2004- 2005 Grand Jury Final Report i

Table of Contents

Introduction

Functions of the Civil Grand Jury…………………………………………………. iii

Judge’s Letter to the Grand Jury…………………………………………………… v

Grand Jury’s Letter to the Judge………………………………………………….. vii

2003- 2004 Grand Jurors…………………………………………………………….. ix

Acknowledgements…………………………………………………………………. xi

Notice to Respondents

Notice to Respondents………………………………………………………….…. xiii

2004- 2005 Grand Jury Reports

County/ City Government

Health and Human Services,

Mental Health Department……………………………………………..…………… 1

City of Plymouth…………………………………………….…………….………… 17

Amador County Airport……………………………….……………………..…….. 29

Amador County Animal Control………..……………….………………………… 33

Criminal Justice

Amador County Detention Facility……………..………………...……………….. 37

Mule Creek State Prison…………………………………….…………...………….. 41

Pine Grove Youth Authority…………………..…………………………….…....... 45

Preston Youth Correctional Facility………………………….….………………… 49

Citizens Complaints

Introduction……………………………………………………..…………………… 53

2003- 2004 Citizen Complaints……………………………………………………… 54

Responses to the 2003/ 2004 Grand Jury Report

Introduction………………………………………………..……...…………………. 57

Amador County Law Enforcement…………..…………………...…..…………… 59

Amador County Detention Facility………………………………...…………….. 107

City of Plymouth……………………………………………………...……………. 111

City of Jackson- Kennedy Meadows………………………………..…………….. 119

Arroyo Ditch………………………………………………………………..………. 125

River Pines Public Utility District………………………………………..……….. 129

ii 2004- 2005 Grand Jury Final Report

Appendices

A) Citizen Complaint Form…………………………………………………….…. A- 1

B) Grand Jury Glossary……………………………………………………………. B- 1

C) County of Amador Policies and Procedures Manual - number 2- 100 .......... C- 1

D) County of Amador Policies and Procedures Manual - number 2- 900…...... D- 1

2004- 2005 Grand Jury Final Report iii

Functions of the Grand Jury

The Grand Jury, as mandated by the California Constitution, is part of the

Judicial Branch and is an arm of the Court. The Civil Grand Jury has two

responsibilities: to act as a civil watchdog conducting investigations and to

answer citizen complaints.

The Grand Jury investigates city and county government, as well as special

districts, to ensure the interests of Amador County citizens are being served.

County government procedures, methods and systems are reviewed and

evaluated to determine if more efficient and economical programs might be

employed.

The Grand Jury issues final reports on county government operations. The

reports describe problems encountered and make recommendations for

solutions. The County board of Supervisors and/ or the affected agencies or

districts must comment on these recommendations.

The Grand Jury is required to:

• Evaluate conditions of jails and detention centers within the county.

The Grand Jury is also authorized to:

• Inspect and audit county books, ensuring that public funds are properly

and legally accounted for.

• Investigate and report on the performances of special districts or

commissions.

• Investigate charges of willful misconduct by public officials or employees.

• Investigate and report on “ questionable business practices” of such

agencies.

As part of the civil function, the Grand Jury receives letters from citizens alleging

mistreatment by officials, suspicions of misconduct or government inefficiencies.

While the complaints are kept confidential, they are acknowledged and

investigated for their validity. If needed, a recommendation for corrective action

can be made under the Grand Jury’s jurisdiction.

iv 2004- 2005 Grand Jury Final Report

2004- 2005 Grand Jury Final Report v

vi 2004- 2005 Grand Jury Final Report

2004- 2005 Grand Jury Final Report vii

viii 2004- 2005 Grand Jury Final Report

2004- 2005 Grand Jury Final Report ix

2004- 2005 Amador County Grand Jury

Stephanie Armstrong

Theresa Armstrong

Joseph Bonini

Ruth Deits

Sheryl Green

Mike Guidera

Walter Hoeser

Bronwyn Hogan

Douglas Levy

Cynthia Masters

Arthur Peacock

Barbara Peterson

Darrold Price

Mary Reinert

David Rogers

Donald Schick

Nancy Slenger

Linda Willing

Wayne Wright

x 2004- 2005 Grand Jury Final Report

2004- 2005 Grand Jury Final Report xi

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The 2004/ 2005 Amador County Grand Jury could not have completed its

investigations without the help and support of a number of people. The Grand

Jury wishes to thank: Judge Susan Harlan; Mary Kraft and Christine Price; John

Hahn, County Counsel; Todd Riebe, District Attorney; Michael Dean, Plymouth

City Attorney, Gloria Stoddard, Plymouth City Clerk; and Jacob Rambo,

Assistant District Attorney.

We would also like to thank Patrick Blacklock, County Administrative Officer;

Mike Prizmich, Sheriff; Karl Knobeloch, Undersheriff; Ron Rockett, Captain for

their insightful assistance.

ARTWORK AND ARTISTS

The Grand Jury would like to thank the following artists, both amateur and

professional, for their contributions of scenes of Amador County which illustrate

this report. Although we were not able to use all of the artwork presented to us,

we would also like to thank the other young artists from Argonaut and Amador

High Schools.

Cortney Palmer and Samantha Moon from Mr. Pretto’s Argonaut High School

Art Class.

Erica Neville from Mr. Huggett’s Amador High School Art Class.

Sarah Armstrong

Sarah is an amateur photographer, attends American River College and resides

in Jackson.

Marie Martz- Mort

Marie is an amateur photographer and a professional designer and producer of

fine jewelry. Her creations may be seen at Gallery 10, Sutter Creek.

Alice Duke

Alice is a professional artist who specializes in scenes of Amador County. Her

images may be seen at Gallery 10, Sutter Creek.

xii 2004- 2005 Grand Jury Final Report

2004- 2005 Grand Jury Final Report xiii

Notice to Respondents

Response Requirements:

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 California Penal Code, Section 933.05. Each

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

doubt, should consult legal counsel before responding.

How to Respond to Findings:

For the assistance of all Respondents, Penal Code Section 933.05 is summarized

as follows:

The responding person or entity must respond in one of two ( 2) ways:

• That you agree with the finding.

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

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

include an explanation of the reasons for the disagreement.

How to Report Action in Response to Recommendations:

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

entity must report action on all recommendations in one of four ( 4) ways:

• The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary of the

implemented action.

• The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be

implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation.

• The recommendation requires further analysis. If a person or entity

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

analysis or study and timeframe not to exceed six months. In this event,

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

governing body of the agency being investigated.

• The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted

or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore.

xiv 2004- 2005 Grand Jury Final Report

2004- 2005 Grand Jury Final Report 1

AMADOR COUNTY MENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT

ANONYMOUS COMPLAINT

Introduction

The 2004- 2005 Amador County Grand Jury received an anonymous complaint

alleging that mismanagement and low morale in this department were

negatively affecting mental health services to the county’s patients. The

complaint also alleged a pervasive fear of retaliation by management against

staff members who came forward with their concerns.

The Grand Jury elected to investigate pursuant to California Penal Code section

925.

Background

The Department of Mental Health is located within Amador County’s Health

and Human Services Agency. Its mission statement notes that “ Amador County

Mental Health strives to provide high quality, accessible, and appropriate mental

health services to the County residents who have serious mental disabilities

and/ or emotional disturbances.”

The current Director of the Mental Health Department has been in his position

for nineteen months at the time of the writing of this report. He was interim

Director for approximately six months after the former Director’s resignation.

Method of Investigation

Members of the Grand Jury conducted interviews and reviewed documents.

Persons Interviewed:

County Administrator

Assistant County Administrator

Director of Amador County Health and Human Services ( HHS)

Director of the Amador County Mental Health Department ( ACMH)

Current ACMH staff who are in the office regularly

Former ACMH staff ( employees, volunteers, and interns)

Employees of agencies who work with or utilize the services of ACMH

2 2004- 2005 Grand Jury Final Report

Documents Reviewed:

Amador County and Service Employees International Union ( SEIU), Local 4988,

October 2002 – September 30, 2005, Memorandum of Understanding

( MOU)

Job Descriptions, ACMH Staff

County of Amador Policies & Procedures Manual 2- 900

Dress and Personal Appearance – issue date, June 2, 1998

County of Amador Policies & Procedures Manual 2- 100

Sexual Harassment – issue date, January 18, 2000

Personnel documents and employee notes provided by former employees

California Code of Regulations; Title 2, Division 9, Page 438

2003- 2004 Grand Jury report

ACMH Department Policies and Procedures

Facts

1. Every employee of the ACMH Department interviewed was asked the

same set of questions to focus the interviews and to evaluate

consistency of information.

2. After the first round of interviews, additional interviews were

conducted, as needed, to follow up on initial information gathered.

3. The majority of current employees interviewed at ACMH ( 14 out of 16)

expressed some degree of dissatisfaction with the current management

of the department. Specific areas of dissatisfaction, stated by

employees, include the following:

a. Poor communication from the ACMH Director regarding issues

affecting staff.

b. Perception of favoritism by the Director toward certain

employees.

c. The Director used a demeaning management style and

expressed excessive anger when addressing and “ correcting”

employees.

d. The Director, at times, admonishes employees in front of other

staff.

e. Pervasive fear of retaliation from the Director if a staff member

offers suggestions or criticism about how to improve the

department.

f. The Director has threatened employees’ professional licenses or

their employment.

2004- 2005 Grand Jury Final Report 3

g. The Director fosters dissension between employees by sharing

conversations with other staff members.

h. The Director provides little or no positive feedback to staff and

inadequate feedback regarding issues pending in the

department.

i. The Director’s management style is to react unilaterally to

specific situations without regard to the consequences and

without seeking input from staff members.

j. The system of time- keeping has led to problems within the staff.

Various staff members have been charged with keeping track of

other staff members’ time, outside the supervisory chain of

command. There has been an uneven application of rules and

abuse of time under the current system of signing in on

computers.

4. A majority of former ACMH employees, volunteers or interns ( 10 of

12) reported that anticipation of the new Director and/ or his

managerial style was a factor in their decision to leave the department.

While some former employees reported that various other

considerations also affected their decision to leave, many left primarily

due to the actions of the new Director and some left solely for this

reason, even though this caused several of them financial hardship and

loss of retirement benefits.

5. Most current employees interviewed report problems within the staff,

including:

a. Allegations of cultural, ethnic and religious harassment and/ or

insensitivity.

b. Threat of physical injury by one staff member to another.

c. Gossip and accusations regarding sexual conduct and sexual

orientation.

d. Blurred boundaries regarding authority of staff members over

each other ( i. e. staff members keeping track of other staff

member’s time).

e. Increased tensions between support and professional staff.

6. More than 50% of current and former staff persons interviewed

described the department as a “ hostile,” “ toxic,” and “ unhealthy”

work environment.

7. ACMH management, specifically the Director, is responsible for

resolving intra- staff problems that affect morale. Desirable

4 2004- 2005 Grand Jury Final Report

qualifications listed in the job description of the ACMH Director

include the following:

• Knowledge of “ principles and techniques of effective

employee supervision and training.”

• Ability to “ review the work of Department staff and

resolve problems” and “ Establish and maintain

cooperative working relationships.”

8. ACMH employees lack a clear procedure for dealing with grievances.

Some cited “ talk to one’s supervisor” or “ go up the chain of

command” as their understanding of the grievance process. Others

mentioned “ going to the union” with grievances, though they were

unclear about the process and expressed little hope of action.

Employees report there was a suggestion/ complaint box in the

department at one time, but it was removed mid- 2004 because it was

used as a means of personal attacks.

9. The Grievance section ( 19) in the County/ SEIU MOU has formal

grievance procedures, however it “ strongly encourages” employees to

try to resolve issues informally before filing a formal grievance.

10. The ACMH’s solution to problems within the staff was to hold

intermittent “ team building” workshops at a cost of $ 9,000 for three

sessions.

11. These three all- day sessions necessitated closing the clinic and thus

caused a loss of departmental income, as well as an interruption of

services, on these dates.

12. After two of the team building workshops, more than 50% of the staff

interviewed reported little or no improvement in resolving problems

within the department.

13. Many employees, as well as agencies that interact with the Mental

Health Department, complained of a deterioration of the children’s

programs offered by ACMH. This meant a longer time span between

triage and treatment, an increase in cancelled appointments, frequent

change of therapists, and an increase in the time between face- to- face

visits with children in residential treatment, which was perceived by

some being out of compliance with the California Code of Regulations.

2004- 2005 Grand Jury Final Report 5

14. Employees, including the Director, interviewed state that about two-thirds

of patients leave treatment prematurely if therapists are

changed.

15. Between July 2003 and February 2005, ACMH had a turnover of 38.6%.

The next highest Amador County Agency experienced a turnover of

23%.

