

County Administrative Officer

RE: Response to the 1998- 99 Grand Jury

Finance & Administration Committee

Final Report

Re: Public Dissemination of Trinity County

Grand Jury Reports

My response to the findings and recommendations of

the Grand Jury’s Report is as follows:

I concur with the recommendation. The Board of Su-pervisors

have directed

that the complete report with all responses be published

annually.

Response of the County Clerk

Trinity County Board of Supervisors

May 24, 1999

Re : Public Dissemination of Trinity County Grand

Jury Reports

Recommendation # 1: Continue to publish reports in

a local newspaper

I concur with the recommendation and have received

direction from the Board of Supervisors to make sure

that the complete report with all the responses are pub-lished

timely each year. In addition the necessary equip-ment

and software have been acquired so as to publish

the reports and responses on the Trinity County Web

site.

Dero Forslund, Clerk Recorder Assessor

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

This report was approved

On April 8, 1999

Filed May 3, 1999

1998- 99 TRINITY COUNTY GRAND JURY

FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION

COMMITTEE FINAL REPORT FOLLOW- UP TO

1997- 98 GRAND JURY REPORT

TRINITY COUNTY DATA PROCESSING

PURPOSE:

The 1997- 98 Grand Jury recommended that its succes-sor

jury perform a follow- up review of the county’s

data processing system to ensure that progress was be-ing

made on the 97- 98 recommendations.

BACKGROUND:

The 1997- 98 Grand Jury investigated the county data

processing system in response to a number of published

complaints about the increasing down- time of the main-frame

computer and the failure rate and down- time of

the personal computers ( PC’s) that were being purchased

to replace the mainframe.

The jury found that county staff was working hard to

resolve these problems. The plan is to shut the main-frame

down and transition all departments to PC’s.

Grand Jury recommendations essentially addressed three

areas: Central purchasing in order to reduce initial and

annual maintenance costs; networking county depart-ments

in an effort to make intra- government communi-cations

more efficient; and, establishment of an Office

of Technology to serve as a consultant to departments

wishing to purchase equipment. The office of technol-ogy

would establish a special fund to ensure replace-ment

of PC’s and software as they break down or be-come

obsolete.

METHOD OF INVESTIGATION:

Committee members interviewed data processing per-sonnel

to determine how much progress had been made

toward the recommendations.

FINDING # 1:

The county is in the process of establishing a purchas-ing

department that would handle most purchases of

equipment and supplies for the various county depart-ments.

RECOMMENDATION # 1:

County decision- makers should be commended for start-ing

this purchasing consolidation process and hopefully

it will become a reality soon.

FINDING # 2:

Almost all county departments are on a intra- govern-mental

network and work is continuing to connect the

others. In addition, efforts are being made to establish a

county Internet connection that would allow the public

to access certain public records by PC.

RECOMMENDATION # 2:

Commendations to county staff and hopefully the tasks

will be completed soon.

FINDING # 3:

The to- be- established purchasing department can serve

as the Office of Technology if persons with the appro-priate

background and training staff the department.

While funds were allocated this year to perform the net-working

and other tasks related to the computer envi-ronment,

no technology fund was established for future

replacement of PCs and software.

RECOMMENDATION # 3:

This year’s budget process was, according to all ac-counts,

an easier and more cooperative one than in past

years. Thus the allocation of funds to the necessary

computer networking of intra- government departments

is laudable. A concern remains when a lean budget and

the need to make large expenditures for software and

equipment occur simultaneously.

The 1998- 99 Grand Jury concurs with the previous

Grand Jury in believing the establishment of a technol-ogy

replacement contingency fund would be a judicious

act on the part or the Board of Supervisors.

CONCLUSION:

Great progress has been made to bring the county gov-ernment

up to date in the computer world but our con-cern

for future technology acquisition remains.

30- DAY RESPONSES REQUESTED FROM: Board

of Supervisors and County Data Processing Personnel.

Response of County Data Processing Personnel

In the 1997- 98 Grand Jury Report Trinity County Data

Processing, three finding and recommendations are dis-cussed.

The following is a response and status report of

those findings and recommendations.

Finding # 1: The county is in the process of estab-lishing

a purchasing department that would handle most

purchases of equipment and supplies for the various

county departments.

The Data Processing department is working on a Com-puter

and Software purchasing policy.

Finding # 2: Almost all county departments are on

an infra- governmental network and work is continuing

to connect the others. In addition efforts are being made

to establish a county Internet connection that would al-low

the public to access certain public records by PC.

The Data Processing Department has been extremely

busy with the main projects that the Board of Supervi-sors

recommended as top priority during 1998/ 99. Those

projects Year 2000 testing, upgrades, and replacements,

and integration of a criminal justice system ( Sustain)

remain top priority and will continue until completion.

Following these priorities is that of “ Use of the Internet

to disseminate public records via the Internet. An Internet

connection has been set up with all users on the net-work

able to access Internet and E- mail services, as

seen fit by department heads. A web server is the next

step in creating access to public records. We have start-ing

configuring this server and have created some of a

test web site.

Finding # 3: The to- be- established purchasing de-partment

can serve as the Office of Technology if per-sons

with the appropriate background and training staff

the department. While funds were allocated this

year to perform the networking and other tasks related

to the computer environment, no technology fund was

established for future replacement of PCs and software.

The Data Processing Department has worked very hard

to stay informed with all the county systems. We are

working on creating an understanding of computer, soft-ware,

and network inventory. We believe it is the re-sponsibility

of the department to advise and recommend

systems, networks, computers and peripherals. We be-lieve

it is the responsibility of the departments to plan

for obsolescence of their equipment with our recom-mendations.

Data Processing should have a fund to re-place

defective equipment. Data Processing is working

on policies that cover hardware and software, so that all

users can communicate more effectively.

A technology replacement contingency fund has not been

created, yet.

From: George Reynolds

Chief Programmer, Data Processing

Response of Trinity County Board of Supervisors

July 20, 1999

Jerry Boosinger

P. O. Box 1258

Weaverville, CA 96093

RE: Finance and Administration Committee Final

Report Follow- up to 1997098 Grand Jury Re-port

re Trinity County Data Processing

Dear Foreperson:

The Trinity County Board of Supervisors acknowledges

receipt of the above referenced report and thanks the

Grand Jury for its work. The Board’s response is as

follows:

Recommendation # 1

The Board concurs with the Grand Jury recommenda-tion

and commends the Data Processing Department

for their diligent work on the Computer and Software

purchasing policy.

Recommendation # 2

The Board concurs and understands the time constraints

the Data Processing Department has been under. Their

commitment to a county Internet connection is appreci-ated.

Recommendation # 3 The Board will take the Grand

Jury and Data Processing recommendations concerning

technology replacement contingency fund, under con-sideration

during this year’s budget hearings.

