PLUMAS COUNTY

2005- 2006

GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT

In Memory of MAX BENTON 1941- 2006

" Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change

the world, indeed it is the only thing that ever has"

Through his life, Max Benton was a part of many groups of such people and did

his share of changing the world wherever he was.

Max came to Plumas County upon retiring in 2000 and became active in local

endeavors through the Chester chapter of Rotary, The Chester Community

Chorus, The Westwood Theater Group, The Almanor Culinary Arts Academy,

and many others.

He was a valuable, contributing member of the Plumas County Grand Jury for

two successive years 2004- 2005 and 2005- 2006. His knowledge, wit, and

incomparable sense of humor did much in keeping us focused.

1

2

Table of Contents Page

Foreperson’s Cover Letter 1

2005- 2006 Grand Jury Committees 3

2005- 2006 Grand Jury Members 3

Introduction 4

Note to Respondents 5

Distribution List 7

Plumas County Reviews 8

Feather River College 8

Auditor/ Controller 8

Jail 9

Planning and Building 11

Veterans Service Office 12

Board of Supervisors 14

Animal Control 16

Sheriff’s Department 19

Complaint Summaries: Nature, Findings and Recommendations 20

Complaint # 05/ 06- 1 20

Complaint # 05/ 06- 2 20

Complaint # 05/ 06- 3 20

Complaint # 05/ 06- 4 21

Complaint # 05/ 06- 5 21

Complaint # 05/ 06- 6 23

Complaint # 05/ 06- 7 23

Complaint # 05/ 06- 8 23

Complaint # 05/ 06- 9 23

Complaint # 05/ 06- 10 23

Complaint # 05/ 06- 11 24

Complaint # 05/ 06- 12 24

Complaint # 05/ 06- 13 25

Complaint # 05/ 06- 14 25

Complaint # 05/ 06- 15 25

Complaint # 05/ 06- 16 26

Complaint # 05/ 06- 17 26

Complaint # 05/ 06- 18 26

Complaint # 05/ 06- 19 27

Complaint # 05/ 06- 20 28

Complaint # 05/ 06- 21 28

Complaint # 05/ 06- 22 28

Complaint # 05/ 06- 23 29

Plumas County Grand Jury History of Investigations 30

3

Plumas County Grand Jury Committees

2005- 2006

County Administration

County Services

Editorial Review

Health, Education, and Social Services

Law, Justice, and Public Safety

Oversight

Special Districts

Plumas County Grand Jury Members

2005- 2006

Gregory Margason, Foreperson, Quincy

Max Benton, Foreperson pro tem, Canyon Dam

Dawn Schoyen, Recording Secretary, Chester

Sheila Grothe, Treasurer, Taylorsville

Bill Mainland, Corresponding Secretary, Portola

Cynthia Baker, Quincy

Paul Baker, Greenville

Dennis Durham, Lake Almanor

Robert Fink, Quincy

Mel Hovnanian, Graeagle

Marjorie Hacker, Twain

Larry Kellett, Meadow Valley

Gloria McDonald, Portola

Gary Partee, Chester

Lyn Sherrard, Clio

Dave Story, Graeagle

Theresa Warden, Portola

Pamela Weis, Quincy

4

Introduction

Your 2005- 2006 Plumas County Grand Jury is a body of eighteen ( originally

nineteen) Plumas County citizens charged and sworn to respond to citizen

complaints and to inquire into matters of civil concern within the boundaries of

Plumas County and incorporated cities within these boundaries. Grand Jury

duties, powers, responsibilities, qualifications and selection process are set forth

in the California Penal Code section 888 et seq.

The Grand Jury reviews and evaluates procedures, methods, and systems used

by governmental agencies to determine whether they comply with stated

objectives of the agency and if their operation can be made more effective and

efficient. It may inquire into any aspect of the county and city government, special

districts, joint powers agencies and service districts funded in whole or part by

public monies, to ascertain that the best interest of Plumas County residents are

being served.

The Grand Jury reviews all citizen complaints and investigates when appropriate.

All complaints are treated confidentially. This applies to both written documents

as well as the testimony of witnesses and participants. The complainant may be

asked to appear as a witness. A complaint form may be obtained by contacting

the Jury Commissioner's Office, or:

Plumas County Grand Jury

P. O. Box 784

Quincy, CA 95971

The Grand Jury functions lawfully only as a body. No individual grand juror,

acting alone, has any power or authority. Meetings of the Grand Jury are not

open to the public. Law requires all matters discussed before the Grand Jury and

votes taken to be kept private and confidential. The end result of inquiries into

civil matters are released to the public in a final report which is reviewed, prior to

release, by the supervising Judge of the Superior Court of the County.

The Penal Code requires the Grand Jury to:

• Inquire into the condition and management of jails within the county.

• Investigate and report on the operations, accounts, and records of county

officers, departments, and functions.

• Inquire into the willful or corrupt misconduct in office of public officers.

• Submit a final report of its findings and recommendations, no later than

the end of its term, to the Supervising Judge of the Superior Court.