16. In addition to such duties as developing and administering the budget

and controlling expenditures, the Health and Human Services

Director’s job description includes the following desirable

qualifications:

• Ability to “ review the work of the agency staff and resolve problems,

establish and maintain cooperative working relationships.”

• Ability to “ provide direction, supervision and training for the agency

staff.”

17. At least five employees reported that they went to the Director of the

Health and Human Services Agency with some of the problems stated

above; they reported no resolution of the problems.

Findings

1. There is low morale among staff at ACMH.

2. Morale problems at ACMH are contributing to a high rate of staff

turnover in the department.

3. High turnover is expensive. The loss of a trained employee and the

subsequent advertising, recruitment, interviewing and finally hiring

and training of a new employee is a significant expense and can result

in a significant loss of productivity while the new employee is brought

up to speed. The high turnover in the Amador County Mental Health

Department results in ongoing expenses and lower productivity.

4. High turnover results in lower quality patient care. It lowers

productivity and quality of service to the community.

5. High turnover contributes to a loss of continuity and interagency

cooperation in addressing patient problems. In many cases, the needs

of county mental health patients are best served by interagency

cooperation and communication.

6 2004- 2005 Grand Jury Final Report

6. Since therapists work on- call hours, flextime schedules, and in off- site

settings, time keeping in ACMH can be complicated.

7. Team building cannot be accomplished with three sessions if there is

no follow- up on a day- to- day basis. This follow- up should be done by

ACMH management and emphasized on a daily basis with a plan to

foster this “ team building” environment. If taxpayer money is going

to be spent on workshops, then the results of those workshops need to

be implemented and fostered.

8. An adverse work environment, such as reported by ACMH employees

and former employees, exposes the County to potential litigation and

the attendant expenses.

9. The problems encountered in ACMH have not been addressed by the

Director of Health and Human Services.

Recommendations

1. There should be ongoing training to improve supervisory, managerial

and communications skills for the management of ACMH. If

performance evaluations warrant it, additional training should be

tailored to address specific issues or weaknesses. Examples of

additional training might include communications skills and anger

management.

2. Require the Director to supply his superior and the County a written

plan to improve the working environment and effectiveness of ACMH.

The plan should include how to implement the team building

recommendations from the workshops into the day- to- day functioning

of the Department. It should include a timeline and measurable goals.

The plan should also be a part of the performance evaluation of the

Director and be reviewed by his supervisor and the County

Administration, and be included in the response to the Grand Jury.

3. Such a plan should include, but not be limited to, quarterly meetings of

ACMH employees ( management and staff) with staff input into a

published agenda. These meetings should address current issues and

problems, problem solving, suggestions and/ or exercises, goal- setting

for the next time period, and recognition of good performances and

successes from the previous time period.

2004- 2005 Grand Jury Final Report 7

4. If the goals in the plan are not being met, this should be reflected in the

Director’s performance evaluation. There should be a specific structure

for ongoing evaluation, of the ACMH Director’s management of the

staff, by the Health and Human Services Agency and the County

Administrative Office.

5. Supervisors should be responsible for keeping track of employee time

and ensuring that rules regarding timekeeping are applied evenly to all

staff. If supervisors cannot manage the appropriate monitoring of

employees’ work hours, ACMH should install and use a time- recording

device to standardize the record keeping of employees’ work time

arrival and departure. Also this device should be used to record

employee breaks, lunchtime, and other office departures.

6. Develop an informal grievance procedure for ACMH. The procedure

should include guidelines for how those grievances should be handled

by the receiving parties and what sort of response is required when an

employee uses the informal process. Orient ACMH staff at all levels to

this policy.

7. Identify a management team, to clarify supervisory roles,

responsibilities and lines of communication. Publish this information

for all staff and schedule management team meetings on a regular basis.

Members of the management team should be chosen by position in the

department.

8. Where appropriate, staff input should be solicited and considered when

developing new policies and procedures.

9. Adhere to the personnel guidelines of the County and to County policy

and the expectations ( both the letter and the spirit of the law) of the

Department regarding sexual harassment, ethnic, racial and religious

tolerance, understanding and sensitivity, and workplace dress code and

behavior ( Review page 7, MOU and County of Amador Policies and

Procedures Manual- number 2- 100 and 2- 900 ( see Appendices C & D)

Note: these policies are currently being updated by County

Administration). All employees must review the policies and

expectations on a yearly ( or sooner, if needed) basis and sign an

agreement stating that they know the policies and will comply with

them. This documentation should be placed in all employees’ personnel

files.

8 2004- 2005 Grand Jury Final Report

10. Management should foster an atmosphere of cultural sensitivity.

Respect for diverse populations and cultures is important in the work

place. The environment of the work place must be free of any

intimidation, influence or distraction that interrupts the delivery and

quality of the services provided to the citizens of Amador County.

11. Remove all posters, flyers, jokes, stories or other items that are

inappropriate to be displayed or said in the workplace. Management

must enforce this and set an example for employees to follow.

12. The Director of Health and Human Services should become more

involved in ACMH, both on a regular basis and especially when there

are unresolved personnel issues affecting morale and quality of service

to the community.

Response Required

Response to this report is required from the Amador County Board of

Supervisors and the Health and Human Services Agency pursuant to

California Penal Code sections 933( c) and 933.05.

2004- 2005 Grand Jury Final Report 9

AMADOR COUNTY MENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT

GENERAL REVIEW

Introduction

The 2004- 2005 Grand Jury elected to do a general review of the Amador County

Mental Health Department, pursuant to California Penal Code section 925.

Method of Investigation

Members of the Grand Jury conducted interviews and reviewed documents.

Persons Interviewed:

County Administrator

Assistant County Administrator

Director of Amador County Health and Human Services ( HHS)

Director of the Amador County Mental Health Department ( ACMH)

Current ACMH Staff

Former ACMH staff ( employees, volunteers, and interns)

Employees of other agencies who work with or utilize the services of ACMH

Documents Reviewed:

California Code of Regulations; Title 2, Division 9, Page 438

2003- 2004 Grand Jury report

Facts

1. Child clients of ACMH must at times be placed in treatment facilities

outside of the county in order to meet their particular needs. There are

generally four to five children placed out- of- county at any particular time.

2. The California Code of Regulations specifies face- to- face visits with these

children by their case manager every three months, however, the State of

California signed off on ACMH’s plan to visit such children at least once

every six months due to budgetary constraints.

3. Most ACMH children placed out of county are involved with some other

local agency or agencies, such as AC Child Protective Services, Valley

Mountain Regional Center, AC School District, etc., and may be case-

10 2004- 2005 Grand Jury Final Report

managed by one of these agencies. ACMH is still required to manage the

mental health aspects of these children’s care.

4. Two children placed out- of- county ( and in their cases, out of state) were

not seen by ACMH for 9 months.

5. ACMH staff report that in general they have adequate equipment and

technical support to perform the requirements of their positions.

Employees who regularly work in the field ( specifically in various county

schools) believe they could perform their job requirements more

efficiently if they had laptop computers, saving 30- 45 minutes per client

visit.

6. Staff and administration of ACMH report space is a problem in the

current setting. Grand Jury members observed this when conducting

interviews there. The layout of the current space ( two stories, an elevator

that cannot be seen from reception area, crowded waiting areas, etc.) leads

to problems of accessibility and maintaining privacy and confidentiality.

7. Over 75% of ACMH employees interviewed report they reach the top of

their position’s pay scale within five years and then have few options to

advance to a higher position. At that point they can only look forward to

cost of living adjustments ( COLAs) for pay increases. It should be noted

that this is the same for most county employees.

8. Ninety- five per cent of ACMH professional staff who were interviewed

report they must maintain their professional licenses by obtaining

continuing education credits to retain their positions. They must pay for

this continuing education themselves. It should be noted that this is the

same for most county employees who are licensed.

9. Proposition 63, passed by California voters in November 2004, is an

opportunity to both enhance mental health services and educate the

community about mental health issues and needs. The state mandates

community input in the use of Prop 63 monies and ACMH is seeking such

input.

Findings

1. When children must be placed out- of- county, it is important that they be

seen regularly to ensure their well- being and that they are receiving

appropriate care and treatment.

2004- 2005 Grand Jury Final Report 11

2. Given heavy recording and reporting requirements in mental health

services, field computers would increase staff efficiency by allowing those

requirements to be met on the spot.

3. Properly planned new facilities for ACMH would enhance mental health

services.

Recommendations

1. For each child placed out- of- county, ACMH should designate a particular

licensed staff member, the child’s therapist or a “ placement coordinator”

with the clear and specified responsibility of visiting ( or ensuring that

some other agency is visiting) those clients as mandated and/ or as

needed.

2. ACMH should coordinate with other agencies involved with children

placed out- of- county to ensure that the children are visited at least

quarterly by some Amador County responsible agency to provide

necessary oversight without expensive duplication of travel. For example,

Child Protective Services personnel could verify the mental health

treatment being provided to an Amador County child in placement on

one visit. On a subsequent visit, ACMH could verify conditions relevant

to another agency. This would have the potential of increasing the

number of visits these out- of- county clients receive, without increasing the

cost to agencies ( and in turn the taxpayers).

3. ACMH should purchase laptop computers for the few staff who work in

school settings.

4. The County of Amador is encouraged to plan for increased space for

mental health services with consideration of the particular needs of this

agency. Plans for new facilities should consider increased space,

increased accessibility, and a layout to maximize privacy and preserve

confidentiality.

5. The Grand Jury, while hearing employee concerns, makes no

recommendations regarding salary scales and training costs for licensure

for ACMH employees since this is a countywide issue to be addressed in

collective bargaining.

6. The Grand Jury encourages the community to participate in discussions

and decisions regarding the optimal use of Prop 63 funding for

community mental health.

12 2004- 2005 Grand Jury Final Report

Response Required

Response to this report is required from the Amador County Board of

Supervisors and the Health and Human Services Agency pursuant to

California Penal Code sections 933( c) and 933.05.

2004- 2005 Grand Jury Final Report 13

AMADOR COUNTY MENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT

CRISIS RESPONSE

Introduction

The 2004- 2005 Grand Jury wished to follow up on the work and

recommendations of the 2003- 2004 Grand Jury regarding the relationship

between the Mental Health Department and law enforcement agencies in the

county.

Background

The 2003- 2004 Grand Jury investigated the procedures involved when an

impaired individual, who is considered to be a danger to him/ herself, a danger

to others, or gravely disabled, may be taken into custody, evaluated at Sutter

Amador Hospital, and possibly transported to a mental health facility. The

hospital requires that a “ law enforcement officer or mental health caseworker

remain with the patient until s/ he is no longer considered a danger to self or

others or can be transported to a mental health facility” ( 2003- 2004 Grand Jury

report). The Grand Jury wanted to determine whether more equitable and

efficient options were available for monitoring impaired persons while they are

at Sutter Amador Hospital.

The 2003- 2004 Grand Jury recommended that a committee of all law enforcement

agencies ( including the California Highway Patrol), Amador County Mental

Health, and American Legion Ambulance Services meet to address problems in

this area and explore options that would keep law enforcement officers from

being away from other duties for extended periods, but that would also allow

crisis mental health cases to be handled safely and effectively.

Method of Investigation

Members of the 2004- 2005 Grand Jury reviewed documents and conducted

interviews.

Persons Interviewed:

Administrative personnel from the:

Health and Human Services Agency ( HHS)

Amador County Mental Health Department ( ACMH)

Amador County Sheriff’s Office ( ACSO)

14 2004- 2005 Grand Jury Final Report

American Legion Ambulance Service ( ALAS)

Documents Reviewed

2003/ 2004 Amador County Grand Jury report

Responses by Amador County law enforcement agencies and ACMH to the 2003-

2004 Grand Jury Report

Facts

1. When a person in Amador County is suspected of falling under the

provisions of Welfare and Institutions ( W & I) Code sections 5150 and

5170, they are taken to Sutter Amador Hospital to be evaluated. If it is

determined that in- patient treatment is required, they are transported

out of Amador County, usually to the psychiatric facility in Placerville,

CA, as the County has no in- patient mental health treatment facility.

2. The Director of HHS initiated meetings with her staff and the ALAS

Director to address the problem of transportation for the above

persons.

3. Agreement was reached with ALAS to transport persons in the above

circumstances. The cost to the County will be $ 100.00 per transport.

However, ALAS will bill patient insurance and if reimbursement of

minimum costs is received, there will be no charge to Amador County.

Because of this, ALAS anticipates little or no cost to Amador County.

4. ALAS has drafted an internal policy (# 309.10) to address mental health

transports.

5. The ACSO has convened meetings with the affected agencies to

address the issue of law enforcement officers having to remain with

impaired persons being evaluated at Sutter Amador Hospital until the

person meets the requirements for dismissal, discharge or transport to

a mental health facility.