Sincerely,

TRINITY COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

S/ S

ROBERT REISS, Chairman

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

This report was approved

on May 13, 1999.

Filed on May 25, 1999

1998- 99 TRINITY COUNTY GRAND JURY

FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION

COMMITTEE FINAL REPORT

TRINITY COUNTY HIRING PRACTICES

PURPOSE:

In the process of reviewing other information, the Grand

Jury became concerned about certain hiring practices

by county government.

BACKGROUND:

One of the concerns often expressed by those in Trinity

County outside the Weaverville area is that job open-ings

and consulting opportunities with Trinity County

government are not adequately publicized throughout

the county, creating a bias that results in hiring Weaverville

area residents, or even residents outside the county,

rather than persons from other parts of Trinity County.

Two examples of this came to our attention this year.

One involved the writing of job requirements which ap-peared

to ensure that a specific person would be hired

in the position, and the other involved the hiring of a

person based on that person knowing key persons in-volved

in the process and being in the right place at the

right time.

METHOD OF INVESTIGATION:

The committee discussed the first instance with the

County Personnel Officer and the second with a highly

placed official and the individual involved.

FINDING # 1: Position Announcements

The perception is that Trinity County makes little effort

to announce certain employment opportunities through-out

the county, with the result that in those with ties to

the power structure obtain positions that others may

have been qualified to perform if they had known of the

openings.

RECOMMENDATION # 1:

The County should make a good faith effort to ensure

that county residents are aware of all employment op-portunities,

whether permanent, part- time or consult-ing,

by announcing open positions county- wide using all

available media and outlets, including post offices, gen-eral

stores, clubs and other known community gather-ing

places. There are few county jobs that are so urgent

that a hardship would be created by taking a week or

two to ensure that qualified Trinity County residents

know about the position and have an opportunity to

submit an application.

FINDING # 2: Perceived Impropriety

It is the perception created by the two instances above

that County government

should be concerned about. It is perceived that these

jobs were created or advertised specifically with the in-tention

of hiring two particular individuals.

RECOMMENDATION # 2:

All job descriptions must be written in such a manner

that every knowledge and skill requirement can be di-rectly

and convincingly related to performing the spe-cific

job being advertised, and not designed to ensure

the employment of a desired person.

Because the 98- 99 Grand Jury does not have adequate

time to investigate county hiring processes in- depth, it is

recommended that the 99- 00 Grand Jury undertake a

thorough investigation of the process.

CONCLUSION:

By following Grand Jury recommendations Trinity

County can avoid the appearance of nepotism and other

improper hiring practices.

30 DAY RESPONSE REQUESTED FROM: County

Chief Administrative Officer, County Personnel Officer

and Board of Supervisors.

Response of the County Administrative Officer

June 28, 1999

To: John K. Letton, Superior Court Judge

From: Jeannie Nix- Temple, County

Administrative Officer

Re: Response to 1998/ 99 Trinity County

Grand Jury Finance and Administration

Committee Final Report- Trinity County

Hiring Practices

My response to the findings and recommendations of

the Grand Jury’s Report is as follows:

Recommendation # 1:

I am not sure exactly which County positions have been

identified as potentially having the appearance of im-propriety.

There are actually several ways of recruiting

that may seem improper to the outside viewer. They are

however perfectly legal. One of these is the “ in depart-ment”

promotional exam and another is the “ in county”

recruitment. Either one of these situations affords cur-rent

employees an opportunity that the general public

does not have. Either of these situations does provide

for a competitive process. These positions are usually

set up this way because the required experience could

most likely be attained working for Trinity County gov-

ernment and being familiar with the department and the

system.

Recommendation # 2:

Trinity County has upwards of 470 employees at any

one time. We recruit for and hire on average 140 em-ployees

in a year. I regret that anyone would think that

we employ any kind of biased recruiting practices. How-ever,

I am relieved that there are only two examples of

perceived impropriety. I will welcome the 99/ 2000 Grand

Jury’s investigation into our department. I feel confi-dent

that a full investigation will assuage any suspicions

of unfair practices.

I have enclosed a copy of our General Hiring Practices

for your review. The only exceptions to this rule would

be the above.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide a response.

Enclosure

TRINITY COUNTY - HIRING PRACTICES

Trinity County advertises all of its position openings in

the local newspaper, the Trinity Journal, for two weeks.

Copies of job flyers are given to all departments to post

and also sent to various agencies including TOT and

EDD. EDD places all flyers on the internet. Depending

on the position, it may be listed in other publications as

well.

ELIGIBILITY REGISTERS - Various positions that

have frequent openings are

offered as eligibility list openings. This means that if

you see an

eligibility list advertised in the Trinity Journal for which

you are

qualified, you should file an application at that time.

The County will then

follow appropriate procedures to compile the eligibility

register. Normally,

the register is good for one year.

-

EXTRA- HELP - This term means a position is tempo-rary.

It can be a part- time or full- time schedule.

APPLICATION DEADLINE - Check the flyer or news-paper

listing for the deadline, the last date applications

will be accepted for a position. In some cases an appli-cation

that is mailed on the deadline date and postmarked

on that date will be accepted, but you should check with

the Personnel Office if you are unable to meet the appli-cation

deadline.

JOB INTEREST CARD - If there are no current open-ings

in the job you are interested in applying for, you

may submit a job interest card. In this event we will

notify you if there is recruitment conducted in your area

of interest. Please consult the directory of county posi-tions

for the correct position title.

INTEREVIEW EXPENSES - Candidates invited for

an interview must provide their own lodging, food and

transportation.

If you are selected for County employment you must

first pass a medical examination and a drug and alcohol

screening. This is a regular part of the selection process

and is paid for by the County.

If you have any questions regarding any of the above,

they should be directed to:

Trinity County

Administration & Personnel

P. O. Box 1613

Weaverville, CA 96093- 1613

( 530) 623- 1325

Trinity County is an equal opportunity/ affirmative

action employer.

Response of the Board of Supervisors

July 15, 1999

Jerry Boosinger

Trinity County Grand Jury

P. O. Box 1258

Weaverville, CA 96093

RE: Trinity County Grand Jury 1998- 99

Finance and Administration Committee Final

Report Trinity County Hiring Practices

Dear Foreperson:

The Trinity County Board of Supervisors acknowledges

receipt of the above- referenced report and thanks the

Grand Jury for its work. The Board’s response is as

follows:

Recommendation # 1:

The County should make a good faith effort to ensure

that County residents are aware of all employment op-portunities,

whether permanent, part- time or consult-ing,

by announcing open positions county- wide using all

available media and outlets, including post offices, gen-eral

stores, clubs and other known community gather-ing

places.

The Board of Supervisors agree with the comments of

the County Administrative Officer. Be assured, that the

Board considers it to be extremely important that the

best person for each job is the one hired. Government

isn’t composed of buildings and roads, but is composed

of people. It is the Board’s goal that the best qualified

applicant be selected for each job. Department heads

are evaluated on many things, including their ability to

attract and maintain quality employees who have an at-titude

of service to the public.