Agencies to which these recommendations are directed are required to

5

respond to the Plumas County Grand Jury within 90 days after the final

report is released.

Participation in Grand Jury investigation and discussion is an opportunity to get

an intimate look at how government works and to make informed and valuable

recommendations regarding possible improvements. It is also an opportunity to

serve with fellow county residents and to discover how a body of nineteen

citizens reaches consensus. Service on the Grand Jury is also a way to

contribute and to make a positive difference. Jurors serve 12 months and may be

requested to serve a second 12 months. The term of the Grand Jury runs from

July 1 to June 30.

Note to Respondents

Effective January 1, 1997, there was an extensive change in the law affecting

respondents and responses to Grand Jury findings and recommendations. The

legal requirements are contained in the California Penal Code, Section 933.05.

For assistance of all respondents, Penal Code Sec. 933.05 is summarized as

follows:

How to Respond to Findings

The responding person or entity must, within time frames specified in Penal Code

Section 933 ( c), respond in one of two ways:

1. That you agree with the finding.

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

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

include an explanation of the reasons for disagreement.

How to Report Action in Response to Recommendations

Recommendations by the Grand Jury require action ( Penal Code 933.05). The

responding person or entity must report action on all recommendations in one of

four ways:

1. The recommendation has been implemented, with summary of the

implemented action.

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

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

3. The recommendation requires further analysis. If the person or entity

reports in this manner, the law requires an explanation of the analysis

or studies in a time frame not to exceed six months.

6

4. The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not

warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation.

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

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

the Board of Supervisors shall respond if the Grand Jury so requests, but the

response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those budgetary or

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

Requirement to Respond

No later than 90 days after the Grand Jury submits a final report on the

operations of any public agency subject to its reviewing authority, the governing

body of the public agency ( includes departments) shall comment to the presiding

judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to

matters under the control of the governing body, and every elected county officer

or agency head for which the Grand Jury has responsibility pursuant to Section

914.1 shall comment within 60 days to the presiding judge of the superior court,

with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors, on the findings and

recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of that county officer or

agency head and any agency or agencies which that officer or agency head

supervises or controls. All of these comments and reports shall forthwith be

submitted to the presiding judge of the Superior Court who impaneled the Grand

Jury.

7

Distribution List

The final report of the 2005- 2006 Plumas County Grand Jury will be distributed to

the following individuals and agencies:

The Honorable Judge Ira Kaufman

The Honorable Judge Garrett W. OIney

Plumas County Grand Jury for 2005- 2006

Plumas County Grand Jury for 2006- 2007

Plumas County Board of Supervisors

Clerk of the Board of Supervisors

Plumas County Administrative Officer

Plumas County Auditor/ Controller

Plumas County Building Department

Plumas County Clerk

Plumas County Counsel

Plumas County Department of Human Resources

Plumas County Development Commission

Plumas County District Attorney

Plumas County Facility Services Department

Plumas County Flood Control and Water Conservation District

Plumas County Information and Technology Department ( Website)

Plumas County Jail

Plumas County Libraries

Plumas County Office of Emergency Services ( OES)

Plumas County Planning Department

Plumas County Probation Department

Plumas County Public Health Agency

Plumas County Sheriff

Plumas County Unified School District

California State Archivist

California Attorney General’s Office

City of Portola

All Special Districts ( 47)

Local Agency Formation Commission ( LAFCo)

Fire Departments

Feather River College

California Grand Jurors Association

Plumas County Court Executive Officer

8

Plumas County Reviews

Review of Feather River College

The Grand Jury is charged with reviewing all aspects of county government,

since everything cannot be covered this is usually done by looking at the areas

which are required to be investigated every year and then the remaining ones on

a rotating basis, Since Feather River College had never been reviewed, the

2005- 2006 Grand Jury decided to undertake this task.

The subject review was started but we soon discovered that it was such a

complex job due to the several entities which make up the total institution:

Administration, Board of Directors, Faculty, Students, and the very involved

communication between them, plus the additional complications which developed

that we could not do it justice within the time available to this years jury.

It is fairly easy to merely make a list of perceived problems and/ or

shortcomings, but we believe that to present a comprehensive picture of an area

which is of such importance to the county citizens and the student clientele it

would be best to continue this investigation into the ensuing Grand Jury year.

Plumas County Auditor/ Controller

Findings

1. The Board of Supervisors failed to establish the Audit Committee by

November 1, 2005 as they agreed to do in their response to the 2004-

2005 Grand Jury report.

2. At the Board of Supervisors meeting of April 4, 2006, it was commented

that an Audit Committee still had not been established. At the Grand Jury

meeting of April 6, 2006, a request for the nomination of two Grand Jury

members to the Audit Committee was received from the County Counsel’s

office.

3. As of the writing of this report, June 8, 2006, the Audit Committee still

does not appear to be established or functioning.

9

Recommendations

The Grand Jury recommends that:

1. The Audit Committee be established and commence operation.

2. The Auditor/ Controller Subcommittee Chair and the Treasurer of the

Grand Jury be nominated as the two Grand Jury representatives to the

committee.