6. ALAS is willing to have an appropriately trained EMT from their staff

available to attend the above persons at the hospital.

Findings

None

2004- 2005 Grand Jury Final Report 15

Recommendations

None

Conclusions

The Grand Jury commends the Amador County Health and Human Services Agency,

Mental Health Department, Sheriff’s Office and other law enforcement agencies for their

on- going efforts to resolve issues related to 5150 and 5170 W & I.

The Grand Jury extends a special commendation to the American Legion Ambulance

Service for their flexibility and willingness to assist Amador County in this area.

All parties involved express understanding that dealing with and evaluating impaired

persons who may ( or who may not) meet the criteria for 5150 or 5170 detainment is

difficult. Laws and rules protecting the rights of apparently impaired individuals are at

times difficult to reconcile with laws protecting the community from danger or even from

public nuisance. The Grand Jury urges law enforcement and Mental Health Department

personnel to continue mutual education and understanding of the laws that both groups

must deal with and continue to work toward increased cooperation and mutual

assistance.

Response Required

No response required.

16 2004- 2005 Grand Jury Final Report

2004- 2005 Grand Jury Final Report 17

CITY OF PLYMOUTH

BROWN ACT

Introduction

The Amador County Grand Jury received a complaint from a citizen alleging

Brown Act violations by the Plymouth City Council. The citizen alleged that on

October 14 and November 29, 2004 the Council met in closed session under the

litigation exception and then discussed non- excepted issues.

Background

The Ralph M. Brown Act establishes the right of the public to access meetings of

legislative bodies. Generally, the Act requires all meetings of such bodies to be

open and public, with the public properly notified of the meeting.

However, the Brown Act recognizes that in certain circumstances there are

legitimate reasons for legislative body meetings to be closed to the public. It

authorizes closed meetings to deal with issues of personnel, pending litigation,

anticipated litigation, labor negotiations and property acquisition.

It also authorizes criminal prosecutions and civil remedies for violations of the

act.

Method of Investigation

The Grand Jury conducted interviews and reviewed documents

Persons Interviewed

Plymouth City Attorney

Amador County District Attorney

Amador County Counsel

Documents Reviewed

Plymouth City Council Agendas

Letter communication from Plymouth City Attorney

Ralph M. Brown Act

Facts

1. The City of Plymouth held properly noticed City Council meetings on

October 14 and November 29, 2004.

18 2004- 2005 Grand Jury Final Report

2. Closed sessions were held at both meetings.

3. The agenda for both closed sessions indicated the topic for discussion was

“ Conference with legal counsel- existing litigation.” It also listed the name

and case number of the litigation.

4. Amador County Counsel recused himself from providing advice to the

Grand Jury, due to the pending litigation between the County of Amador

and the City of Plymouth.

5. The Amador County District Attorney, with concurrence of the California

State Attorney General’s Office, state that they will not pursue a criminal

prosecution of a violation of the Brown Act once the litigation exception is

claimed by the body.

6. The Plymouth City Attorney, after the City Council waived

attorney/ client privilege, stated that he advised the Council it was

acceptable to go into closed session under the litigation exception of the

Brown Act in both meetings.

7. The City Attorney attended both closed sessions.

Findings

1. The Grand Jury cannot establish that a violation of the Brown act

occurred.

Recommendations

None

Conclusions

The Brown Act is an important safeguard that allows the public to hear about and offer

input to public policy. Although the Grand Jury cannot determine that a Brown Act

violation occurred as alleged, Jury members urge continued education and sensitivity to

this Act by the newly elected Plymouth City Council.

Response Required

Response to this report is required by the City of Plymouth pursuant to

California Penal Code sections 933( c) and 933.05.

2004- 2005 Grand Jury Final Report 19

CITY OF PLYMOUTH

MAINTENANCE SUPERVISOR

Introduction

In response to a citizen’s complaint held over from the 2003- 2004 Amador

County Grand Jury, the 2004- 2005 Grand Jury, pursuant to California Penal Code

section 925( a), elected to review and evaluate the manner in which the City of

Plymouth filled the position of Maintenance Supervisor in April 2004.

The complaint alleged that the open position was not advertised, which violated

the City’s hiring policies and practices. In addition, the complaint alleged that

the person hired for the position did not undergo the City’s mandatory

drug/ alcohol screening.

Method of Investigation

The Grand Jury conducted interviews and reviewed documents.

Persons Interviewed

Complainant

Present and former City of Plymouth employees

Documents Reviewed

Relevant Plymouth City Council minutes

City of Plymouth personnel policies and procedures, specifically “ The Selection

Process”

City of Plymouth Maintenance Supervisor job description

Facts

1. The Plymouth City Administrator, serving at the time, acted as an

unofficial Maintenance Supervisor, but was preparing to retire. He stated

“ I just never felt that I had the time to make the trips and run around and

really do an adequate job of checking up on the public works

crew.”( Minutes, Plymouth City council, 4/ 8/ 04)

2. At the same 4/ 8/ 04 Council meeting, the City Administrator

recommended hiring a part time Maintenance Supervisor. He stated he

20 2004- 2005 Grand Jury Final Report

had spoken to a former Plymouth Ditch and Public Works employee ( and

former Plymouth Mayor) who was available to take the position.

3. During the same council meeting the Plymouth City council voted to hire

the identified person for a three hours per day, five days a week, position

as Maintenance Supervisor.

4. The position of Maintenance Supervisor was not advertised in- house or

publicly in any newspaper or trade journal.

5. The City of Plymouth’s hiring policies state “ In an effort to discover

qualified candidates, the City MAY ( emphasis added) place

advertisements in newspapers and magazines, as well as list the positions

with employment agencies, vocational schools, colleges, universities and

the Employment Development Department”. ( Section 1- The Selection

Process, 1.01, Recruitment)

6. Personnel files are sealed to the Grand Jury without subpoena. However,

Plymouth City staff report that the City does have, as required, a physical

examination and a drug/ alcohol screening report for the employee hired,

dated 4/ 14/ 04.

Findings

1. The City of Plymouth’s selection process which was followed in this case

fails to mandate that open positions be advertised and therefore did ( and

does) not ensure the selection of the best candidate. This opens the City to

charges of unfair employment practices.

2. Given the above, the letter of the City of Plymouth’s hiring practices was

not violated in the hiring of the Maintenance Supervisor. However, the

Grand Jury believes the spirit of fair employment practices was violated.

Recommendations

1. The City of Plymouth’s personnel procedures should be changed to

require that open positions, particularly at the supervisory level, be

posted and advertised.

2004- 2005 Grand Jury Final Report 21

Conclusion

The hiring process in this case was described to the Grand Jury as follows: One City

Councilmember recommended a former City Councilmember to the City Administrator

for the position of Maintenance Supervisor. The City Administrator contacted the

former Councilmember to verify that he was interested in the position, and then

recommended the City Council hire him. Such ways of conducting the City of

Plymouth’s business gives the appearance of a “ good old boys” network which is

insensitive to public perception and has no safeguards to ensure the best person for the

position is hired.

Response Required

Response to this report is required from the City of Plymouth pursuant to

California Penal Code sections 933( c) and 933.05.

22 2004- 2005 Grand Jury Final Report

2004- 2005 Grand Jury Final Report 23

CITY OF PLYMOUTH

SPECIAL COUNSEL

Introduction

The City of Plymouth continues to be embroiled in controversy surrounding the

possible development of an Indian gaming casino in or around the City. In

response to a citizen complaint, and a request by the City Council in October,

2004, the Grand Jury elected to investigate the manner in which a special counsel

was hired to negotiate and review the Municipal Services Agreement ( MSA)

adopted February 20, 2004.

Method of Investigation

The Grand Jury conducted interviews and reviewed documents.

Persons Interviewed

Former Plymouth City Councilmembers

City of Plymouth staff ( former City Administrator, Attorney and Clerk)

Amador County Counsel

City of Plymouth Special Counsel

Documents Reviewed

City of Plymouth Hiring Policy

City of Plymouth Purchasing Rules

Draft and final MSAs

Memoranda

Special Counsel invoices

City of Plymouth Council meeting minutes 2003- 2004

California State Bar Act, Section 6148

Facts

1. In 2003 the Mayor and at least one other Councilmember negotiated an

MSA between the City of Plymouth and the Ikon/ Mi- Wok Indian group.

2. The Plymouth City Attorney negotiated a Reimbursement Agreement

( RA) with the same group at the end of 2003, after the City Council

Subcommittee had begun the MSA negotiations. Under the terms of the

RA, the Ikon/ Mi- Wok Indian group would pay agreed upon amounts of

24 2004- 2005 Grand Jury Final Report

money to the City “ up- front” to defray expenses incurred by the City in

attempting to develop the casino project.

3. The City Attorney suspected meetings between the City Council and the

Ikon/ Mi- wok group were occurring, but he was not officially notified or

consulted about the negotiation of the MSA.

4. The Mayor of Plymouth stated that the reason the City didn’t use its

attorney was that he was “ too expensive.” She pointed to the cost of the

RA as evidence.

5. The City Attorney is a part- time position, paid under contract on an

hourly basis.

6. The bill for the City Attorney’s negotiation of the RA was paid out of

funds paid to the City by the Ikon/ Mi- wok group, under the terms of that

agreement.

7. In December 2003 or January 2004, the City hired an outside attorney

( special counsel) to negotiate and/ or review the MSA.

8. There was no public discussion or vote regarding the hiring of a special

counsel during an open, noticed City Council meeting.

9. The then- City Administrator stated that the reason the City didn’t use its

own attorney was that he “ lacked experience in Indian affairs”.

10. The special counsel’s self- stated area of legal expertise is estate planning.

11. The special counsel stated he prepared a professional services agreement

outlining his retainer charge and fees, and the basic work that he

understood he was to perform for the City, as required by California State

Bar Association rules. He stated it was signed by the City Administrator

and himself. However, he is unable to produce it, stating he “ probably”

destroyed it along with the rest of the file after completion of his work,

and the recall election of May, 2004.

12. The then- City Administrator stated they had an oral agreement only.

13. City staff is unable to locate a professional services agreement between the

parties in city records or files.

2004- 2005 Grand Jury Final Report 25

14. Under issuance of a subpoena, the special counsel produced a file that

included a copy of the draft MSA, and other MSAs from existing and

proposed Indian Gaming Casinos, and a copy of the Writ of Mandate

served on the Plymouth City Council by the “ No Casino in Plymouth”

group.

15. The special counsel stated he was interviewed by the City Administrator,

the Mayor and at least one Councilmember.

16. The Mayor and Councilmembers in question state they did not interview

the special counsel.

17. The special counsel was referred to the City of Plymouth by a consultant

representing the Ikon/ Mi- wok group.

18. The special counsel had represented the referring consultant on “ several”

occasions; including a grandparent visitation dispute, several

transactional/ contractual issues, and a suit for breach of contract against

the Shingle Springs Mi- woks.

19. The letter of complaint from the City of Plymouth ( dated 10/ 14/ 04)

requesting that the Grand Jury investigate the special counsel’s hiring

stated that he concluded his service in February 2004.

20. Records obtained by the Grand Jury indicate the special counsel billed

( and was paid) for services performed in January, February, March and

April 2004.

21. The special counsel stated the MSA was only about 50% done when he

began his service and that it needed “ significant attention.”

22. The City Administrator, Mayor, Councilmembers and staff interviewed

stated that the MSA was “ 95% done” and “ basically done”, and that the

special counsel was hired to “ protect the City”.

23. The MSA was given to the Plymouth City Attorney two days before a

noticed City Council meeting.

24. A revised MSA was given to the City attorney two days before the

Council voted on it in special session.

25. In each case the City Attorney provided initial feedback and input totaling

over 10 pages of problems and issues he had with the MSA, protesting the

26 2004- 2005 Grand Jury Final Report

short time period for evaluation, and reserving the right to make further

comment.

26. The City of Plymouth has policies and procedures regarding the hiring of

public employees, but none exist for consultants or outside contractors.

27. Surrounding jurisdictions have hiring practices for outside consultants in

the form of County or Municipal Code Ordinances.

Findings

1. Since the costs incurred by the City Attorney to negotiate the MSA would

be reimbursed under the terms of the RA, and since the Plymouth City

Attorney was at least as well versed in Indian affairs as the special

counsel, there is no reason the Plymouth City Attorney should not have

been used.

2. The City Council attempted to further exclude the City Attorney, as

evidenced by their presenting both the initial and the revised versions of

the MSA to him only two days before each of the City Council meetings at

which the MSA would be taken up. It is unreasonable to expect that he

could provide input that was pertinent and legally relevant on such short

notice.