Recommendation # 2:

All job descriptions must be written in such a manner

that every knowledge and skill requirement can be di-rectly

and convincingly related to performing the spe-cific

job being advertised and not designed to ensure the

employment of a desired person.

The Board of Supervisors agree. We are proud of our

employees and recognize that if County standards are

going to continue to improve, we must be diligent in

seeking the best qualified applicant for each position.

The Board of Supervisors acknowledges the fine work

of the Grand Jury and appreciates that many positive

outcomes are encouraged by the Jury’s attention to

County procedures. We thank you for your collective

efforts.

Sincerely,

TRINITY COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

Robert Reiss, Chairman

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

This Report was approved

On May 13, 1999

Filed on June 1, 1999

1998- 99 TRINITY COUNTY GRAND JURY

FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION

COMMITTEE FINAL REPORT

THUNDER ROCK SHALE MINE

PURPOSE:

The 1998- 99 Grand Jury investigated a complaint alleg-ing

that the County Planning Department, County Trans-portation

Department and the Planning Commission

compromised the health, safety and welfare of citizens

in the Tucker Hill area.

BACKGROUND:

In 1976 a Use Permit was obtained to mine shale for

approximately one year to facilitate the building of a

residence and shop on a property located on Highway

299, north of Union Hill Rd, approximately six miles

south of Weaverville. The property is on the eastern

slope of the relatively narrow canyon created by Weaver

Creek and is zoned Rural Residential. The mine came

to be known as the Thunder Rock shale Mine.

Over time, the Trinity County road Department used

some shale product from this mine.

There were restrictions on the permit as to days and

hours of operation. As ownership changed, operating

times increased until mining was being performed as

early as 5 a. m. in the morning and as late as 11 p. m.,

even on holidays. Area residents complained to the Plan-ning

Department, Road Department, Sheriff s Depart-ment

and the State Office of Mines about the noise and

dust penetrating their homes: no action was taken that

mitigated these complaints.

At a December 1995 meeting of the Planning commis-sion,

the Planning Director had determined that the per-mit

did not support ongoing mining activity. The Plan-ning

Commission, based on information it received from

the County Road Department that the mine had been in

continuous use since 1982, decided to give the owner/

operator a one year trial period for continued operation

after new use permit conditions were added and a Rec-lamation

Plan approved. The mine continued to oper-ate,

although to this date the owner/ operator has not

submitted a Reclamation Plan nor complied with the

new use conditions.

Area residents have continued to complain to county

officials to no avail. ( There is a serious concern about

the County Road Department’s use of this shale prod-uct

during periods when there were no permits for min-ing

at this specific site.)

The North Coast Air Quality Management Board

( AQMD), after testing the shale material, found serpen-tine

rock containing higher than allowable amounts of

asbestos and required airborne toxic control measures

for asbestos containing serpentine, including stringent

testing of every 1,000 tons sold, supplied or used. After

the owner failed to pay required fees and produce re-quired

tracking documents, the permit was revoked.

METHOD OF INVESTIGATION:

The Grand Jury reviewed the minutes of meetings of

various county agencies, correspondence, agreements,

county work records and other county and homeowner

documents. Key county staff members and a home-owner

were interviewed.

FINDING # 1: Violations

It appears that the Thunder Rock mine operated at times

without the proper permits. Even when there was a per-mit

in effect, the operation violated the conditions of the

permit in terms of hours and days of operation. The

mine created a health hazard to neighborhood residents

through dispersal of dust containing asbestos and be-came

a nuisance in terms of noise. No county office or

employee monitored the mine operation for permit com-pliance

even after residents complained.

RECOMMENDATION # 1:

Planning Department staff should be directed by the

Board of Supervisors to monitor mining operations on

an on- going basis to ensure they have been, and con-tinue

to be, in compliance with the proper permits.

FINDING # 2: Tracking

The building and use permit, which was issued for an

“ approximate” one- year period, was allowed to linger

for twenty years with no review to ensure code compli-ance.

( This failure to “ final” the permit also deprived

the county of tax revenue for property improvements.)

RECOMMENDATION # 2:

The Planning Director should track limited term Use

Permits in a manner, which reflects the intent of the

permitting process. The Building Department should “ fi-nal”

each stage of construction and complete the pro-cess

in a timely manner in order to ensure code compli-ance.

( Permit’s should also be tracked to ensure appro-priate

tax revenue is received by the county.)

FINDING # 3: Agencies

According to July 31, 1996 Planning Commission Min-utes,

the Planning Director presented the Planning Com-mission

with the following information:

The mine operator is obligated to comply with various

local, state and federal agency regulations and permit

requirements when conducting surface mining opera-

tions. These agencies include, but are not limited to:

California Department of Conservation- Office of Mine

Reclamation, State Mining and Geology Bd., Federal

Mine Safety and health Administration, Cal- OSHA Min-ing

Unit, North Coast Unified Air Quality Management

District, North Coast Region Water Quality Control

Board, and the Calif Dept of Transportation. Full com-pliance

with each agency’s requirements is critical to

address and mitigate undesirable effects from mining

and to ensure that public safety’ health, and general

welfare objectives are met.

The Planning Department and/ or Commission neglected

to ensure that the Thunder Rock Shale Mine was in

compliance with the requirements of the several agen-cies

mentioned.

RECOMMENDATION # 3:

The County Planning Commission and the Board of

Supervisors need to be more diligent in monitoring and

managing compliance with the complete permitting pro-cess.

FINDING # 4:

The Planning Commission’s decision on Dec. 14, 1995

to validate the original Use Permit was based partially

on a letter from the Director of the Roads Department

that indicated this shale mine had been supplying mate-rial

to the county on a yearly basis since 1982.

To date the Road Department has failed to provide docu-mentation

that would satisfactorily verify the accuracy

of that statement. What has been provided to date indi-cates

that there have been years in which the mine did

not provide material to the county.

RECOMMENDATION # 4:

It would be desirable if the Director of the Road De-partment

could provide documentation that the Depart-ment

indeed used the mine each and every year be-tween

1982 and 1995. If this documentation cannot be

supplied, the Planning Commission should be notified

that their December 1995 decision was based on inac-curate

information and that this should be taken into

consideration during future deliberations involving the

shale mine.

Additionally we recommend that the 1000- 2000 Grand

Jury review this matter and taken appropriate action.

FINDING # 5: Fee

The Road Department’s policy is to charge a fee for

document searches that involve significant staff time,

and to have requesting parties sign a contract acknowl-edging

that they will be charged a fee for the search.

The purpose of the fee is to offset the costs of staff time

pulling documents that takes them away from their regu-lar

duties.