Plumas County Jail

INTRODUCTION

The Plumas County Jail was completed in 1976 for the detention of both male

and female adult inmates. In 1985 an addition was completed and the facility is

now capable of housing sixty- seven ( 67) inmates. The facility houses pretrial

defendants and persons who are serving a sentence of one ( 1) year or less.

Inmates sentenced to state prison are housed at the jail awaiting transportation

to a prison facility. As with so many jails in the state of California, the Plumas

County Jail is outdated and in need of many major repairs and should be

replaced.

REASON FOR INVESTIGATION

Pursuant to California Penal Code Section 919 the Grand Jury must annually

inquire into the condition and management of all public prisons located within the

County

PROCEDURES FOLLOWED

The Grand Jury members:

1. Inspected the Jail on 12/ 01/ 05 and did a follow- up inspection on

02/ 15/ 06.

2. Read and reviewed policy and procedure manuals, researched the

California Board of Corrections websites http:// www. cdcr. ca. gov

and http:// www. cdcr. ca. gov

3. Reviewed past Grand Jury reports.

4. Interviewed personnel.

10

FINDINGS

1. Due to age, size and condition it is in need of replacement.

2. Reports show a change in classification, by severity of offense, of

inmate percentages is causing housing issues.

3. Staffing levels are low. Injuries, vacation and training cause undue

stress on remaining personnel.

4. The assigning of a full- time Facilities Services maintenance person

has been a great improvement to the productivity of the jail staff.

The deficiencies noted in the 2004/ 05 Grand Jury Report have

been mostly taken care of with the exceptions of the Control Room.

The working area of the staff has been redone. The maintenance

person has started bringing the jail to the newer standards set by

the Board of Corrections. Work maintenance logs are now available

and accessible. Still needed at the last jail tour were the logs for fire

safety, sprinkler and fire extinguisher ( these were started, not

finished).

5. The Control Room still remains a crowded maze of wires and there

is no known completion date. See the Board’s Response to Finding

# 4, Plumas County Jail, from the 2004- 2005 Grand Jury Final

Report: “ Agree. However, the County notes that a RFP ( Request

For Proposal) with specifications is being done for the repairs in the

control room wiring. This RFP is estimated to be completed by

December 2005.”

RECOMMENDATIONS

At the time of writing this portion of the report there has only been talk of

replacing the jail in the long term County strategic plan. While there may be

State and Federal funds available for replacing the jail, this will still take time and

major planning. The increase in the percentage of violent crime offenders, in

addition to the condition of the jail, has created an unsafe workplace.

The Grand Jury recommends that:

1. The Board of Supervisors ( BOS) include a new jail in the strategic

plan.

2. The Facilities Services Department continue to support the full-time

maintenance person at the jail, and encourage his continued

proactive maintenance.

3. The Facilities Services Department and BOS follow up on the

control room repairs. According to the BOS response to last year’s

Grand Jury this should have been completed by the February 16,

2006 inspection.

11

4. The Sheriff evaluate the staffing levels for the jail and request the

creation of additional positions, as necessary.

Planning & Building

Introduction ( Statement of Function)

The Department of Planning & Building Service’s overall mission is to administer

the County General Plan through land use, and building permit review, issuance,

and inspection. Additionally, the department maintains the plan and assures

that the ongoing Ordinance remains consistent with the plan. Administration of

the General Plan requires timely processing of permits for land divisions, special

use permits, variances, recreation facilities, building permits and other such

applications. The department is the environmental review agency for the County

assuring compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act so as to

protect the integrity of project approvals both public and private.

The department additionally provides support for other departments and districts

by maintaining county- wide maps, census data, and historical data necessary for

their operations. Public assistance is the perceived primary goal.

Reason for Investigation

A review of this department was conducted as the result of receipt of two citizen

complaints during the previous management. This was not a thorough review in

deference to the Department Administrator having been on duty for only a few

months.

Procedure Followed

Interviews were held with the Department Administrator and the County Counsel.

Commendation

The Grand Jury supports the positive philosophy and attitudes of the department

administrator and staff.

Findings

1. According to interview statements the department is functioning with a

public service philosophy. The Administrator is in the process of

reorganizing the department and is open to public input.

2. The county currently contracts out for engineering service. It appears this

is not cost effective as it is costing the county over $ 200,000 per year.

12

3. Temporary Certificates of Occupancy ( TCOs) do not consistently include

date of issuance and expiration dates as noted through review of several

such TCOs. Consequently tracking of TCOs has not been consistent.

Recommendations

The Grand Jury recommends that:

1. The Board of Supervisors determine the cost effectiveness of hiring an

engineer vs. contracting out for such service.

2. The Building and Planning Department institute a computerized tracking

system as soon as possible regarding all permits.

3. All TCOs should include issuance date and expiration date.

4. The 2006/ 2007 Grand Jury consider in depth review of this department.

Veteran’s Service Office

Introduction- Statement of Function

The purpose of the Veteran’s Service Office is to assist veterans and/ or their

dependents in filing for and obtaining benefits, as a result of military service.