3. The City of Plymouth did not violate its purchasing or hiring rules for

outside consultants, as none exist. However, since the City Administrator,

Mayor and at least one Councilmember wanted to avoid the involvement

of its City Attorney, the decision was made to hire a special counsel

without public input or discussion. This violates at least the spirit of

transparency in government. The public should have been allowed to

provide input into the discussion and decision to hire a special counsel.

4. The City’s use of a special counsel, recommended by a consultant for the

opposing side, is highly irregular.

5. The special counsel had a prior business relationship with the referring

consultant, pointing to a potential conflict of interest.

6. The City of Plymouth failed to properly check the special counsel’s

references, background and expertise, or his relationship to the referring

consultant and hired the counselor without consideration of what the

public’s perception would be.

2004- 2005 Grand Jury Final Report 27

7. That the special counsel could provide draft and existing MSAs in file

form, along with the Writ of Mandate, yet could not produce the

professional services agreement he claims he generated, raises questions

about the existence of such an agreement.

8. The destruction of a file by an attorney is highly unusual, especially when

there is pending litigation.

9. Conducting City business by the use of oral agreements is not considered

standard City business practice. This furthers the appearance of a “ good

old boys” network ( see City of Plymouth Public Works Supervisor hiring

report).

Recommendations

1. The City of Plymouth should develop and follow procedures for the

recruitment and retention of outside consultants. These should include:

a) Public forum discussion of the need for an outside consultant’s

services.

b) Public forum evaluation of the referring entity for the consultant,

which should include disclosure by both parties of any conflicts of

interest.

c) Public forum vote by the City Council on the consultants’

retention.

d) The City and the consultant shall draw and sign a professional

services agreement, to be kept on file by the City which shall

define the services to be performed by the consultant and rate of

pay for those services.

e) The City Attorney shall review and approve all such agreements.

2. This policy should be in the form of a Municipal Code Ordinance.

Response Required

Response to this report is required from the City of Plymouth pursuant to

California Penal Code sections 933( c) and 933.05.

28 2004- 2005 Grand Jury Final Report

2004- 2005 Grand Jury Final Report 29

AMADOR COUNTY AIRPORT

Introduction

The 2002/ 2003 Amador County Grand Jury reviewed the Amador County

Airport during their term pursuant to California Penal Code ( CPC) section 933.5.

The 2004/ 2005 Grand Jury elected to investigate pursuant to CPC 933.5.

Background

The 2002/ 2003 Grand Jury made many findings and recommendations about the

Airport. The County’s responses to them are contained in the follow- up report

section of the 2003/ 2004 Grand Jury report. The 2003/ 2004 Grand Jury

recommended that “ subsequent Grand Juries follow up on inconclusive matters

until compliance is met concerning all airport facilities violations.” The purpose

of this year’s investigation was to measure if any progress was being made on

those findings and recommendations.

Method of Investigation

The Grand Jury conducted interviews, attended meetings, reviewed documents

and toured sites.

Persons Interviewed

General Services Administration ( GSA) Director

Airport Manager

County Administrator

Meetings Attended

Numerous Airport Committee meetings

Documents Reviewed

Airport Committee Action Plan

Draft “ Airport Car” Parking Policy

2002/ 2003 Amador County Grand Jury report

2003/ 2004 Amador County Grand Jury report

California Penal Code section 933.05

Sites Toured

Amador County Airport

30 2004- 2005 Grand Jury Final Report

Facts

1. There is still a large amount of debris and junk located near hangar # 6.

This includes old aircraft engines, partially dismantled aircraft, semi-trailers,

as well as two motorhomes.

2. The fifth- wheel trailer behind hangar # 6 is still in violation of the Amador

County Building Code by having an illegal electrical connection. In

addition, raw sewage and water is dripping onto the ground from a leak

in the septic connection.

3. The GSA Director developed a draft “ airport car” parking policy in

January 2005. “ Airport cars” are privately owned automobiles that are

parked within security fencing on airport grounds, and used by aircraft

owners to come and go.

4. The “ airport car” policy draft does not require current registration or

proof of insurance.

5. The responses to the 2002/ 2003 Grand Jury report were received in a

timely fashion. However, it took 17 months for the “ airport car” policy

that consists of ½ page of text to be developed.

6. No regular inspections of the Airport by the GSA Director or Airport

Manager are occurring as recommended by the 2002/ 2003 Grand Jury

and agreed to by the Director and the Manager.

7. The responses to the findings and recommendations of the 2002/ 2003

Grand Jury by the GSA Director and Board of Supervisors do not

conform to the requirements of CPC section 933.05( b)( 2). It states, in part,

that responses shall include “… a time frame for implementation.” No

time frame was given for implementation in their responses.

8. The Airport Committee has an “ Action Plan” which tracks the status of

all projects. As of March 2005, the status of all projects are either “ in

process”, “ ongoing”, or “ future”. Completion dates of projects are

routinely and continuously pushed back.

9. The Building Department has offered no- fee permits to all hangar tenants

to sheetrock interior walls which will bring the hangars up to current

building codes. The County will provide the building materials.

2004- 2005 Grand Jury Final Report 31

10. The 2003/ 2004 Grand Jury toured the airport on December 10, 2003 and

the 2004/ 2005 Grand Jury toured the Airport in September 2004 and

April 2005.

11. The 2003/ 2004 Grand Jury recommended that “ subsequent Grand Juries

follow up on inconclusive matters until compliance is met concerning all

airport facilities violations.”

Findings

1. Progress is extremely slow or non- existent in meeting the agreed- to

recommendations of the 2002/ 2003 Grand Jury.

2. The “ airport car” draft policy is severely lacking in several key areas that

would protect the County from liability.

3. When follow up questions about a project’s status were pursued ( for

example the Building Code violations at the trailer behind hangar # 6)

responses changed. They went from “ We forgot about that” to “ We’re

handling that with the Building Department” to “ The trailer is being

moved.”

This was a common response pattern about other issues, also. For

example, we were told in September 2004 that debris and junk near

hangar # 6 were the responsibility of the tenant, who was supposedly

moving out of state soon.

As of April 2005 the trailer had not been moved, the Building Code

violations still existed, and there is still the same amount ( if not more) of

debris and junk near hangar # 6.

Recommendations

1. Provide a specific time frame for implementation of the 2002/ 2003 Grand

Jury recommendations pursuant to California Penal Code section 933.05.

2. Rewrite the draft “ airport car” policy to include requirements for current

registration and proof of insurance. ( Proof of insurance is to be kept on

file by the Airport manager.)

32 2004- 2005 Grand Jury Final Report

Response Required

Response to this report required from the Amador County Board of

Supervisors and the Amador County General Services Administration

pursuant to California Penal Code sections 933( c) and 933.05.

2004- 2005 Grand Jury Final Report 33

AMADOR COUNTY ANIMAL CONTROL

Introduction

In response to a citizen complaint, the Amador County Grand Jury elected to

review the manner in which Amador County Animal Control ( ACAC) receives,

records and tracks complaints alleging animal mistreatment.

Background

In November 2004, a member of the Amador County Grand Jury, acting in a

civilian capacity and not as a Juror, called ACAC to complain about what was

perceived to be mistreatment of animals in an unincorporated area of Amador

County.

The ensuing circumstances caused the Juror to be concerned about ACAC’s

policy regarding the handling of complaints. The Juror requested an

investigation, was recused and was not involved in any aspect of the

investigation.

Method of Investigation

The Grand Jury conducted interviews and examined documents.

Persons Interviewed

Complainant

General Services Administration Assistant Director

Amador County Sheriff’s Captain

Documents Reviewed

Amador County Animal Control ( ACAC) Policies and Procedures

Facts

1. ACAC received a complaint alleging mistreatment of animals in an

unincorporated area of Amador County.

2. ACAC records do not show the ultimate disposition of the complaint, but

indicate ACAC responded to the scene.

34 2004- 2005 Grand Jury Final Report

3. ACAC records do not indicate whether the complainant requested to be

contacted and advised of the disposition of the complaint, nor whether the

complainant was apprised of the disposition of the complaint.

4. The animals in question continued to be observed in the same conditions

which prompted the complaint.

5. The complainant wrote a letter to the local newspaper about the perceived

lack of action by ACAC.

6. The Amador County Sheriff’s Office ( ACSO) has a policy of monitoring

the newspapers for situations that may warrant their involvement.

7. An ACSO Captain read the complaint in the newspaper and, realizing a

possible law violation existed, initiated an investigation.

8. No criminal activity was discovered by the investigation.

9. The ACAC and ACSO visits resulted in a visible improvement of the

animals’ treatment.

10. ACAC has hired a new Director, working under the General Services

Administration Assistant Director.

11. ACAC is in the process of reviewing and updating its procedures and

policies for responding to complaints and recordkeeping.

Findings

1. ACAC lacks an adequate recordkeeping system in place to document

complaints, investigations, or disposition of those complaints.

2. ACAC lacks an adequate method of determining whether complainants

want to be contacted again to learn the disposition of their complaint.

3. The ACSO has a proactive policy with regard to investigation of

complaints aired in a public forum in which law violations are alleged.

Recommendations

1. ACAC shall develop procedures to document complaints. These shall

include a system to:

2004- 2005 Grand Jury Final Report 35

a. Record the name, address and telephone number of complainants

and whether they wish to be contacted after the disposition of their

complaint.

b. Record the nature of the complaint, when it was received and the

location of occurrence.

c. Record ACAC’s response to the complaint, including who

responded, when they responded, what was found and what

action, if any, was taken.

d. Record who made the follow- up contact of the complainant ( if

requested) and include when that contact was made.

Response Required

Response to this report is required from Amador County Animal Control

and Sheriff’s Office pursuant to California Penal Code sections 933( c) and

933.05.

36 2004- 2005 Grand Jury Final Report

2004- 2005 Grand Jury Final Report 37

AMADOR COUNTY DETENTION CENTER

Introduction

Under the provisions of California Penal Code Section 919( b), each year the

Grand Jury is required to review all prisons and jails within the County. The

2004- 2005 Grand Jury visited the Amador County Detention Center on October

25, 2004.

Background

The Amador County Sheriff is directly responsible for the Amador County

Detention Center. The day- to- day responsibility for the Center lies with the

Detention Center Commander. The Center serves as the only detention site in

the county for both pre- trial and sentenced male and female inmates.

Correctional Officers ( COs) supervise inmates 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

COs are responsible for the care, custody and control of the inmates. They

transport inmates to and from court, other detention centers, medical facilities

and supervise work details. COs provide meals and commissary items to the

Detention Center population.

Method of Review

The Grand Jury was given a presentation, conducted interviews and toured sites.

Persons Interviewed

Sheriff

Captain

Correctional Officers

Nurse

Inmates

Sites toured

Amador County Detention Facility

Facts

1. As of 10/ 25/ 04, the staff consisted of 28 employees; one Captain, six

Correctional Sergeants, 19 Correctional Officers and two part- time food

courier Officers.

38 2004- 2005 Grand Jury Final Report

2. Capacity of the Detention Center was 76 inmates as of 10/ 25/ 04. On this

date, there were 74 male and 12 female inmates.

3. Inmates interviewed stated that the staff and COs treat them with respect.

4. Upon booking into the Center, a CO interviews the detainee to determine

any medical problems. The nurse then reviews the medical information

and determines if follow- up care is required. A nurse is on duty Monday

through Friday each morning and on call at other times.

5. A medical doctor is on duty at the center once a week. However, the

doctor is on call at other times if immediate medical attention is required.

COs transport acutely injured or ill inmates to Sutter Amador Hospital. If

circumstances warrant, inmates are transported by ambulance service.

6. After booking, inmates are given a package containing toiletries, rules,

regulations and other information.

7. Inmate meals are provided from the Stanislaus County Detention Facility.

Food courier officers pick up the meals and deliver them to the Detention

Center every two days. The meals are kept in the freezer until served.

Meals are heated in the kitchen and served to inmates in insulated

containers. Inmates receive three meals a day.

8. The Detention Center receives an annual Inmate Health and Welfare

budget of $ 46,000. This money is used for inmate services, such as movies,

telephone, commissary, transportation, etc.

9. Extensive remodeling and expansion was nearing completion at the time

of the Grand Jury’s tour. Improved facilities include an additional

sobering cell, a larger kitchen and administrative area, and a larger

laundry.

Findings

None

Recommendations

None

2004- 2005 Grand Jury Final Report 39

Response Required

No response required.

40 2004- 2005 Grand Jury Final Report

2004- 2005 Grand Jury Final Report 41

MULE CREEK STATE PRISON

Introduction

California Penal Code Section 919( b) requires the Grand Jury to review all

prisons and jails within the County on an annual basis. The 2004- 2005 Grand

Jury visited Mule Creek State Prison ( MCSP) on November 5, 2004.