The Tucker Hill residents requested backup documents

from the Road Department that would verify the accu-racy

of the letter referred to above and the Road De-partment

charged them a $ 210. 00 fee for the search

and reproduction of the documents. The homeowners

had not signed a contract and protested the charge. The

Road department has not turned those documents over

to the homeowners.

RECOMMENDATION # 5:

In this case, since no contract was signed, the docu-ments

were never provided and in the name of good

will, we recommend the $ 210.00 charge be dropped.

FINDING # 6: Coordination

The Director of Transportation/ Road Department

claimed to have been unaware of any restrictions that

would preclude the department from purchasing mate-rial

from this mine before Nov. 1995. It appears that the

Planning Director may not have informed him that the

Thunder Rock Mine was not in compliance with the

original use permit.

RECOMMENDATION # 6:

There should be a county process that ensures commu-nication

of important health and safety information be-tween

departments with a need to know, including those

responsible for enforcing use permit conditions.

FINDING # 7:

The homeowners report that several of them have sold

their homes in order to escape the extreme noise and to

protect their health. These residents attempted to allevi-ate

the noise and health problems by presenting a peti-tion,

signed by all 27 Tucker Hill residents, to the Plan-ning

Commission against further mine operations, even

though they say they were advised in advance, by a

member of that body, that “ Petitions don’t carry much

weight in Trinity County.”

RECOMMENDATION # 7:

When an area is zoned Rural Residential this zoning

should be upheld unless well publicized public hearings

are held to make a change. Also, legitimate petitions

signed by a large number of involved citizens, to protect

their rights, should be taken seriously by county staff

and commissions.

FINDING # 8: Complaint Processing

There appears to be no enforcement arm that will re-spond

to residents’ complaints about violations of per-mit

conditions. The District Attorney, Sheriff and Plan-ning

Department apparently have no system for moni-toring

and enforcing use permit conditions.

RECOMMENDATION # 8:

When a complaint is received by the Planning Depart-ment

regarding noncompliance with conditions of a per-

mit, there should be a process in place for acting on that

complaint and informing the complainant of the results

of that action. In the case of health and safety these

complaints should have the highest priority.

FINDING # 9a: Hearing

The homeowners allege that the Planning Director told

them they cannot appeal the Planning Commission’s

1995 validation of the Use Permit until the Reclamation

Plan is approved, thus opening the door to the possible

restart of the mining activities. It has been three years

since the Reclamation Plan requirement was imposed,

so homeowners are being forced to sit and wait.

FINDING # 9b:

The Planning Director has apparently told the

homeowners that the Planning Commission would hold

three separate hearings on noise mitigation, zoning and

the Use Permit after the Reclamation Plan was finished,

which would cost the homeowners $ 280.00 per hear-ing.

RECOMMENDATION # 9:

If the letter referred to in Finding # 4 is inaccurate, there

should be no fees charged to the homeowners for ap-pealing

a decision based on inaccurate information. If

the information is accurate, the Planning Commission

should hold one hearing on all the issues reducing appel-late

fees to a one time $ 280.00.

However, given what has gone on with this issue, we

strongly recommend that the Board of Supervisors ap-points

a mediator to review appropriate documents and

meet with complainants and appropriate county officers

to clarify and resolve this long standing dispute. We fur-ther

recommend that this takes place as soon as pos-sible,

and that the 1999- 2000 Grand Jury review this

matter.

FINDING # 10: Contamination

The Thunder Rock Mine sells shale that contains asbes-tos,

a known carcinogen. When Trinity County buys

this shale and spreads it on roads and parking areas, the

County is contributing to the poor health of its citizens.

Between 1982 and 1996, 20,050 cubic yards of this

shale was purchased by Trinity County. Fifteen streets

and areas are listed where this shale was used.

RECOMMENDATION # 10:

Areas where this shale was used should be tested for

asbestos. If asbestos is found in excess of state stan-dards

( California Health and Safety Code District Regu-lation

3 - Section 6 Airborne Toxic Control Measure for

Asbestos- Containing Serpentine Rock) in these surfaces,

the areas should be properly capped.

SUMMARY:

The citizens of Trinity County depend upon their county

officials to protect their health, safety, and welfare. When

local agencies compromise, or appear to compromise,

this process they jeopardize the citizens that they are

employed to protect. Citizen complaints about violations

of use permits should be responded to in a professional

manner and, regardless of result, explanations of ac-tions

or non- actions should be provided to the com-plainants.

In addition, county departments should only

purchase goods and services from businesses that com-ply

with federal, state and county permits.

30- DAY RESPONSE REQUESTED FROM: Road

Department, Planning Commission and Department,

Chief Administrative Officer and Board of Supervisors.

Response of the Trinity County Road Department

RE: 1998- 99 TRINITY COUNTY GRANT JURY

FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATIVE

COMMITTEE FINAL REPORT – THUNDER

ROCK SHALE MINE

Finding # 4 ( first paragraph): I was not at the Planning

Commission Meeting on December 14, 1995, and I do

not have first hand knowledge of what the Planning

Commission based its decision to validate the original

Use Permit. In addition, I did not attend the Board of

Supervisors meeting when they approved to allow the

mine to operate on a one- year trial basis with new con-ditions.

Therefore, I cannot substantiate or speculate to

the accuracy of the first paragraph under this Finding.

Also, I would like to emphasize the words “ based par-tially”

on a letter from the Director of the Road

Department. It should be noted that the Department of

Transportation was one of Many customers who Pur-chased

materials from Thunder Rock Mine.

Finding # 4 ( second paragraph): The first sentence of

the second paragraph is technically correct in that the

Road Department has not provided documentation veri-fying

that the Road Department has utilized materials

from the Thunder Rock Mine on an annual basis. The

option to obtain that information was offered to the

Tucker Hill Homeowners, however, they chose not to

undertake the endeavor. As I explained to the Commit-tee,

my Department does not have the staff time to

retrieve archived files and manually review them. The

Department has fee rates established by ordinance for

services which includes staff time and materials. These

rates apply to researching records for nonroad related

benefits. The Department usually keeps files for ten years

for grant audits, and we periodically purge older files.

There is a good probability that our archive records cur-

rently only go back to the mid- 1980’ s.

Last Sentence: I do not agree with the conclusion for-mulated

by the Committee in their last sentence, which

states “ What has been provided to date indicates that

there have been years in which the mine did not provide

material to the County.”

I sensed a few biased jury members during my meeting

with the Grand Jury, and this statement gives credence

to my feelings. I provided a partial list of specific projects

where I identified fifteen specific projects that utilized

significant volumes of materials from Thunder Rock

Mine. Thirteen of these projects were undertaken by

the Weaverville Crew. Generally only one of these large

projects could be undertaken in a single construction

season in addition to their normal maintenance activi-ties.