Federal benefits include monetary compensation for service connected

disabilities, pension benefits resulting from wartime service, educational benefits,

application for discharge review and upgrade, life insurance, medical treatment,

transportation to medical appointments at the Veterans Administration Medical

Center, Reno, NV, and home loans. California veterans benefit programs

include; home loans, employment assistance, inter- departmental referrals,

college fee waiver, and veterans’ license plates. The Veteran’s Service Office

also provides referrals to numerous Federal, State, and local agencies

concerning a wide variety of social issues as well as full case management

services.

Reason for Investigation

According to Grand Jury records the Veteran’s Service Office was last reviewed

in 1995/ 1996.

Procedure Followed

The new department administrator was interviewed. The Grand Jury was

provided a complete folder outlining Veteran’s Services overall mission, history,

services, budget and new community outreach program.

13

Commendations

1. The Plumas County Board of Supervisors has financially supported

Veteran’s Services in this county for many years. Records indicate that

the quality of services here draws numerous veterans to our services from

surrounding counties, where services are either not available or are of

lesser quality.

2. The Veteran’s Services Office is conducting an aggressive outreach

program to the North and East of the county this year. This appears to be

fiscally sound and appreciated by veterans in the outlying communities.

3. The Plumas County Veteran’s Service Office is commended for providing

professional and quality services to veterans and their families, in an

efficient and fiscally sound manner.

Finding

The list of staff ancillary duties/ activities is extensive considering the staff

consists of a maximum of 3 people. These staff members are trained

outreach workers and have no clerical support, which detracts from their

outreach function.

Recommendation

The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors fund at least a

.75 Full Time Equivalent clerical employee for the 2006/ 2007 fiscal year.

14

Board of Supervisors

Introduction- Statement of Function

The Plumas County Board of Supervisors is established by State Law and

consists of 5 elected members. Each member represents a geographic area in

the County equal to approximately 20% of the population as determined in the

last decennial census. Members of the Board of Supervisors are considered

non- partisan and are elected for four year, staggered terms.

The Board of Supervisors is responsible for the enactment of Ordinances and

Resolutions, the adoption of the annual budget for County departments and

dependent special districts for which they sit as the governing Board of Directors,

approval of new programs and grants, and the adoption of land use and zoning

plans. The Board of Supervisors is the policy making body with the County, not

including schools and independent special districts. Between 90- 95% of the

County budget which the Board adopts each fiscal year is the result of State

mandates.

Reason for Investigation

The 2004/ 2005 Grand Jury recommended a thorough review of the Board of

Supervisors by the 2005/ 2006 Grand Jury. This recommendation resulted from

the Board of Supervisors failing to respond in a timely and thorough manner to

recommendations made by the 2002/ 2003 Grand Jury.

Procedure Followed

The 2004/ 2005 Grand Jury recommendations were thoroughly reviewed.

Interviews were conducted, including each Supervisor, the County Administrative

Officer, the Administrative Assistant, the Board Clerk, the former CAO,

Building/ Planning Services Administrator, County Clerk/ Recorder and the County

Counsel.

Findings

1. The Board of Supervisors does not have a “ Vision Statement” nor does it have

a “ Strategic Plan”. Consequently Department Heads have little or no

comprehensive guidance to follow with respect to the future of the county or their

respective departments. The Board does have a list of Board Policy priorities for

the year.

The Board of Supervisors has authorized the County Administrative Officer to

spearhead a committee to develop a Vision Statement and Strategic Plan for the

forthcoming year.

15

2. The Board is reviewing the use or potential use of all county owned property.

One example is the acquisition of the Armory property which could potentially

become the site of a new jail and or courthouse.

3. The Board is insuring that Plumas County is up- to- date and has input

regarding the State of California “ Water Resources Board” and its effect on

Plumas County resources.

4. While state code does not require the Board of Supervisors to implement

recommendations from the Grand Jury it does require timely and reasonable

responses.

Stating “ agree” or “ disagree” with no action statement or explanation is not

adequate.

Setting timelines for completion of recommendations and then ignoring them is

also not adequate. The cursory review of Grand Jury recommendations

conducted at the April 4, 2006 meeting implies that the Board places little value

on the Grand Jury process.

5. There is no apparent concern by the Board of Supervisors to ensure that the

public is informed in a timely manner of their actions. This is evidenced by the

fact that the Board meeting minutes are not posted on the internet for up to six

weeks following each meeting. Other means of informing the public are not

employed, other than limited newspaper coverage. Only one supervisor

expressed belief that this is an issue and that the public is concerned and

interested.

6. Some Supervisors are not fulfilling their obligation to attend community

advisory meetings on a regular basis nor to provide appropriate oversight of

county departments, such as Facility Services.

Recommendations

1. The Grand Jury commends the Board of Supervisors decision to develop a

Vision Statement and Strategic Plan and encourages the Board to conclude the

process in a timely manner and to then adopt such planning as an ongoing

process.