Background

MCSP opened in June 1987. The facility is primarily a medium to high security

custody institution with a minimum security support facility. A five acre

minimum security facility is located outside of the double perimeter fences that

surround the main facility.

Method of Review

The Grand Jury conducted interviews and toured sites.

Persons Interviewed

Warden

Associate Warden

Three Facility Captains

Administrative Assistants

Chief Deputy Warden

Correctional Captain

School Principal

Chief Physician

Medical Personnel

Health Services Personnel

Sites Toured

Yard B

Living Quarters

Medical Facility

Visiting Center

Dining Facilities

42 2004- 2005 Grand Jury Final Report

Facts

1. In 2004/ 2005, MCSP had:

• an annual budget of $ 108,664,036.

• 1,022 total staff ( 985 Institution and Health Care, 26 Prison Industry

Authority ( PIA), 11 seasonal employees).

• a design capacity of 1,700 inmates.

• a current population of 3,423 inmates ( as of February 8, 2005).

2. The grounds were well kept and clean. Inmates were respectful of Staff

and Jury members.

3. Visitors are required to show photo identification cards and go through a

metal detector.

4. Background checks are completed on all vendors, contractors and

volunteers.

5. MCSP inmate medical programs include:

Correctional Treatment Center

Emergency Room

Pharmaceutical Services

Dental, Eye, Podiatry and Orthotic Clinics

Physical Medicine

Telemedicine

Physical Therapy

Correctional Clinical Case Management System

Enhanced Outpatient Program

Mental Health Crisis Bed

6. MCSP inmate programs and work opportunities include:

Family visiting

Religious services

Inmate self- help groups

Arts in Corrections

Prison Industry Authority Coffee Roasting, Laundry, Meat Processing,

Textiles/ Silk Screening, and Digital Mapping

Engineering prototype for textiles

2004- 2005 Grand Jury Final Report 43

7. MCSP academic and vocational education programs include:

Adult Basic Education

High School

English as a Second Language

Pre- release

Air Conditioning

Auto Mechanics

Computer Technology

Dry Cleaning

Electronics

Graphic Arts

Landscaping

Welding

8. MCSP had 1,259 inmates serving a life sentence and 148 serving life

without the possibility of parole.

9. The total population has been as high as 3,800 inmates.

10. MCSP was converting Facility C from a General Population to a Sensitive

Needs yard ( protective custody). This effort is scheduled to be completed

by March 2005 and requires over 800 inmates to be transferred out of

MCSP and the same number requiring protective custody transferred in.

Findings

None

Recommendations

None

Response Required

No response required.

44 2004- 2005 Grand Jury Final Report

2004- 2005 Grand Jury Final Report 45

CALIFORNIA YOUTH AUTHORITY

PINE GROVE YOUTH CONSERVATION CAMP

Introduction

California Penal Code Section 919( b) requires the Grand Jury to review all

prisons and jails within the County on an annual basis. The 2004- 2005 Grand

Jury visited Pine Grove Youth Conservation Camp on October 28, 2004.

Background

Pine Grove Youth Conservation Camp ( PGYCC), is located two miles east of Pine

Grove. It was built as a Civilian Conservation Camp during the 1930’ s. In 1946,

the California Youth Authority assumed stewardship of the Camp in cooperation

with the California Department of Forestry. PGYCC was the first of six Youth

Conservation Camps dedicated to the rehabilitation of young men and the

conservation of California’s natural resources.

The California Department of Forestry and the California Department of the

Youth Authority operate the Camp jointly. In 2004- 2005 it was budgeted for 80

wards between the ages of 18 – 25. The average length of stay per ward is

approximately twelve months. The goals of PGYCC are to provide fire protection

to the citizens of California, perform public conservation projects and provide

wards with the necessary services for their successful return to society.

Method of Review

The Grand Jury viewed a presentation, conducted interviews and toured sites.

Persons Interviewed

Superintendent

Lieutenant

Youth Correctional Officer

CDF Division Chief

Fire Captain

Sites Toured

Grounds

Kitchen

Dining Hall

Recreation Hall

46 2004- 2005 Grand Jury Final Report

Dormitories

Classrooms

Administrative Offices

Facts

1. There were four crews supervised by the Department of Forestry. They

engaged in various types of wildland fire prevention tasks and restoration

work.

2. Wards also receive leadership training within their crew structure.

3. The major emphasis of the Camp Program for the wards is on learning

employable skills, with a focus on developing good work habits and team

building.

4. Wards may be required to participate in the following programs:

Substance Abuse Counseling

Weekly Small Group Counseling

Gang Awareness

Victim Awareness

Anger Management

Parenting

Inner Wounded Child

5. Educational classes and opportunities provided for all wards include the

following:

High School Diploma

California High School Proficiency Exam

GED

Skills Improvement

Special Education

Community College Courses

Employability Skills

Community Volunteer and Peer Tutors

Journalism and Creative Writing

Computer Literacy

2004- 2005 Grand Jury Final Report 47

6. PGYCC offers the following work programs, for which wards are paid:

Fire Fighting

Training in fire prevention and suppression techniques is provided.

Wards travel throughout California. While fighting fires, crews are

supervised and sheltered in tents, under direct supervision of the

Department of Forestry Captain.

Community Service Crew

Throughout the year, this crew works on timber stand improvement, road

maintenance, land clearing, replanting, stream clearance and flood

control.

Facility Maintenance

This crew is responsible for all grounds maintenance and other projects.

Food Service

When the PGYCC crews fight fires, a portable kitchen is staffed by wards

to feed up to 2,000 people a day. Wards also work in the PGYCC kitchen.

They cook, serve and clean.

7. Special programs that the PGYCC wards may participate in:

Posse

A drug awareness presentation to schools and community groups by

wards.

Toastmasters Club

Wards learn the art of communication, leadership, and public speaking.

Religious Services

Various outside groups offer religious support.

Leisure Time Activities

Library, games, sports, arts & crafts, softball and basketball.

8. PGYCC provides over 200,000 hours of community and road services per

year.

9. There were 51 wards at PGYCC as of October 2004.

10. California counties must pay for wards housed at CYA facilities.

48 2004- 2005 Grand Jury Final Report

Findings

1. Low population puts PGYCC in serious jeopardy of closing as a CYA facility.

2. PGYCC helps the wards build character and gives them positive direction in

life. It also helps them establish a strong work ethic.

Recommendations

1. The California Youth Authority must ensure that all wards eligible for the

camp program are sent to the program from other institutions.

2. CYA should work with the State Legislature to lower the cost to the County’s

juvenile system to send wards to the camps. This would give the counties a

beneficial option for their wards and be more cost effective.

Response Required

Response to this report is required from the California Youth Authority

pursuant to California Penal Code sections 933( c) and 933.05.

2004- 2005 Grand Jury Final Report 49

CALIFORNIA YOUTH AUTHORITY

PRESTON YOUTH CORRECTIONAL FACILITY

Introduction

California Penal Code Section 919( b) requires the Grand Jury to review all

prisons and jails within the County on an annual basis. The 2004- 2005 Grand

Jury visited Preston Youth Correctional Facility ( PYCF) on October 6, 2004 and

on January 28, 2005.

Background

The PYCF houses, treats and provides training to juvenile offenders committed

to the California Youth Authority ( CYA) from Juvenile and Adult Courts within

the State.

Method of Review

The Grand Jury was given a presentation, conducted interviews and toured sites.

Persons Interviewed

Superintendent

Program Administrator

Captain

Sergeant

Youth Correctional Officers

Youth Correctional Counselors

Nurse

Food Service Manager

Training Officer

Wards

Sites Toured

PYCF Grounds

Tamarack Lodge

Ironwood Lodge

Dining room facilities

50 2004- 2005 Grand Jury Final Report

Facts

1. The ward population at PYCF was under capacity on October 6, 2004.

This resulted in the closing of some living units.

2. PYCF houses wards between the ages of 14 and 22. With special

exceptions, wards up to age 25 are permitted to remain in the facility.

3. The average age of wards on January 28, 2005 was 18.2 years.

4. Tamarack Lodge was used to house and contain wards that represented a

significant danger to staff or other wards. This lodge was closed in

October 2003.

5. Tamarack Lodge is an old building, in need of renovation.

6. Wards interviewed stated that when Tamarack Lodge was open, they

could “ program” there ( participate in programs provided by the facility)

without fear of harm from other wards.

7. Staff interviewed stated that since the closing of Tamarack Lodge, ward-on-

ward and ward- on- staff violence has increased.

8. In the first quarter of 2003 ( prior to the closing of Tamarack Lodge) there

were 94 reports of the Use of Restraint by staff, and 99 incidents of the Use

of Force by staff on wards. ( For example order control, breaking up fights,

etc.)

9. In the first quarter of 2004 ( after the closing of Tamarack Lodge) there

were 300 reports of the Use of Restraint and 122 incidents of the Use of

Force. These were increases of 319% and 123% respectively, when

compared to the first quarter of 2003.

10. In the third quarter of 2004 there were 491 reports of the use of restraint

and 193 incidents of the use of force. These were increases of 496% and

194% respectively, when compared to the first quarter of 2003.

11. Wards have the opportunity to attend a fully accredited high school which

includes obtaining a high school diploma, General Education

Development ( GED) Certificate, or passing the California High School

Proficiency Exam.

2004- 2005 Grand Jury Final Report 51

12. Vocational training classes are offered in auto shop, masonry, printing

skills, janitorial services, culinary arts and fire camp.

13. College correspondence courses are available free of charge to wards.

( Book fees are charged.)

Findings

1. The closure of Tamarack Lodge has reduced the number of secure rooms

available where staff can place those wards who represent a danger to

others.

2. Statistics cited indicate an overall day- to- day increase in the level of

violence in the facility.

3. Tamarack Lodge was serving a beneficial purpose for wards and staff

safety. However, it was in need of renovation.

Recommendation

1. Tamarack Lodge should be remodeled, modernized and painted.

2. Tamarack Lodge should then be reopened to provide additional options

for staff, and secure placement for wards whose behavior is a threat to

the staff or general population of wards.

Response Required

Response to this report is required from the California Youth Authority

pursuant to California Penal Code sections 933( c) and 933.05.

52 2004- 2005 Grand Jury Final Report

2004- 2005 Grand Jury Final Report 53

CITIZEN COMPLAINTS

Introduction

Throughout its term, the Grand Jury receives complaints filed by citizens.

Serious consideration is given to each complaint. Responding to a citizen

complaint may prompt the Grand Jury to conduct a full investigation of the

subject matter of the complaint. A copy of the complaint form is located in the

Appendix.

Due to legal or discretionary reasons, the Grand Jury may not necessarily

investigate every complaint it receives. The Penal Code prohibits the Grand Jury

from investigating a complaint if any of the following conditions apply to the

subject of the complaint:

• It is currently under litigation

• It involves agencies not located within the county

• It involves privately- held companies

• It is a dispute between private parties

• It involves fiscal or administrative operation of the Superior Court

The Grand Jury considers several discretionary factors when deciding whether to

investigate a complaint:

• Do the facts warrant an investigation?

• Is there sufficient time to conduct a proper investigation?

• Has the matter been investigated by a previous Grand Jury?

Following is a list of the Citizen Complaints received and any actions taken. The

first two complaints were received late in the 2003- 2004 Grand Jury term, and

were forwarded to the 2004- 2005 Grand Jury.

54 2004- 2005 Grand Jury Final Report

Complaints Received by the 2004- 2005 Amador County Grand Jury.

Complaint

Date

Received

Details

( 03/ 04 - 25)

04/ 05- 01

( 03/ 04- 26)

04/ 05- 02

04/ 05- 03

04/ 05- 04

04/ 05- 05

04/ 05- 06

04/ 05- 07 &

04/ 05- 08

4/ 9/ 2004

4/ 21/ 2004

5/ 19/ 2004

7/ 15/ 2005

7/ 2005

10/ 14/ 2005

10/ 23/ 2005 &

12/ 3/ 2005

Complaint against the Amador County Animal control

alleging theft of personal property of former employee.

( Held over from the 2003- 2004 Grand Jury) 2004- 2005

Grand Jury declined to investigate.

A citizen filed a complaint against the City of Plymouth

regarding the hiring of Maintenance Supervisor. ( Held

over from the 2003- 2004) The Grand Jury investigated. See

the City/ County Government section of 2004- 2005 final report.

Complaint against the Lake Camanche Village Owners

Association, alleging mismanagement. The Grand Jury has

no jurisdiction in this matter.

A citizen filed a complaint against the Amador County

Library alleging the Law Library had insufficient storage

space for books. Grand Jury subcommittee performed an

informal inspection, found there was adequate storage space and

declined to investigate further.