Approximate dates were given because records re-search

was necessary for actual dates. Also, shale and

other materials were used for general maintenance work

that can only be identified by a thorough search of the

crews daily time sheets, purchase orders, claims, etc. I

feel it is because of my unwillingness to donate County

time and resources that the Committee formulated their

unfounded conclusion. An unbiased Committee would

not have included this sentence.

RECOMMENDATION # 4: I agree it would be desir-able

to provide the documentation of use by the Road

Department of materials purchased from Thunder Rock

Mine. As I testified to the Committee, the information is

in archive files, most of which are not stored in the

Department of Transportation buildings. Also, as I men-tioned

previously, we may have already purged files that

are beyond ( 10) ten years. In my letter dated June 21,

1996, I offered to allow David Wallace and the Tucker

Hill Homeowners a procedure to research the files, how-ever,

they chose not to accept my offer. It would take

approximately three weeks for a staff person to recover

the files and research the individual documents. My

Department cannot spare a staff person for this activity.

This activity is specifically for a private interest and has

no Road Department benefit. Therefore, any expendi-tures

by the Road Department must be reimbursed.

Finding # 5: I concur with the Statements made by the

Grand Jury regarding Road Department charges for

document searches and the facts that the homeowners

did not and have not signed a contract for document

search. I want to emphasize that the Department’s policy

of having the requested parties sign a contract for records

search is when there will be “ significant’ ‘ staff time in-volved.

I would like to add that it is my Department’s

policy to charge a requesting party for any activity that

is for other than Road Department use. These charges

include staff time, materials, administration and over-head

costs and are authorized by County Ordinance. In

this instance, the original request by David Wallace and

the Tucker Hill Homeowners Association was not of a

significant nature and would not have required a written

contract. A oral or written request is sufficient. In this

instance, we received both oral and a written request,

wherein David Wallace states in his letter dated June

22, 1996, “ Please be advised that we will again visit

your office on July 8, 1996 to purchase copies of all

the above records dating from January 1, 1991 up

until July 7, 1996”. I understood Mr. Wallace’s letter

to be a commitment on his behalf to pay for Road De-partment

services, otherwise I would not have had staff

undertake the task.

RECOMMENDATION # 5: The Grand Jury is recom-mending

that the charge of $ 210.00 for records search

be dropped since David Wallace and the Tucker Hill

Homeowners did not sign a contract for the records

search. As I stated above, the amount of work requested

was not significant and the Department would not have

requested a written contract. However, I feel a letter

requesting the work and agreeing to pay for the work is

a form of “ agreement”. The Department has no inten-tion

of demanding payment for documents that have

not been delivered to the requesting party. As long as

the documents remain the property of this Department,

no formal action for payment will be undertaken. In the

same nature, any request for copies of a portion or a set

of the documents in question will require payment for

the task, which is $ 210.00.

Finding # 6 and RECOMMENDATION # 6 - Coordina-tion:

I concur with the Grand Jury in their findings and

recommendations regarding coordination between de-partments.

My Department was unaware of any restric-tions

that precluded us from purchasing materials from

this mine before November 1995.

Finding # 10 - Contamination: Standard testing proce-dures

have proven that the Thunder Rock Mine con-tains

asbestos. My Department received a copy of the

test along with a copy of a letter from North Coast Uni-fied

Air Quality Management District ( NCUAQMD) to

Ron Adams of the Planning Department. The

NCUAQMD states in the fourth paragraph, “ Sampling

and analysis for asbestos content of the quarry ma-

terial conducted by Lawrence and Associates and

the California Air Resources Board in 1993, resulted

in asbestos content that averaged less than the al-lowable

1%.” I realize that this test sample does not

represent all the material used by Trinity County, but it

should be somewhat of a gauge. If this test was repre-sentative

of the entire pit and previous material used,

then the phrase made by the Grand Jury of “ the County

is contributing to the poor health of its citizens” is bi-ased

and unfounded.

RECOMMENDATION # 10: The Grand Jury is rec-ommending

testing all the areas where Thunder Rock

shale was used and if found to be in excess of State

standards, then these areas should be properly capped.

Generally, we utilized shale from the Thunder Rock Mine

when we were reconstructing and improving County

roads in our endeavor to get them surfaced “ capped”.

All of these roads, with the exception of two parking

areas ( which are in addition to the list of fifteen streets

provided the Grand Jury) and three very short segments

of road are all that remain unsurfaced. One of the park-ing

areas is planned for surfacing in 2000, one of the

short County road segments is a resource road with no

residents, and the other two are also on very low vol-ume

roads not adjacent to residents.

Response of County Administrative Officer

Date: June 18, 1999

To: John K. Letton, Superior Court Judge

From: Jeannie Nix- Temple, County Administrative

Officer

Re: Response to 1998/ 99 Trinity County Grand Jury

Finance and Administration Committee

Final Report – Thunder Rock Shale Mine

My response to the findings and recommendations of

the Grand Jury’s Report is as follows:

Recommendation # 1:

The County Administrative Officer is generally not in-volved

in the issuance of use permits or monitoring min-ing

operations. The office would however investigate

complaints about agency performance. This office has

not received any specific complaints about this subject.

Recommendation # 2:

I agree that a tracking system should be in place. I am

not aware that one is not in place.

Recommendation # 3:

The CAO does not generally become involved in Plan-ning

Commission issues.

Recommendation # 4:

The CAO’s office would not have kept any records about

whether the Road Department used the materials from

the Thunder Rock Mine in any year.

Recommendation # 5:

As I understand it, the $ 210.00 fee was never actually

paid. However, it is not uncommon to charge the public

for additional research or copies.

Recommendation # 6:

A Nuisance Response Team, composed of representa-tives

from several County departments and other County

agencies has been formed to address problems that cross

departmental boundaries.

Recommendation # 7:

Petitions presented to the Board of Supervisors are gen-erally

used to alert the Board to the feelings of ( heir

constituents on a particular issue. The Board considers

the content very seriously. Petitions by citizens to local

departments would not change the procedures of that

department. The procedures are set up to address the

rights of all citizens.

Recommendation # 8:

1 agree.

Recommendation # 9:

It is my understanding that the Thunder Rock Mine is

not operating at this time and will not be allowed to

operate until all conditions of the use permit have been

met.

Recommendation # 10:

The asbestos level identified in test samples of material

used by the Transportation Department averaged less

than the allowable one percent.

Conclusion:

I appreciate the Grand Jury’s interest in this very heated

issue. I am aware that the citizens in the area are con-cerned

for their health. It was for this reason that addi-tional

conditions were placed on the use permit by the

Planning Commission and later by the Board of Super-visors

in December of 1996. Based on information pro-vided

by the staff at the Transportation and Planning

departments, I believe that the portrayal of the County

contributing to the poor health of its citizens is unfair.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide a response.

Response of the Planning Director

To: Board of Supervisors

From: John Jelicich, Planning Director

Subject: 1998/ 99 Grand Jury Finance &

Administration Committee Final Report

Re:” Thunder Rock Mine”.