2. The Grand Jury recommends the Board continue its proactive approach to

land acquisition and sales.

3. The Grand Jury recommends the Board continue its proactive approach in

working with the “ Water Resources Board.”

16

4. The Board of Supervisors has a public trust to uphold and as such pay due

respect to Grand Jury findings and recommendations. Responses to

recommendations made by the Grand Jury be realistic as well as informative.

This Grand Jury recommends that the 2006/ 2007 Grand Jury continue to review

the actions and conduct of the Board of Supervisors and hold them accountable

to the public.

5. The public deserves to have access to Board of Supervisors meeting content

in a timely and efficient manner. The time utilized by the Board Clerk to type

minutes from a tape recorder could be better spent on other assignments. Board

minutes do not have to be approved before dissemination to the public if noted,

“ Not approved”. Today’s technology is such that the Board meetings can be

audio- recorded on disc, and digitally transferred to paper. This can then be

readily placed on the internet. The discs can be copied and disseminated for a

fee to those citizens who wish to hear the board meeting content, and for those

who do not have internet access. It is not acceptable for individual Supervisors to

imply that the public is “ not really interested” or to claim that the public will “ take

things out of context”.

6. The Grand Jury recommends that each Supervisor document his or her

attendance at community advisory meetings on a regular basis, and report on

same at Board meetings. Supervisors require documentation from Department

Administrators when seeking information relative to those departments’

responsibilities.

Animal Control

Introduction

The Animal Control Department was placed under the supervision of the Sheriff's

Department in 2001. The Department's Administrator is a Sergeant in the

Sheriff's Office who states that he currently devotes 50% of his time to the

administration of Animal Control and 50% of his time to his other law

enforcement duties. It is the Grand Jury’s understanding that prior to the transfer

of supervision to the Sheriff's Office, there was little staff guidance and indeed no

written policies or procedures manuals for them to follow. The current Safety

Guidelines and General Orders manuals were developed by the Sheriff's

Department. According to the Departmental General Orders, Animal Control

aspires to three main goals:

• To protect the public health while assisting the animal owners of Plumas

County.

• To protect the welfare of animals and to promote responsible pet

ownership.

• To promote an atmosphere of peace and harmonious relationships

between animal owners and non- owners.

17

The Department usually employs 3 full- time Animal Control Officers, 1 full- time

Administrative Assistant and 1 part- time Kennel Assistant. The Department is

unable to utilize volunteer help as liability issues make workers' compensation

insurance for volunteers cost prohibitive.

Reason for Investigation

The Grand Jury, under California Penal Code No. 914, is charged with the

specific responsibility of investigating and reporting on all aspects of County

government. The Animal Control Department had not been reviewed since the

2003- 04 term. In addition, we received a complaint from a citizen and after

reviewing the supporting documentation, determined a review of the Department

was warranted and would be undertaken by this Grand Jury.

Procedures Followed

During the course of the investigation, this Grand Jury interviewed the

Department Head and staff members. We reviewed the Department's General

Orders, Safety Guidelines, various statistical data and internal documents. We

also toured the Quincy facility.

Findings

1. The " Animal Control Safety Guidelines" manual is incomplete. There is no

written Departmental policy or procedure on accidental needle sticks. Also, the

" Animal Control General Orders" manual is incomplete. There is no written

Departmental procedure on euthanasia.

2. The Animal Control Department is under the supervision of the Sheriff's

Department. Employees of Animal Control are represented by the Operating

Engineers Union whereas the employees of the Sheriff's Department are

members of the Sheriff's Association. These two entities have different

standards and operating practices.

3. Many of the laws applicable to the Animal Control Department fall under the

Agricultural Code rather than the Penal Code.

4. On average, Staff meetings are held only once per year.

5. Animal Control General Order Section III, A- 10., states that " the pens shall be

cleaned and the animals checked for food and water every 24 hours, minimally".

This policy is not being followed. There is one day per week where no employee

is scheduled to care for or feed the animals.

6. Dosages for euthanasia drugs are determined by animal weight. There is no

scale to weigh the animals.

18

Recommendations

The Grand Jury recommends that:

1. Policies and procedures for accidental needle sticks and for animal

euthanasia be developed and implemented immediately.

2. The Animal Control Department be removed from the Sheriff's Office

supervision and moved to a more appropriate department.

3. The Department Head hold staff meetings a minimum of 4 times per year.

4. Staff coverage be sufficient to provide care for the kennel animals 2 times per

day, 7 days per week.

5. A weight scale be acquired and that its use be implemented immediately.

6. An oversight committee be formed. Membership could include the head of

the supervising department and volunteers from the community.

19

Sheriff’s Department

Background

As recommended by the 2004- 2005 Grand Jury, this Grand Jury continued the

investigation of the Plumas County Sheriff's Department ( PCSD). Significant time

and effort was invested in further interviews and document reviews. Additional

allegations of misconduct by PCSD personnel were uncovered.

Findings

1. The allegations of misconduct which were investigated by the Grand Jury were

not supported by documentary evidence or testimony by first- hand witnesses.