The Grand Jury received an anonymous complaint

against the Amador County Mental Health Department

alleging poor management and morale, affecting

delivery of services and interagency cooperation. Grand

Jury investigated. See the City/ County Government section of

2004- 2005 final report.

A citizen filed a complaint against the City of Plymouth

regarding the hiring of a special counsel to negotiate a

Municipal Service Agreement ( MSA). Grand Jury

investigated. See City/ County Government section of 2004-

2005 final report.

Two citizen complaints were received, alleging that the

City of Plymouth had violated the Brown Act. Grand Jury

investigated. See City/ County Government section of 2004-

2005 final report.

2004- 2005 Grand Jury Final Report 55

Complaint

Date

Received

Details

04/ 05- 09

04/ 05- 10

04/ 05- 11

04/ 05- 12

04/ 05- 13

2/ 16/ 2005

2/ 16/ 2005

3/ 17/ 2005

3/ 31/ 2005

4/ 28/ 2005

A citizen filed a complaint against the City of Plymouth

regarding the mis- or non- use of the Arroyo Ditch. The

Grand Jury declined to investigate, as this had been investigated

by the 2003- 2004 Grand Jury.

An inmate at Mule Creek State Prison alleged, on behalf

of another inmate, mistreatment by guards. Referred to

Amador County District Attorney, who in turn referred it to

Mule Creek State Prison Internal Services Unit.

A complaint was filed against the Registrar of Voters in

all counties in the State alleging mishandling of

selection of Grand Jurors in criminal cases. Forwarded to

the 2005/ 2006 Grand Jury.

A citizen alleged accounting irregularities and illegal

charges at the River Pines Public Utility District.

Forwarded to the 2005/ 2006 Grand Jury.

A citizen filed a complaint against the City of Ione and

the management at Howard Park alleging

mismanagement of funds, mistreatment of animals and

inaction of authorities on the issue of alleged drug use in

the park. Forwarded to the 2005/ 2006 Grand Jury.

56 2004- 2005 Grand Jury Final Report

2004- 2005 Grand Jury Final Report 57

AMADOR COUNTY LAW ENFORCEMENT

FOLLOW UP REPORT

Introduction

The 2003/ 2004 Grand Jury elected to review and evaluate the various Amador

County Law Enforcement departments pursuant to Penal Code 925( a).

Responses were required from the four law enforcement agencies ( Jackson, Ione

and Sutter Creek Police Departments and the Amador County Sheriff’s

Department) pursuant to California Penal Code ( CPC) sections 933( c) and 933.05,

and are divided into the topic areas of last year’s Grand Jury report.

It should be noted that the responses of the four agencies are exact quotes

( indicated by quotation marks) from their responses provided, with no spelling,

punctuation or grammatical corrections. While not required, some agencies

elected to respond to or dispute facts. Those responses are also included.

Additionally, there were some responses which did not conform to the

requirements of CPC section 933.05. It was impossible to determine from these

responses, in the opinion of the Grand Jury, if the respondent agreed, partially

agreed or disagreed with a finding; or had implemented, had not yet

implemented but would in the future, or would not implement a

recommendation. Notations to that effect from the Grand Jury are in the

response sections in italic print.

The complete responses by the three police departments were too voluminous to

be included in this document. To obtain the complete narrative response, please

contact the individual departments.

In the opinion of the 2004/ 2005 Grand Jury, the three police departments

exercised a great deal of editorial license in their responses. The Amador County

Sheriff did not, but did include an addendum at the end of his responses. The

2004/ 2005 Grand Jury feels that, in fairness, his addendum should be publicized.

It is located at the end of the report.

58 2004- 2005 Grand Jury Final Report

2004- 2005 Grand Jury Final Report 59

Crime Investigation

2003/ 2004 GRAND JURY REPORT FACTS SECTION

• Police Chiefs of Jackson, Ione, and Sutter Creek report a relatively low

crime rate in the County.

• Some city police officers lack experience in crime investigations.

RESPONSES

City of Jackson Police Department

Fact Two: Disagree

“ This is not correct, as all members of the Jackson Police Department have

various levels of investigative training and experience. Each of our full- time

officers have investigated numerous serious crimes from beginning to end, such

as homicides, suicides, infant deaths, vehicular manslaughter, narcotics

investigations, domestic violence, child abductions, grand theft and everyday

types of lower level offences as well. The training level for Jackson Police

Officers is above the standard required by the California Peace Officers

Standards and Training. Our police detective as well as one of our sergeants has

each graduated from the Robert Presley Criminal Investigators Institute. Each of

our full- time police officers has been trained in a variety of specific or general

investigative techniques.”

City of Sutter Creek Police Department

Fact One: Disagree

“ Crime rates are low because the three Cities’ police departments are modern

and professional police agencies that subscribe to the best practices in use today.

The City of Sutter Creek has an outstanding police department that helps its

citizens keep crime rates low through Community Oriented Policing and

Problem Oriented Policing techniques and concepts.”

Fact Two: Disagree

“ Crime rates are low because the three Cities’ police departments are modern

and professional police agencies that subscribe to the best practices in use today.

The City of Sutter Creek has an outstanding police department that helps its

citizens keep crime rates low through Community Oriented Policing and

Problem Oriented Policing techniques and concepts.”

“ After graduation from a POST certified police academy, each officer completed

a POST certifies Field Training Officer program. It is the policy of this

department that during the first two years on the department, each officer

attends several courses designed to improve the Officer’s investigative skills.

This training is above and beyond that delivered and mastered in the police

academy ( e. g. interview and interrogation courses; intermediate traffic

60 2004- 2005 Grand Jury Final Report

investigation courses; advanced DUI course; narcotics abuse and under the

influence courses; intermediate investigation courses, etc.).”

“ Every year, each officer of this department attends at least one POST

reimbursed advanced officer training course and most attend more; Every year at

least one officer attends an un- reimbursed course ( e. g. armory, range

management, use of force, no- lethal forces, etc.); All full- time officers are certified

by the California Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training ( POST)

with ‘ Basic’ Police Officer Certificates; Two Officers have earned ‘ Advanced’

Officer Certificates; Two officers have earned ‘ Intermediate’ Police Officer

Certificates; One Officer has earned an advanced investigator certification in the

Robert Presley Institute of Criminal Investigation ( ICI), another officer is

approaching graduation form the ICI, and two others are currently taking

courses towards this certificate. Each officer will be certified in a different area of

criminal investigations ( e. g. Robbery, Crimes Against Persons, Sex Crimes, Fraud

and Computer Crimes, etc.).”

“ One Officer has graduated from the Delinquency Control Institute at the

University of Southern California; One Officer is currently attending the National

Academy program for Police Executives offered by the Federal Bureau of

Investigations ( commonly referred to in police circles as the ‘ FBI Academy’); Two

officers of this department have earned advanced college degrees in criminal

justice and/ or related fields from respected universities; every officer has some

college credits in the field of criminal justice.”

“ This department will not concede that any agency in the area has more highly

trained officers nor will it concede that our officers have any less experience.

Though the police department contracts for investigative services with the

District Attorney’s office, every major investigation has been conducted jointly so

that our officers have gained experience. These major investigations have

included Arsons, Rape, Burglary and Attempted Homicide; The Sutter Creek

Police Department is highly experienced in major traffic investigations. In the

last three years this department has conducted two fatal traffic collision

investigations in the city ( in addition to many injury collisions).”

“ Three of our officers have been on this department for over five years; Two

officers have been on the department for four years; Six of the Seven full- time

officers came to the department with previous law enforcement experience; Four

of our officers have been certified in Superior Court as experts in various sub-fields

of criminal justice.”

No responses to the Facts section were required or received from the other law

enforcement agencies.

2004- 2005 Grand Jury Final Report 61

2003/ 2004 GRAND JURY REPORT FINDINGS SECTION

• Inconsistencies in crime investigations hinder the prosecution process

• It is necessary for the County District Attorney’s Office to utilize its own

investigators.

RESPONSES

City of Jackson Police Department

Finding One: “ Agree”

“ The Jackson Police Department, as many law enforcement agency, strives to

better itself in this regard.”

Finding Two: “ Agree”

“ Most of the 57 counties in the State of California utilize district attorney

investigators and assist local law enforcement agencies with follow- up

investigations.”

City of Ione Police Department

Finding One: “ Disagree partially”

“ Certain inconsistencies in crime investigations occur in all jurisdictions from

officer to officer as well as from department to department. Creating one large

department out of several will not change the individual officer response to

different crimes and emergency situations. As each individual case and

investigation presents its own issues and characteristics, the district attorney

simply tailors his or her prosecutorial response to meet its unique requirements.

Furthermore, policing different communities even within the same county

frequently require a slightly different approach to be effective. Attempts to

eliminate such diversity in investigation practices can only serve to distance law

enforcement from the population it serves. Based on the foregoing, the Cities

disagree with this finding and/ or its application.”

Finding Two: “ Disagree partially”

“ The Amador County District Attorney, as with virtually all other DA offices in

the State employs criminal investigators whose primary job is to assist

prosecutors in developing criminal cases for prosecution. DA investigators focus

most of their activities on follow up investigations after criminal charges have

been filed. Relocating or eliminating DA investigators places the DA in the

unenviable position of having to compete with ongoing pre- arrest investigations

and other time sensitive law enforcement activities. In such a manner,

prosecutions would truly be hindered. Thus, while it is necessary for the DA to

utilize its own investigators, this necessity is driven by the needs of the DA, not

as a result of the Cities investigations.”

62 2004- 2005 Grand Jury Final Report

City of Sutter Creek Police Department

Finding One: “ Disagree partially”

“ Every agency has occasional occurrences of an individual Officer’s failure to

perform a complete investigation. The proper response by the field supervisor is

training and/ or discipline to correct the deficiency. Many times, the failure is a

result of a lack of training or experience. As such, this failure usually occurs in

an officer’s first two years of service and is rarer thereafter.”

Finding Two: “ Agree”

“ The District Attorney has a mission to develop evidence beyond a reasonable

doubt for conviction which is different than the probably cause required by

police to make an arrest. Officers should strive to anticipate defenses and submit

cases that require little follow up but that is not always possible. Because of

these divergent levels of proof for investigations, the District Attorney’s office

has a need for a separate cadre of trained investigators.”

Amador County Sheriff’s Department

Finding One: “ Agree“

Finding Two: “ Partially Disagree”

“ It may be necessary for the District Attorney to utilize its own investigators for

cases within the jurisdiction of the three county police departments. However,

the Sheriff can not verify or make informed comment on that, lacking direct

information on the subject. It is not necessary for the District Attorney to utilize

its own investigators in the areas of the County that are the jurisdiction of the

Sheriff. The only time that this would occur is when the Sheriff has a conflict of

interest in investigating a crime in the Sheriff’s jurisdiction.”

2003/ 2004 GRAND JURY REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS SECTION

• Coordinate/ share investigative personnel to capitalize on the expertise of

more experiences staff countywide.

• Staff with more experience in crime investigations should train and

mentor the staff with less experience.

RESPONSES

City of Jackson Police Department

Recommendation One: “ Implemented, as the Jackson Police Department has

consistently called upon the expertise of law enforcement experts, not just from

the local level but also from the state and federal level as well.”

Recommendation Two: “ Implemented, as the Jackson Police Department agrees

with this statement and strives for better training in this regard. Our more

experiences officers and sergeants assign our less experienced personnel to

advanced officer training and conduct in- house training as well.”

2004- 2005 Grand Jury Final Report 63

City of Ione Police Department

Recommendation One: “ Implemented“

“ The Ione Police department, until the recent budget crisis, contracted with the

District Attorney’s Office for criminal investigations services. The District

Attorney’s Office’s Bureau of Investigation has the most qualified, experienced,

and tenured criminal investigators in the county. The City of Ione will

reconsider reestablishing this arrangement when the current state and local

budget situations stabilize.”

Recommendation Two: “ Implemented“

“ The Cities’ Police Departments currently have both full- time and part- time

sworn personnel with vast investigative experience and training. Some of the

part- time personnel are currently employed as criminal investigators with state

agencies and out- of- county local law enforcement agencies. These experienced

investigators mentor and assist less- experienced staff as requested or required.

Additionally, in most of the Cities, patrol staffs frequently possess more

experience and time in service than many of the sheriff’s patrol supervisors, who

only have 3- 4 years of experience.”

City of Sutter Creek Police Department

Recommendation One:

“ For the size and number on the department, there are no more experienced

Police Officers or Deputies area- wide than the Officers of the Sutter Creek Police

Department. However, the City agrees that it would be inefficient to maintain

the staff necessary to investigate every major crime that occurs in the City.

Because of this, the City contracts with the District Attorney’s office for major

crime investigations. Even so, the Sutter Creek Police Department Officers

participate in every investigation and gain experience and mentoring in the

process.”