Background:

The background section of the report contains state-ments

which are misleading and incorrect. These state-ments

are discussed in the body of this response as they

relate to the findings and recommendations.

In addition, the Grand Jury’s “ Background” section in-cludes

statements of conclusion such as, “ no action was

taken that mitigated these complaints” and “ a reclama-tion

plan was approved” which is inaccurate and mis-leading.

The background is a distortion of the record

and appears to be a summary of the complaint received

from an area resident rather than an objective summary

of events.

Finding # 1:

“ It appears that the Thunder Rock mine operated at

times without the proper permits.”

This finding is not correct and is not supported by infor-mation

in the record previously provided to the Grand

Jury.

During a public hearing held on December 14, 1995,

the Planning Commission determined that “ the use per-mit

is valid and referred the use permit back to the Plan-ning

Director to make a determination for the need to

modify conditions, and if so, schedule it for public hear-ing.”

( Minutes of Planning Commission, 12/ 14/ 95) ( A

public hearing was later scheduled to modify the use

permit conditions by the Planning Commission on Au-gust

8, 1996 and, on appeal, by the Board of Supervi-sors

on December 3, 1996.)

“ Even when there was a permit in effect, the operation

violated the conditions of the permit in terms of hours

and days or operation”

This finding is not correct and is not supported by infor-mation

in the record previously provided to the Grand

Jury.

Prior to purchase and operation of the subject mine,

then commonly referred to as “ Shale- for- Sale”, Mr.

Brookins, the current property owner and mine opera-tor,

obtained a copy of the use permit for the mine ( I am

uncertain if this was from the Planning Department file

or from a previous owner). The permit he had when the

Planning Department questioned its validity had one

condition which read: “ Compliance with Chapter 70 of

the Uniform Building Code”. It was the only condition

on the permit in the Planning Department file ( Frazier,

UO- 269). After. receiving complaints from area resi-dents

regarding the mine operation and in order to de-termine

compliance, the Planning Department reviewed

the record. In doing so, we learned- that a copy of the

Planning Commission minutes pertaining to the issuance

of the permit was not in the file. We retrieved them off

of microfiche records. At that time we became aware

that the Planning Commission in 1976 included the fol-lowing

two additional conditions as part of its motion to

approve the mine operation: “ Operate only on week days

and During normal working hours”. Therefore, based

on his knowledge of the use permit conditions, the mine

operator was in compliance with the use permit. The

Planning Department challenged the validity of the use

permit. On December 14, 1995 the Planning Commis-sion

determined that the use permit was valid and re-ferred

the matter to the Planning Director to determine

if the permit should be modified. The permit was later

modified to incorporate 13 conditions of approval. This

information has been previously provided to the Grand

Jury.

“ No county office or employee monitored the mine op-eration

for permit compliance even after residents com-plained.”

This assertion is not correct and is not supported by

information in the record previously discussed with the

Grand Jury.

The Planning Department received complaints from resi-dents

and acted as quickly as possible to act on them.

Frequently, the person receiving the call would immedi-ately

drive to the site, although this was not always pos-sible.

Dust and blasting were a problem prior to taking

the matter to the Planning Commission; however, com-plaints

received after notice was given to the operator to

cease operations were found to be unsupported. At times

it was clear that no activity was taking place: for ex-ample,

there would be no dust on the highway or in the

air, the road leading from the highway to the mine had

not been used by heavy equipment ( this was most ap-parent

for complaints received during the winter months

when the road was damp), at times we would observe

other activities in the area, such as the burning of brush

pile which created smoke and haze. It should also be

pointed out that the roads in the Tucker Hill area are

surfaced with this same shale material and contribute to

the dust problem experienced by area residents. Again,

this is not to suggest that there was never a problem

with the mine, there was dust and noise prior to the

notice to cease activities for non- compliance with the

Surface Mining and Reclamation Act and prior to the

Planning Commission hearing. These activities may have

been a violation of laws and regulations under the juris-diction

of other agencies, but at that time was not a

violation of the use permit.’

Recommendation # 1:

The recommendation, for the Board of Supervisors to

direct planning staff to monitor mining operations on an

on- going basis” is unnecessary. When verifiable com-plaints

are received they are acted upon.

Finding # 2:

“ The building and use permit, which was issued for an

“ approximate” one- year period, was allowed to linger

for twenty years with no review to ensure code compli-ance.

( This failure to “ final” the permit also deprived

the county of tax revenue for property improvements.)

This finding is misleading and is not supported by infor-mation

in the record of either the Planning or Building

Departments.

That portion of the finding pertaining to the use permit

conditions has been discussed under finding # l. Asser-tions

made that the permit was valid for one- year were

discussed during a public hearing and the Planning Com-mission

made its determination based on information

presented during its review of the matter. As the record

indicates, on December 14, 1995 the Planning Com-mission

found that the use permit was valid.

The second portion regarding the issuance of a building

permit is best addressed by the Building Department. I

discussed this matter with the building technician at the

Building Department ( at the time the Grand Jury report

was submitted the building department was experienc-ing

a major staffing change). Apparently the issue re-garding

the issuance of a building permit was not re-searched

by the Grand Jury. The phrase “ to linger for

twenty years with no review to ensure code compli-ance”

is an unsupported assertion.

The third issue, that “ failure to ` final’ the permit also

deprived the county of tax revenue for property im-provements”

is also an unsupported assertion. Property

tax assessments, particularly in 1976, are not based on

the “ final” of building permits.

Recommendation # 2:

The Planning Department has for many years used a

tickler system for tracking limited term entitlements. The

Building and Planning Departments will be modifying

our tracking systems, changing from a manual tickler

system to a coordinated, computerized permit tracking

system. There is insufficient funding at this time to en-ter

permits issued in the past, but the CAO and Board

of Supervisors have recognized and supported the need

to modernize our procedures. Efforts are currently un-der

way to enter early building permit records, we an-ticipate

Board support to enter planning department en-titlements

from prior years also. It is important to point

out, however, that permit tracking would have no effect

regarding the “ Thunder Rock” use permit. There is no

information on the permit to indicate that it was of lim-ited

duration. As discussed previously, in December 1995

the Planning Commission found that the permit was still

valid for mine operations.

The tracking system being implemented at this time is

coordinated with other county agencies having a legiti-mate

need to access information. Confidential files will

not be shared. Again, it appears that the Grand Jury did

not investigate this issue.