Unsupportable formal and informal complaints against the PCSD have been

presented to the Plumas County Grand Jury for at least the last five years.

2. The Attorney General's Office, which was invited into the PCSD investigation

by the 2004- 2005 Grand Jury, withdrew from participation early in 2006 because

it could find no first- hand testimony or evidence of felony offenses.

3. Staff meeting frequency and regularity are not consistent throughout the

PCSD, in some cases degrading communications and supervision efficiency.

Recommendations

The Grand Jury recommends that:

1. Citizens not elevate to the level of formal complaints second or third hand

stories of official misconduct for which they have no supporting evidence and can

not deliver important sworn testimony.

2. PCSD implement a uniform policy of frequent, regular staff meetings to

enhance the quality of supervision and intra- departmental communication.

20

COMPLAINT SUMMARY

COMPLAINT # 05/ 06- 1

Nature of Complaint

Complainant reported “ dishonest, improper, illegal and inefficient” behavior on

the part of the Portola City Council.

Response

The Grand Jury sent a letter to complainant indicating that the complaint lacked

adequate specificity for the Grand Jury to act and suggested that complainant

resubmit with some specific details.

COMPLAINT # 05/ 06- 2

Nature of Complaint

This complaint was referred from the 2004/ 2005 Grand Jury. The complainant

brought forth several issues regarding inspections, code violations and contractor

licensure with the county Building and Planning Services Department.

Response

Following investigation of this complaint a letter was mailed to the complainant

advising that personal consultation with the new administrator of this department

is the most effective means of solving concerns. The new philosophy and

reorganization of the department should prevent such concerns in the future.

COMPLAINT # 05/ 06- 3

Nature of Complaint

This complaint was Complaint # 04/ 05- 14 from the previous year’s Grand Jury.

Response

Complainant’s problem was solved without needing Grand Jury intervention.

21

COMPLAINT # 05/ 06- 4

Nature of Complaint

Building horse corrals close to complainant’s property and creating a nuisance

with flies and odors.

Response

A letter was drafted referring complainant to the County Environmental Health

Department and also recommending that complainant contact the Planning

Department if there are questions concerning zoning issues.

COMPLAINT # 05/ 06- 5

Nature of Complaint

Complainant, a resident of Portola, reported that on January 16, 2004

complainant paid $ 100 down to the Portola Cemetery District ( PCD) for a $ 300

plot adjacent to those of complainant’s parents and that same day an out- of-county

relative ( OCR) sent a check for the remaining $ 200 to the district. This

check reportedly was a personal loan to the complainant. Complainant supplied

copies of the check and receipts signed by the district manager.

Complainant’s sibling ( CS), with whom complainant is in litigation over the estate

of their parent, was subsequently appointed to the board of directors of the PCD.

The OCR later received a warrant, dated 04/ 29/ 04, in the amount of $ 300 from

Plumas County along with a letter, dated 04/ 14/ 04, from the cemetery district

secretary. The letter stated a mistake was made and that to a non- resident of

Portola the price of the plot would be $ 500 and was under review to be increased

to $ 785. The OCR wrote two letters to the district board. The first, dated 5/ 9/ 04

explained that the purchaser was the complainant, not the OCR, and a response

was requested. The second, dated 6/ 21/ 04, addressed to the chairman of the

district board asked for the minutes of the last three meetings of the board and a

copy of the bylaws of the district.

Complainant reports that no reply was received to either communication.

Response

The Grand Jury interviewed the Secretary of the PCD and reviewed his records

of the matter.

22

Findings

1. The nine Plumas County cemetery districts are officially special districts, but

are not included in the list of special districts maintained by the County Clerk.

They are included in the list of Boards, Commissions and Committees

maintained by the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors. The latter list is out of

date, at least as far as the Portola Cemetery District is concerned.

2. Although the PCD officially has an elected board, the members are all

appointed by the district County Supervisor.

3. The PCD receipt supplied to complainant and dated 01/ 16/ 04, the check from

the OCR dated 01/ 16/ 04, and the receipt to the OCR dated 2/ 12/ 04 all specify

the same plot number in the Whispering Pines cemetery.

4. The PCD Secretary did not have a copy of the receipt of the complainant’s

$ 100 deposit, which was a cash payment.

5. The refund warrant from the county to the OCR was for $ 300, not $ 200, which

was the amount of the OCR’s check.

6. The minutes of the April 14, 2004 PCD board meeting state that the board

member CS presented a complaint from the complainant but does not specify

the contents of that complaint. The minutes state that CS said that CS bought

two cemetery plots the previous year and was promised six more plots. A

motion was made and passed to write a letter to the OCR saying a mistake

was made in selling OCR the plot and to refund the cost of the plot.

7. The cemetery district’s records indicate that the specific plot originally sold to

the complainant is now owned by the board member CS.

8. The PCD Secretary has a letter to PCD from the Plumas County Auditor-

Controller’s office, dated 12/ 2/ 04, which reports that the $ 300 warrant issued

was stale dated and had been cancelled, with the funds transferred into the

unclaimed trust fund.