Recommendation Two:

“ Training and mentoring is a routine law enforcement function that is practiced

in Amador County and particularly with the Sutter Creek Police Department.”

Amador County Sheriff’s Department

Recommendations One and Two: “ Previously implemented“

“ The Sheriff has implemented these recommendations before they were made; to

the extent the Sheriff has the ability or authority to do so.”

“ The Sheriff has always coordinated our investigations with other agencies that

have some jurisdictional interest in the investigation. The Sheriff shares

investigative personnel with the cities in Amador County whenever requested to

do so. However, the Sheriff can not force the cities to involve the Sheriff in their

investigations.”

64 2004- 2005 Grand Jury Final Report

“ The Sheriff has always used experienced Sheriff’s investigators to train and

mentor Sheriff’s staff with less experience. The Sheriff has also offered to train

and mentor staff from the police departments. However, the Sheriff can not

force the police departments to avail themselves of this offer.”

Sheriff’s Dispatch

2003/ 2004 GRAND JURY REPORT FACTS SECTION

• During normal business hours Monday through Friday, citizens of

Jackson, Ione, and Sutter Creek can call their own police departments

directly. After hours, all calls to the various police departments are

automatically routed to Sheriff Dispatch.

• When Sheriff Dispatch sends a city police officer on a call, they

additionally send a Sheriff’s deputy as backup because cities frequently

have only one police officer on duty.

RESPONSES

City of Jackson Police Department

Fact One: “ Agree”

“ The Jackson Police Department not only receives call for service from the public

during weekday hours but provides for lobby service as well. The Jackson Police

Department also opens its dispatch center and lobby during special event and

disasters.”

Fact Two: “ Disagree”

“ This is not correct, as Sheriff’s deputies through Sheriff’s policy are not allowed

to respond to city calls for service unless specifically requested by a Jackson

police officer. Because of the proximity between the cities of Jackson and Sutter

Creek, backup when needed, is usually from the Sutter Creek Police Department

and likewise when they need assistance.”

City of Sutter Creek Police Department

Fact Two: “ Disagree”

“ The Sheriff’s Department does not send a deputy on every call in the City.

Under the terms of mutual aid, Deputies sometimes ‘ back up’ City Police

Officers, the same can be said for Officers ‘ backing up’ Deputies. Factually, it is

more common for Officers from Sutter Creek and Jackson to provide mutual aid

to each other.”

2004- 2005 Grand Jury Final Report 65

Amador County Sheriff’s Office

Fact Two: “ Disagree”

“ The second bullet of the Grand Jury’s facts is not correct. The Sheriff’s dispatch

center does not automatically send a Sheriff’s Deputy on all calls that the police

departments are sent on. The Sheriff’s dispatch center only sends a Sheriff’s

Deputy on a city police department call if the police officer in the city requests a

Sheriff’s Deputy for assistance or back- up. Thos only occurs in occasional cases

and is not the norm. “

No response to the Facts section was required or received from the other law enforcement

agency.

2003/ 2004 GRAND JURY REPORT FINDINGS SECTION

• A duplication of services exists

City of Jackson Police Department

Finding: “ Disagree”

“ The City of Jackson Police Department offers to its citizens and level of specific

city information from trained city clerical and dispatch personnel that is not

available through the Sheriff’s dispatch center or elsewhere.”

City of Ione Police Department

Finding: “ Disagree partially”

“ While similar services are offered by the different jurisdictions and the Sheriff’s

Office, a duplication of the same services is not. During normal business hours

Monday through Friday, citizens of the Cities can not only call their own police

departments directly but can also walk into their police department for service.

Local dispatch can then contact the officer( s) on duty or a particular officer via

radio or phone. During evenings and weekends when police departments are

normally closed, and walk- in traffic is less frequent, service and 911 calls are

routed through the Sheriff’s dispatch center. Thus, the situation facilitates walk-in

request for service when foot traffic is high and cen6tralized dispatch when

calls for service are normally over the phone. The Cities view this plan, other

than the high cost charged by the Sheriff’s Office, as a proper and measured

response to normal patterns of requests for service.”

City of Sutter Creek Police Department

Finding: “ Disagree”

“ The facts upon which this finding was based are false. As discussed elsewhere

in this response, some redundancies may legitimately exist in good

government.”

66 2004- 2005 Grand Jury Final Report

Amador County Sheriff’s Office

Finding: “ Agree”

2003/ 2004 GRAND JURY REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS SECTION

• For all non- emergency requests for law enforcement services call the

Amador County Sheriff’s Office.

• Utilize 911 for all emergency calls.

City of Jackson Police Department

Recommendation One: “ Will not implement”

“ The Jackson Police Department has a history of dedicated service that cannot be

duplicated by sending its citizens elsewhere. The Jackson Police Department

provides local information to the community, which provides for better response

to its needs.”

Recommendation Two: “ Implemented”

“ All 911 calls are dispatched through the Amador County Sheriff’s Dispatch

Center.”

City of Ione Police Department

Recommendation One: “ Will not be implemented”

“ Non- emergency requests for service often fall into law enforcement’s role as

community problem solvers. To effectively address long- term community

issues, civil problems, emerging crime trends, and to simply provide the public

with accurate and useful information, it is necessary that the call- taker have

intimate knowledge of the community and the current problems and issues

facing the community. Having the same call- taker answering calls regularly in a

small community ensures that this line of communication and effective exchange

of information remains intact. A dispatcher working shifts in a large dispatch

center, miles from the city simply cannot provide this level of service to the

community. Often, calls that would require the response of an officer can be

handled over the telephone, or routed directly to an officer or investigator

assigned to a specific case or type of case. This relationship is one of the reasons

why small- town rural law enforcement agencies clear and solve more crimes

than larger police agencies nation- wide, and continually enjoy higher rates of

customer ( citizen) satisfaction and support.”

Recommendation Two: “ Has been implemented”

“ This system was authorized by the FCC in 1968 and was implemented

nationwide by the early 1980’ s ( most systems were later upgraded to ‘ enhanced

9- 1- 1’). “

2004- 2005 Grand Jury Final Report 67

City of Sutter Creek Police Department

Recommendation One: “ Partially disagree”

“ The City of Sutter Creek contracts with the Sheriff’s Department for dispatch

services. It also provides a local number for assistance. This number is for

normal business ( e. g. vehicle releases, questions, non- emergency calls for service,

etc.) and may be staffed. If it not staffed, it provides for transfer to Sheriff’s

Dispatch. This policy is a common and tested method of providing access to

police services.”

Recommendation Two: “ Has been implemented”

“ All Cities in the County participate in the ‘ enhanced 9- 1- 1’ emergency call

system.”

Amador County Sheriff’s Department

Recommendations One and Two:

“ To the extent the Sheriff has the ability and authority to do so these

recommendations were implemented years before they were made by this Grand

Jury. The Sheriff and the police departments have been employing a centralized

‘ 9- 1- 1’ system for emergencies.”

“ The Sheriff lacks the authority to unilaterally implement the first bullet of the

recommendations. The police departments would need to implements the

change of having their citizens call the Sheriff’s Office dispatch center for all non-emergency

requests for law enforcement services. Therefore, this

recommendation will not be implemented because it is not reasonable to expect

the Sheriff to do so. The police departments would have to implement this

recommendation.”

Narcotics Officers

2003/ 2004 GRAND JURY REPORT FACTS SECTION

• The Narcotics Task Force consists of two deputies from the Sheriff’s Office

and one Ione police officer.

No responses to the Facts section were required or received from the law enforcement

agencies.

2003/ 2004 GRAND JURY REPORT FINDINGS SECTION

• There is inconsistent city participation in the Narcotics Task Force.

68 2004- 2005 Grand Jury Final Report

RESPONSES

City of Jackson Police Department

Finding: “ Disagree”

“ The Jackson Police Department has participated in the program by assigning

Jackson police officers to the task force in past years. The Jackson Police

Department follows direction and recommendations made by the facilitating

agency.”

City of Ione Police Department

Finding: “ Disagree partially”

“ The city participation in the task force has historically been driven by the

available funding sources and the individual needs of the cities, based upon

population and levels of drug crime. Involvement by police departments has

adjusted to meet the needs of the Cities’ drug crimes.”

City of Sutter Creek Police Department

Finding: “ Disagree”

“ This finding was arrived at incorrectly. The Narcotics Task Force is a combined

program of every department in Amador County. The City of Sutter Creek is a

FULL participant, though we have no personnel on the team. State grant

funding only provides enough funding for one City Officer, therefore the Task

Force Governing Board has elected to have one rotating City position instead of

three part- time Officers from each City. The City of Sutter Creek has deferred to

Jackson and Ione for the last two rotations due to a higher stated need in those

Cities. Even so, the City of Sutter Creek Police Department participates with the

Task Force whenever a narcotics problem comes to its attention by notifying the

Task Force of narcotics intelligence and drug related activities, especially arrests.

On at least two occasions in the last several years, the department assisted in the

service of a narcotics search warrant in the City.”

Amador County Sheriff’s Department

Finding: “ Disagree”

“ The cities have consistently participated in the narcotics task force since its

inception. The cities have taken turns at contributing one officer at a time to the

task force. Jackson had an officer assigned to the task force for several years.

Then the position rotated to Ione, and Ione has assigned an officer to the task

force for the last several years. It is the stated plan that Sutter Creek will

contribute an officer when Ione’s officer finishes a three- year rotation.”

“ The police departments regularly provide information to the narcotics task force

that the task force then investigates.”

2004- 2005 Grand Jury Final Report 69

2003/ 2004 GRAND JURY REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS SECTION

• Increase the number of qualified officers assigned to the Narcotics Task

Force.

• Sutter Creek and Jackson should participate equitably in the Narcotics

Task Force.

• Train existing officers for additional Narcotics Task Force coverage for the

county.

RESPONSES

City of Jackson Police Department

Recommendation One: “ Implemented”

“ The Jackson Police Department shall follow all recommendations as voted upon

by the governing board that oversees the Amador Narcotics Enforcement Unit.”

Recommendation Two: “ Implemented”

“ As earlier stated, the Jackson Police Department follows the recommendations

set forth by the governing board and will continue to do so.”

Recommendation Three: “ Implemented”

“ The Jackson Police Department has sent most of its police officer to basic

Alcohol/ Narcotics Influence Recognition and Investigation courses.”

City of Ione Police Department

Recommendation One: “ Will not be implemented”

“ The Cities firmly believe that the participation levels of city police officers has

been generally commensurate with the amount of drug activity in the cities,

Mule Creek State Prison, and Preston School, which are both located in the city

limits of Ione, as opposed to the unincorporated areas of the county. While

increasing the number of police officers could assist the Sheriff in covering the

unincorporated areas, it would have little effect on the drug activity in the cities.”

Recommendation Two: “ Has been implemented”

“ The City of Jackson has fully participated in the Narcotics Task Force over the

past several years. However, this duty position rotated to the City of Ione during

FY 03/ 04. This coverage by one city officer to assist the 2 sheriff’s deputies

provides equitable coverage for the population of the cities. The City of Sutter

Creek will be asked to participate in 04/ 05.”

Recommendation Three: “ Has been implemented”

“ The Cities police departments now have numerous narcotics trained officers,

many of which have previous experience working on the Narcotics Task Force in

Amador County. These officers stand ready to assist the Task Force, upon

request, to handle special operations or surge periods. Additional officers will be

trained in narcotics investigations as training opportunities arise over the course

of officers’ careers and balanced with the individual training needs of the

70 2004- 2005 Grand Jury Final Report

department. The City of Ione has one of the County’s premier narcotics

officers/ K- 9 unit. This officer is continuously working/ training with the

department’s patrol staff. This training includes working with the California

Department of Corrections and the California Youth Authority in the

intervention and apprehension of suspects who traffic narcotics/ contraband into

Ione’s two state prison facilities.”

City of Sutter Creek Police Department

Recommendation One:

“ The recommendation is based upon inaccurate information. The Sutter Creek

Police Department is a FULL participant in the Narcotics Task Force.”

Recommendation Two:

“ The City welcomes additional assistance in narcotics investigation but there is a

fiscal consideration that has not been addressed in this report.”

Recommendation Three:

“ The report has not shown that the Sutter Creek Police Department does not

provide sufficient service in narcotics enforcement. Narcotics investigations are

not ‘ mystical arts’ practiced by only a special set of Officers. Each and every

officer of the Sutter Creek Police Department is trained in narcotics

investigations and has the responsibility to follow up on these crimes when they

come to their attention.”

Amador County Sheriff’s Department

First, second and third recommendations: “ Will not implement”

“ The recommendations are not warranted and are unreasonable.”

“ The Sheriff does not believe there is a need to increase the number of officers

assigned to the narcotics task force. The Sheriff believes that the number

currently assigned is sufficient to the task. When additional officers are needed,

officers from other assignments are floated into the unit for a specific mission or

investigation and then floated back to their primary assignment.”