Finding # 3:

“ The Planning Department and/ or Commission neglected

to ensure that the Thunder Rock Shale Mine was in

compliance with the requirements of the several agen-cies

mentioned.” This finding is both inaccurate and

misleading. It is based on a statement in the staff report

for the August 8, 1996 Planning Commission meeting

( the Commission did not meet on July 31, 1996) which

is taken out of context. There is no connection

what- so- ever between the quoted statement from the

staff report and the Grand Jury’s finding. The County

does not enforce the regulations of state agencies. The

Planning Department does coordinate with other agen-cies

in the review and monitoring of projects. The record

for the Thunder Rock mine project clearly indicates con-tact

with various state agencies. The staff report for the

August 8, 1996 meeting was prepared to modify the

conditions of the use permit previously determined by

the Planning Commission to be valid. The added condi-tions,

13 of them, included many which directly relate

to compliance with other agencies. While the county

does not enforce state agency standards for mine opera-tions,

failure to comply with them could not only result

in citations or other actions by the affected state agency,

but also lead to revocation of the use permit.

Reconunendation # 3:

While the finding is inaccurate as it relates to the Thun-der

Rock permit, the recommendation does have some

merit. Code enforcement could be improved. Gener-ally,

this activity lacks funding. The Planning Depart-ment

has taken action to improve training for its person-nel

to ensure that code enforcement activities are car-ried

out in a professional and legal manner. Those county

agencies with code enforcement responsibilities have

been meeting regularly to discuss procedures and to de-velop

a coordinated complaint tracking system. There-fore,

this recommendation is not necessary since county

agencies are already taking necessary action in this area.

Finding # 4:

This finding states that the Planning Commission deci-sion

on December 14, 1995 to validate the Thunder

Rock use permit was based partially on information from

the county Department of Transportation. It further states

that the Director of the Department of Transportation

has not provided satisfactory documentation to support

a statement made that it has obtained material from the

subject mine on a yearly basis since 1982. I was not

interviewed regarding this issue. The Director of Trans-portation

is responding to this finding. I can state, how-ever,

that there is a major misconception on the part of

the Grand Jury regarding the Department of

Transportation’s role in determining the validity of the

use permit.

Upon notification by the Planning Department that the

use permit may not be valid because, based on state-ments

from area residents, it appeared that the mine

had been inactive for many years, the permittee, Dwayne

Brookins, made contact with previous owners of the

property and attempted to obtain records from them to

demonstrate that the mine had continued to operate over

the years. The primary issue was whether the mine

ceased to operate for a year or more. Mr. Brookins

learned that previous owners had not maintained records

of their activity. In an attempt to prove that the mine

had continued to operate, Mr. Brookins contacted the

Department of Transportation. The Department of

Transportation provided a letter, dated August 11, 1995,

to Mr. Brookins for the Planning Commission hearing

on December 14, 1996 advising that the department

had “ on a yearly basis, at least as far back as 1982,

utilized shale rock from the shale pit you now own.” It

was not necessary for the Department of Transporta-tion

to prove that it had obtained material without inter-ruption.

The Planning Commission and Planning De-partment

staff used this information as one piece of in-formation

to demonstrate that the mine continued to

operate. It is unreasonable to assume that the county

Department of Transportation was the sole purchaser

of shale product from the mine. It was the Planning

Commission’s judgement, based on their assessment of

the information provided during the December 14, 1995

hearing, that the permit was valid. At that point the de-cision

had been made. Planning Staff accepted the deci-sion.

The Planning Department then proceeded to take

action to modify the conditions of the use permit to

meet current standards and to address the need for a

reclamation plan before the mine could operate.

Recommendation # 4:

I disagree with this recommendation. It assumes that

the only criteria used for the validity of the permit was

information supplied by the Department of Transporta-tion.

This is not true. Even if an exhaustive review of

the Department of Transportation records were made

and a gap of time occurs during which the Department

did not purchase material, I would not recommend re-vocation

of the permit or a finding that it was invalid. As

stated above, it is unreasonable to assume that other

parties did not purchase material from the mine. While

previous owners did not maintain accurate records, the

information provided by the Department of Transporta-tion

was, in the judgement of the Planning Commission,

sufficient to demonstrate that the mine continued to op-erate.

Finding # 5:

This finding pertains to fee charges for information from

the Department of Transportation. I was not interviewed

regarding this issue.

Recommendation # 5:

This issue does not pertain to the Planning Department.

Finding # 6:

This issue pertains to coordination between departments.

I agree that the Department of Transportation was not

aware “ Shale for Sale” ( now Thunder Rock mine) was

not on the State list of approved mines. ( This is a list of

mines in compliance with the California Surface Mining

and Reclamation Act.) While the State maintains this

list, we will advise the Department of Transportation of

mines in Trinity County with approved reclamation

plans.

Recommendation # 6.

County agencies regularly coordinate with one another

on a variety of issues. The Planning Department was

not aware that Department of Transportation did not

have the State list. Each permit condition states the re-sponsible

agency for enforcement. If an agency is not

listed, then the Planning Department would enforce the

condition. Any use permit condition which is not fol-lowed

could lead to revocation or modification of the

use permit. It is important to point out, however, that

Thunder Rock mine has not been found to be in viola-tion

of their use permit. They have not, to my knowl-edge,

operated since December 1995, with the excep-tion

of the declared emergency due to flooding. Activi-ties

under the emergency were authorized under the

Governor’s declaration and by action of the Board of

Supervisors. This information has been previously pro-vided

to the Grand Jury.

Finding # 7:

I was not interviewed regarding these statements, which

appear to be from area residents.

Recommendation # 7:

This recommendation does not appear to follow from

the finding. Areas zoned Rural Residential do allow min-ing

upon obtaining a use permit. Thunder Rock mine

has a valid use permit. All actions to obtain the use

permit in 1976 and modify the permit in 1996 were

conducted during advertised and properly noticed pub-lic

hearings.

Finding # 8:

I disagree with this finding. I was not interviewed re-garding

this matter. It is not a correct statement. As

discussed above, the county has a multi- agency, coordi-nated

system of handling complaints.

Recommendation # 8:

I agree with the recommendation. Such a process ex-ists.

Regarding the complaints concerning Thunder Rock

mine, complainants regularly called to learn the status

of their complaints. Priority is given to matters affecting

health and safety.

Finding # 9a:

I do not recall being questioned by the Grand Jury re-garding

any advise concerning an appeal of the Planning

Commission’s determination that the use permit was

valid. I deny making this statement. Further, following

the Planning Commission’s determination that the origi-nal

1976 permit was valid, a subsequent public hearing

was conducted by the Planning Commission on August

8, 1996 to determine if the permit should be modified.

The Commission’s modification of the permit was ap-pealed

to the Board of Supervisors by both the permit-tee

and residents of Tucker Hill. The time to appeal any

of the actions concerning the validity of the permit has

passed. Our department has not received an acceptable

reclamation plan from the mine operator. If the Plan-ning

Commission approves a reclamation plan for the

mine, then interested persons have the opportunity to

appeal that decision to the Board of Supervisors. If the

mine is not operated in compliance with the use permit

then action could be considered by the Planning Com-mission

to revoke the use permit.