Recommendations

This complaint appears to be a product of an ongoing private struggle between

estranged siblings, however, the Grand Jury recommends that:

1. Public officers not use their office to gain advantage in private disputes.

2. County supervisors use extra care to avoid selecting special district

board appointees who bring to office private agendas.

23

3. The next Grand Jury review all the cemetery districts, which do not receive

much publicity and remain obscure to the public.

4. The County Clerk include the cemetery districts in the list of special

districts maintained by that office.

COMPLAINT # 05/ 06- 6

COMPLAINT # 05/ 06- 7

COMPLAINT # 05/ 06- 8

COMPLAINT # 05/ 06- 9

COMPLAINT # 05/ 06- 10

Nature of Complaints

These five complaints, all against the Feather River Canyon Community Services

District ( FRCCSD) addressed the issues of frequently interrupted, low pressure,

and occasionally unsanitary water service at one of the seven systems

maintained by the district. The complainants also reported a perceived lack of

constructive response from the FRCCSD Board of Directors.

Response

The Grand Jury interviewed the Chairman of the FRCCSD Board of Directors

and the Director of the Plumas County Community Development Commission

( PCCDC) and gleaned the following information:

The FRCCSD was formed in the 1980’ s in response to California State

Department of Health Services ( CSDHS) newly enforced requirements on water

systems. The district was form by multiple business owners with separate water

systems in order to become eligible for grant funds necessary to update the

water systems to meet new state requirements. These funds were made

available to the district, largely as a result of the efforts of the PCCDC and the

systems were upgraded by 1989.

In the ensuing years the canyon population, and water demand, grew while the

water systems equipment deteriorated. Necessary repairs became more and

more frequent, with the district raising its annual budget from about $ 15,000 to

$ 43,000 in 2005, still with an expected loss. About 2000, the CSDHS imposed

new requirements on the district which require significant investment and with the

help of the PCCDC in 2004 the district obtained block grants for $ 326,000, which

will be used to cover work to commence this summer. The work specified in the

24

grants does not include improvements to the system which is the subject of the

complaints, but some funds may be redirected to such use.

It appears that the population base in the FRCCSD is large enough to create a

water demand that exceeds the capacity of some systems, but is not large

enough to finance the upgrades necessary to increase capacity and meet the

CSDHS requirements. This district appears to have been surviving only on the

charity of the federal and state governments.

COMPLAINT # 05/ 06- 11

Nature of Complaint

Complainant reports that a Sheriff’s Deputy, while answering a burglary call at

complainant’s business establishment dealt with complainant in a rude and

unprofessional manner.

Response

This complaint will be referred to the 2006- 2007 Grand Jury.

COMPLAINT # 05/ 06- 12

Nature of Complaint

Complainant reported concerns about the quality of classes being offered at

Feather River College. Complainant felt that classes had been “ watered down”.

Priorities seem to be misplaced for educating the students.

Response

The Grand Jury, pursuant to California Penal Code 914, is charged with specific

responsibility to investigate and report on all aspects of county government,

including community colleges.

Administration, operations, and practices can be discussed or investigated by the

Grand Jury. Curriculum cannot be challenged.

25

COMPLAINT # 05/ 06- 13

Nature of Complaint

This complaint was carried over from the 04/ 05 Grand Jury. The complainant

questioned the legitimacy of a card lock transaction.

Response

The Grand Jury found that it was common for County employees to use a County

credit card for gas when they use their cars for work related procedures.

Recommendation

The Grand Jury recommends that the County Administrative Officer and the

Board of Supervisors review county travel policy concerning such use of credit

cards.

COMPLAINT # 05/ 06- 14

Nature of Complaint

Complaint involved accusation of a breach of confidentiality by Court employees.

Response

Complainant was advised by letter that Court employees are under the

jurisdiction of the State of California, and not Plumas County. Consequently the

Grand Jury may not review this complaint. Complainant was advised to consult

with the department administration.

COMPLAINT # 05/ 06- 15

Nature of Complaint

Complainant reports incidents of retaliation, harassment and failure to follow

written policies at Feather River College.

Response

The Grand Jury does not investigate personnel matters. Since complainant has

retained legal counsel the complainant should follow the advice and counsel of

the attorney as to rights and remedies in this matter.

26

COMPLAINT # 05/ 06- 16

Nature of Complaint

The complainants alleged improprieties with the lay- off procedure followed by the

county and benefits due temporary employees.

Response

The Grand Jury declined to pursue this complaint. The complainants should

contact the Human Resources Department or their union representative for

resolution of their complaint.

COMPLAINT # 05/ 06- 17

Nature of Complaint

The complaint alleged numerous instances of policy violation and impropriety in

the Animal Control Department.

Response

After reviewing the complaint and it's supporting documentation, it was

determined that a review of the Department was warranted. The review of

Animal Control is included in the body of this Final Report.

COMPLAINT # 05/ 06- 18

Nature of Complaint

Complainant accused a current County Supervisor of a “ conflict of interest” by

simultaneously holding two public offices.