“ The Sheriff stated under ‘ Response to Finding’ that the Sheriff believes that

there has been equitable participation by Sutter Creek and Jackson.”

“ The Sheriff believes there are sufficient officers assigned to the narcotics task

force. The training of existing officers to provide additional coverage in the

narcotics task force would require that those officers be transferred from their

current assignments. The assignments that those officers are currently on are just

as important as narcotics investigations. The Sheriff is not inclined to leave some

other criminal activity with no one assigned to it just to boost the number of

officers assigned to narcotics investigations.”

2004- 2005 Grand Jury Final Report 71

Shared Services

2003/ 2004 GRAND JURY REPORT FACTS SECTION

• Crime investigations, dispatching services, the Narcotics Task Force, and

the School Resource Officer are law enforcement functions that are

currently shared and consolidated on a county level.

No responses to the Facts section were required or received from the law enforcement

agencies.

2003/ 2004 GRAND JURY REPORT FINDINGS SECTION

• Shared services are beneficial to all county residents.

RESPONSES

City of Jackson Police Department

Finding: “ Implemented”

“ Some shared services can be beneficial but not all services, as each city and the

county have specific needs and concerns that do not transcend one another.”

City of Ione Police Department

Finding: “ Disagree in whole”

“ No persuasive evidence has been cited or produced to support this sweeping

finding by the Grand Jury, which seeks to disassemble the proud tradition of

local law enforcement service in Amador County. A significantly larger sheriff’s

office would undoubtedly benefit the citizens of Amador County, especially in

the low- density population areas where coverage could be enhanced. However,

the residents of the Cities who now enjoy 24- hour law enforcement services

would inevitably experience diminished services, slower response times and

relinquish local control of their police departments.”

City of Sutter Creek Police Department

The City of Sutter Creek Police Department mistakenly responded to this finding with

their response to the “ Vehicle Maintenance” section. They made no response to this

“ Shared Services” finding, and are in violation of California Penal Code section 933( c).

Amador County Sheriff’s Department

Finding: " Agrees”

“ The Sheriff agreement is specific to the situation of Amador County. The Sheriff

believes that through a proper administration of shared services that the concept

would be beneficial to all county residents.”

72 2004- 2005 Grand Jury Final Report

2003/ 2004 GRAND JURY REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS SECTION

• Combine local police departments with the County Sheriff to utilize

shared services efficiently.

RESPONSES

City of Jackson Police Department

Recommendation: “ Will not be implemented, as the Jackson Police Department

does not agree. There would be a real loss of city input with such a broad notion.

The citizens even through its own city council would lose control over the

coverage, policy, direction, identity and major budgetary concerns of its police

services.”

City of Ione Police Department

Recommendation: “ Will not implement”

“ Law enforcement needs differ greatly from community to community, even

within the same county. The only way to effectively police is to know the

community, the residents, the needs of the community, to be accessible, and

above all else, accountable. Quite often, we hear of police brutality, dereliction of

duty, or simple lack of responsiveness by law enforcement in other communities.

The one common thread among these reports is that they almost always involve

a larger law enforcement agency. The larger a law enforcement agency is, the

less accountable it tends to become to the community. The contemporary focus

of scholars and professional law enforcement agencies today is focused on

accountability. Communities increasingly demand accountability, and agencies

must strive to deliver it. Furthermore, we believe that smaller agencies are better

equipped to deliver accountability. In the section of this report that examines

budgets, your report cites the facts that Plymouth is simply too small and lacks

the tax base to provide a police department. It is quite likely that Plymouth

would still have its own police department if there was any way the city could

afford it.”

“ Amador City also contracts out for law enforcement services out of necessity.

On more than one occasion in the last ten years, the Amador City council has

seriously explored the idea of contracting with the Sutter Creek Police

Department instead of the Sheriff’s Office because of a perceived lack of

accountability, responsiveness, and access.”

“ Contrary to the Grand Jury’s finding, shared services will, in fact, cause a

decline in the quality of services to residents in the Cities. Moreover, sharing law

enforcement services with the county would result in laying off approximately

45 full- time/ reserve officers, thus reducing the County’s ability to adequately

patrol large functions or respond to disasters or other major emergencies.”

2004- 2005 Grand Jury Final Report 73

City of Sutter Creek Police Department

The City of Sutter Creek Police Department mistakenly responded to this

recommendation with their response to the “ Vehicle Maintenance” section. They made

no response to this “ Shared Services” recommendation, and are in violation of California

Penal Code section 933( c).

Amador County Sheriff’s Department

Recommendation: “ Will not be implemented”

“ The reason the recommendation will not be implemented by the Sheriff is that

the Sheriff lacks the authority to implement the recommendation. While the

Sheriff believes that, properly done, shared and consolidated law enforcement

services would be more cost efficient and provide enhanced services to all county

residents the Sheriff can not unilaterally implement this recommendation. This

recommendation would have to be implemented by the individual cities.”

“ The Sheriff believes that the nature of law enforcement provided to the cities is

strictly within the authority of the individual city residents, through their elected

city councils, to determine. Each of the cities of Ione, Jackson, and Sutter Creek

have approached the Sheriff in one fashion or another to provide information

about consolidating law enforcement services with the Sheriff, during the last ten

years. In each case the city ultimately rejected the idea. Cost efficiency and

sophistication of the law enforcement agency are not the only traits that cities

give consideration to when deciding the nature of law enforcement they wish to

implement in their cities. For small communities the matter comes down to local

identity and intimacy with their respective small law enforcement agency. In

many cases this trait wins out over all other considerations.”

“ The Sheriff must respect the wishes of the elected officials who are making

decisions in the local cities. The Sheriff lacks the authority to take over a city

police department without the local city council’s approval or specified other

extraordinary conditions. Therefore, the decision is not the Sheriff’s. The

decision and authority to implement a consolidation of law enforcement services

rests with the respective city councils.”

Vehicle Maintenance

2003/ 2004 GRAND JURY REPORT FACTS SECTION

• The cities contract with different garages for the maintenance and repair

of law enforcement vehicles.

• The County Corporation Yard has the appropriate staff and facilities to

repair additional law enforcement vehicles.

74 2004- 2005 Grand Jury Final Report

No responses to the Facts section were required or received from the law enforcement

agencies.

2003/ 2004 GRAND JURY REPORT FINDINGS SECTION

• Potential cost savings are available by using the County Corporation Yard

for the purpose of law enforcement vehicle maintenance and repair.

RESPONSES

City of Jackson Police Department

Finding: “ Disagree“

“ However the Jackson Police Department did use Amador County Corporation

Yard several years ago and found the actual work and staff to be above

reproach.”

“ Moreover, service was discontinued due to lengthy down time and cost factors.

The City of Jackson Police Department has received excellent service from local

automotive repair and service centers. These local entities are sensitive to public

safety needs and budgetary constraints as well and provide the deal possible for

the taxpayers.”

City of Ione Police Department

Finding: “ Disagree in whole”

“ Cost cannot ever be the sole determining factor in selecting equipment or

equipment repair. This maxim is of even greater significance when officers have

to trust their lives to their vehicles on a daily basis. In the experience of the

Cities, commercial vehicle services are typically performed in a more timely

fashion and completed to dealer specifications by factory trained mechanics.”

City of Sutter Creek Police Department

Finding:

“ The Cities have investigated the option of using the County Corp Yard as

suggested by the Grand Jury ( though the Grand Jury did not discuss this topic

with representatives of Sutter Creek). The City of Jackson conducted a trial

study, but did not find any cost savings. Furthermore, in the trial experiment,

the City of Jackson experienced long delays in the servicing of their vehicles.”

“ Independent shops in the City of Sutter Creek employ members of our

communities and it is the City of Sutter Creek’s policies to support local

businesses whenever possible. This is a legitimate policy and under the purview

of the City Council of Sutter Creek. The City Council is the directly elected

2004- 2005 Grand Jury Final Report 75

representative( s) of the citizens of Sutter Creek and is therefore legitimately

empowered to make policy decisions for the City.”

Amador County Sheriff’s Department

Finding: “ The Sheriff agrees with the finding“

“ It is possible that cost savings could be realized by the cities by using the

County Corporation Yard for vehicle maintenance and repair. However, the

Sheriff neither runs the County Corporation Yard or the cities. It would be up to

the cities and the County to determine if this is a cost efficient idea.”

Amador County General Services Administration

Finding: “ Agree”

2003/ 2004 GRAND JURY REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS SECTION

• Standardize the maintenance and repair of law enforcement vehicles by

using the County Corporation Yard.

RESPONSES

City of Jackson Police Department

Recommendation: “ Will not be implemented”

“ It is not practical for reasons mentioned in the Finding Section response.”

City of Ione Police Department

Recommendation: “ Will not implement”

“ No evidence has been produced to suggest that the County Corporation Yard

could adequately and timely repair a fleet the size required by one large law

enforcement agency and also produce a savings. No evidence has been

produced to ensure that law enforcement vehicle repair will not languish in

priority behind other county vehicles, especially when county maintenance staff

may lack the interest or experience to repair a complex or difficult problem.

Furthermore, the informed decision of whether to patronize local merchants as

opposed to default to county services is one that should be made by the duly

elected local city councils, not the Sheriff.”

City of Sutter Creek Police Department

Recommendation:

Please refer to the narrative response under the City of Sutter Creek Police Department

Finding section.

76 2004- 2005 Grand Jury Final Report

Amador County Sheriff’s Department

Recommendation: “ This recommendation will not be implemented.”

“ This recommendation will not be implemented by the Sheriff because it is

unreasonable, when applied to the Sheriff. The Sheriff lacks the authority to

implement this decision for the County or the cities.”

Amador County General Services Administration

Recommendation: “ The recommendation has not yet been implemented,

but will be if the City Police Departments elect to utilize the County’s services.”

Fuel

2003/ 2004 GRAND JURY REPORT FACTS SECTION

• Sutter Creek and Jackson purchase fuel from the County.

• Ione purchases fuel from a private source.

No responses to the Facts section were required or received from the law enforcement

agencies.

2003/ 2004 GRAND JURY REPORT FINDINGS SECTION

• The price for fuel varies.

RESPONSES

City of Jackson Police Department

Finding: “ Agree”

City of Ione Police Department

Finding: “ Agree“

“ However, as with equipment repair, cost can’t ever be the sole determining

factor in selecting fuel. No evidence has been produced to suggest the bulk fuel

contract utilized by the City of Ione costs more than the County fuel contract

price.”

City of Sutter Creek Police Department

Finding:

“ The City of Sutter Creek purchases fuel from the County Corp Yard.”

Amador County Sheriff’s Department

Finding: “ The Sheriff agrees with the finding.“

“ Anyone who has fueled their car in Amador County and purchased fuel at any

one of the several wholesale outlets in Sacramento can vouch for this finding.”

2004- 2005 Grand Jury Final Report 77

Amador County General Services Administration

Finding: “ Agree”

2003/ 2004 GRAND JURY REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS SECTION

• Contracts should be made for fuel purchase through the County

Corporation Yard

RESPONSES

City of Jackson Police Department

Recommendation: “ Implemented“

“ The City of Jackson currently has a contract for fuel purchasing through the

County Corporation Yard.”

City of Ione Police Department

Recommendation :

“ Jackson and Sutter Creek, in close proximity to the County Corporation Yard

are purchasing their fuel from the County. The fact that Jackson and Sutter

Creek purchase fuel from the County has had more to do with their proximity to

the corporation yard as it does about the price. The county gasoline pumps are

located at the County Corporation Yard at Sutter Hill. It is approximately a ten

mile, twenty minute drive from the City of Ione. This would put an extra twenty

miles on each patrol vehicle for each shift of operation. The expense in gasoline

usage alone negates any advantage to this system, not to mention wear and tear

on the vehicles, negative and unnecessary environmental impacts, the negative

impact it would have on police response times, and the resulting reduction in

preventative patrol time within the City. The City of Ione has examined at

contracting with the state facilities in the City to purchase fuel, but found it to be

almost as expensive after adding in administrative costs. The Cities need to

retain flexibility to acquire the best fuel contract that suits their individual needs

rather than being locked into a one- size- fits- all County fuel contract.”

City of Sutter Creek Police Department

Recommendation:

“ The City of Sutter Creek purchases fuel from the County Corporation Yard.”

Amador County Sheriff’s Department

Recommendation: “ Will not be implemented by the Sheriff because it is

unreasonable, when applied to the Sheriff. The Sheriff lacks the authority to

implement this decision for the County or the cities.”

78 2004- 2005 Grand Jury Final Report

Amador County General Services Administration

Recommendation: “ Has been implemented by the Count