Finding # 9b:

I did not discuss this matter with the Grand Jury. It is

not a true statement. The only fee I am aware of which

costs $ 280 is the appeal fee to the Board of Supervi-sors.

This finding appears to be a statement from the

complainant and not a matter researched by the Grand

Jury.

Recommendation # 9:

I do not agree with the recommendation, because the

findings in # 4 and # 9 are not correct as already dis-cussed

above. The use of a mediator is clearly inappro-priate.

These matters must be discussed during a public

hearing. Public hearings have already been held and de-

cisions made regarding the use permit. If a reclamation

plan is submitted, then a public hearing will be held on

that matter. The mine is not allowed to operate until it

has met the conditions of the use permit.

Finding # 10:

I was not interviewed regarding the use of the shale

material from the mine. It is more appropriate for the

Department of Transportation to respond to this matter.

Recommendation # 10:

This matter should be addressed by the Department of

Transportation. I can, however, state that “ Thunder Rock

Quarry” was issued a “ Permit to Operate NM- 074” and

“ Authority to Construct NAC- on January 17, 1996 by

the North Coast Unified Air Quality Management Dis-trict.

A complete copy of these permits were provided

to the Grand Jury.

I hope that my responses to the Grand Jury’s report

have helped to clarify issues relating the Thunder Rock

mine.

I respectfully request that this response and that of the

Department of Transportation be made part of the final

report.

Response of the Board of Supervisors

August 17, 1999

Trinity County Grand Jury

P. O. Box 1258

Weaverville, CA 96093

Re: Finance and Administration Committee Final

Report Thunder Rock Shale Mine

Dear Foreperson:

The Finance and Administration Committee of the

1998- 99 Trinity County Grand Jury issued a report re-garding

the Thunder Rock Shale Mine. The Trinity

County Board of Supervisors responds as follows.

Both the county Planning Department and county Trans-portation

Department have responded to the specifics

of the report, as it relates to their operations, and the

Board of Supervisors supports those responses.

Mining has occurred on Weaver Creek for a century

and as half and rock quarries have operated in the Union

Hill and what is now known as Tucker Hill area, on

both sides of Weaver Creek, for several decades. Rural

residential and natural resource uses of land can some-times

conflict and this report exposes an example of

that. Tucker Hill residents have taken their complaints

about the now idle Thunder Rock mine to both the Trin-ity

County Planning Commission and Board of Super-visors

on a number of occasions and the county has

tried to respond to their concerns by requiring adher-ence

to all State and Federal laws with additional re-quirements

regarding times of operation and dust abate-ment.

The Trinity County Board of Supervisors has every con-cern

about the health, safety, peace and comfort of county

residents and does not disregard their collective voice,

by petition or otherwise. With a geologist now on the

staff of the county Planning Department, Trinity County

is even better equipped to monitor and enforce the pro-visions

of the California Surface Mining and Reclama-tion

Act and use permit requirements of our County

Planning Commission.

The Board appreciates the hard work the Grand Jury

put into this report and thanks the Grand Jury for the

opportunity to respond.

Sincerely,

TRINITY COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

S/ S

ROBERT REISS, Chairman

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

TRINITY COUNTY GRAND JURY

1998- 1999

FINAL REPORT

HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

COMMITTEE

This report was approved

on April 8, 1999

Filed on May 3, 1999

1998- 99 TRINITY COUNTY GRAND JURY

HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

COMMITTEE FINAL REPORT

INVESTIGATION OF TRINITY COUNTY

HEALTH AND HUMAN

SERVICES DEPARTMENT

CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES DIVISION

PURPOSE:

To report on the reviews of the operations of emer-gency

response procedures of the Child Protective Ser-vices

Division of the Trinity County Health and Human

Services Department.

BACKGROUND:

An investigation was undertaken into the adequacy of

the emergency response procedures of CPS relative to

children at risk. The Grand Jury received reports that

reports about children at risk were not being handled

properly by CPS personnel.

METHOD OF INVESTIGATION:

An investigation was undertaken into the complaints that

the Child Protective Services Division was not respond-ing

properly to allegations of child endangerment.

FINDING # 1:

The Grand Jury investigated public complaints that CPS

did not respond to allegations of child endangerment in

a timely and proper manner. In interviewing the com-plainants,

CPS management, the acting supervisor and

case workers, the Grand Jury found that the CPS per-sonnel

named in the complaints were either no longer

employed by the department or had been transferred.

RECOMMENDATION # 1:

The Grand Jury recommends that, in spite of the emo-tionally

laden nature of the work, CPS must continue to

follow and abide by established laws and mandated pro-cedures

in responding to allegations of child endanger-ment.

FINDING # 2:

As a result of the reorganization of the CPS Division,

the morale and personnel problems which had been re-ported

by the 1997- 98 Grand Jury have been greatly

ameliorated. A number of former staff members have

either been reassigned to non- CPS positions or have

been otherwise replaced. Since the reorganization of the

division, there have been no new complaints submitted

by members of the public regarding the actions or pro-cedures

of the division or of its personnel as it relates to

child health and safety.

RECOMMENDATION # 2:

The Grand Jury recommends that continued recruiting

efforts be undertaken in order to bring the division up to

full staff. This will enable the work load to be distrib-uted

over a broader base, insuring that the improved

and improving morale will be sustained to the benefit of

the children who make up the division’s clientele.

CONCLUSION:

The Grand Jury commends the management, supervi-sion

and staff of the CPS Division for the efforts that

have been made to improve difficult situations. They

have made great progress in meeting the needs of the

public and mandates of State and Federal regulations

that are in a state of flux.

30 DAY RESPONSE REQUESTED FROM: Director

of Health and Human Services Department.

Response of the Board of Supervisors

July 20, 1999

Jerry Boosinger

Trinity County Grand Jury

P. O. Box 1258

Weaverville, CA 96093

RE: Health and Human Services Committee

Final Report Investigation of

Trinity County Health and Human Services

Department Child Protective Services Division

Dear Foreperson:

The following is the Board of Supervisors response to

the 1998- 99 Grand Jury Health and Human Services

Committee Final Report regarding Trinity County Health

and Human Services Child Protective Services Division:

Recommendation # 1

We agree with the Grand Jury.

Recommendation # 2

We agree with the needs and demands for efforts to be

undertaken to bring the division to full staff, and are in

full support of recommendations and efforts by Direc-tor

Linda Wright in meeting these requests.

Conclusion:

The Board of Supervisors appreciates the work the

Grand Jury has done in providing this report.

Sincerely,

TRINITY COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

ROBERT REISS, Chairman

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

This report was approved

on April 8, 1999

Filed on May 3, 1999

1998- 99 TRINITY COUNTY GRAND JURY

HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES COMMIT-TEE

FINAL REPORT

INVESTIGATION OF TRINITY COUNTY

HEALTH

AND HUMAN SERVI