Response

The Grand Jury sought County Counsel opinion on this matter. Subsequent to

this opinion a letter was sent to the complainant indicating that no “ conflict of

interest” exists, as a co- op board of directors is not a public office.

27

COMPLAINT # 05/ 06- 19

Nature of Complaint

Complainant charges that “ Temporary Occupancy Permits” were not properly

issued prior to occupancy of the Animal Shelter and the Permit Center, and that

such permits are not offered to private landowners on an equal basis.

Response

Following investigation of this complaint a letter was mailed the complainant

advising of the following:

As a result of numerous interviews regarding this matter, and the receipt of

additional documentation, the Grand Jury has concluded the following:

1. Appropriate Temporary Occupancy Permits were in place for both the Animal

Shelter and Permit Center at the time of occupancy.

2. At a later date there was a lapse in issuance of “ Temporary Occupancy

Permit” for the Animal Shelter, apparently the result of no tracking system in

place for such permits.

3. Some Temporary Occupancy Permits contain a stated expiration date, while

others do not.

4. There is apparently no Building Code regulation requiring such stated

expiration dates.

5. Temporary Occupancy Permits are issued to private landowners.

The following recommendations will be forwarded to the Building and Planning

Services administrator as well as to the Board of Supervisors:

1. Institute a computerized tracking system as soon as possible regarding all

permits— including date of issuance and expiration date.

2. All Temporary Occupancy Permits should include issuance date and

expiration date.

28

COMPLAINT # 05/ 06– 20

Nature of Complaint

Complaint alleges loss of institutional controls at Feather River College allowing

for dishonest, improper and inefficient operations.

Response

The Grand Jury advised complainant by letter that it would bear in mind

complainant’s concerns in its future review of Feather River College.

COMPLAINT # 05/ 06- 21

Nature of Complaint

Complainant charged that a Fundraiser was held on county time. The Treasurer’s

office collected the money without stating the purpose of the collected funds.

Response

While the hours of the fund raiser were from noon to 2pm, this was attended

during the county employees’ lunch hours to compensate for the varying lunch

times ( no offices were closed for the purpose of the fundraiser). The treasurer’s

office did not collect the money; however the person that collected the money

works in that office. The funds are set up in a personal account and are not

subject to Grand Jury review.

COMPLAINT # 05/ 06- 22

Nature of Complaint

Complainant objects to the treatment he claims to have received from the

Plumas County Child Protective Services Department.

Response

This complaint will be forwarded on to the 2006- 2007 Grand Jury.

29

COMPLAINT # 05/ 06- 23

Nature of Complaint

Complainant claims a Plumas County Judge was biased in the decisions made in

his court case.

Response

The Grand Jury wrote a letter to the complainant informing him that the Grand

Jury has no jurisdiction over judges, who are state employees, and referred him

to the Judicial Council of California.

30

Grand Jury Investigation History

Plumas County Grand Jury Evaluations

DEPARTMENT/

AGENCY/ PROGRAM

Earlier

Years

2000-

2001

2001-

2002

2002-

2003

2003-

2004

2004-

2005

2005-

2006

Adminstrative/ CAO 95- 96 X

Assessor 95- 96,

98- 99

Auditor/ Controller X X

Board of Supervisors X X

Clerk/ Recorder X inc.

Chamber of Commerce

Information Technology 99- 00

Fair X

Farm Advisor

Law Library 99- 00 F/ U

Library 98- 99

Literacy Program 98- 99

Museum 98- 99

Human Resources 99- 00 X

Treasurer/ Tax Collector 98- 99

Alcohol and Drug 95- 96 X inc.

Senior Services

District Attorney – Family

Support Division

97- 98

Mental Health 95- 96,

99- 00

Plumas County Public

Health

Agency

X

Public Administrator

Public Guardian/ Conservator 99- 00

Sierra House 99- 00

Social Services 95- 96

Veteran’s Services 95- 96

Animal Control 95- 96 X X X F/ U

County Counsel

District Attorney 98- 99

Fish and Game Commission

Jail 98- 99 X X X X X

Victim Witness

Office of Emergency

Services

31

DEPARTMENT/

AGENCY/ PROGRAM

Earlier

Years

2000-

2001

2001-

2002

2002-

2003

2003-

2004

2004-

2005

2005-

2006

Probation 98- 99 X X

Juvenile Hall X X

Public Defender

Sheriff/ Coroner 95- 96,

96- 97

98- 99

X X INC

Fire X X X F/ U

Ag. Commissioner

Engineering

Environmental Health

Housing and Community

Development

Local Agency Formation

Commission

Planning X X X

Public Works 95- 96,

97- 98

98- 99

X F/ U

Plumas County Flood

Control

and Water Conservation

District

X X INC

Airport Operations

Facility Services 99- 00 X X

Recreation Districts 95- 96

Nutrition Programs 95- 96

Plumas Corporation X

Hospital Districts X

Plumas Unified School

District

X X X

Feather River College INC

Portola Cemetery District INC

Key: F/ U = Follow- up investigation

INC = Incomplete investigation