CALAVERAS COUNTY GRAND JURY

May 22, 2002

The Honorable John E. Martin

Calaveras County Superior Court

891 Mountain Ranch Road

San Andreas, CA 95249- 9709

Dear Judge Martin:

The 2001- 2002 Grand Jury herewith submits its final Grand Jury Report to the Calaveras County

Superior Court. Nineteen citizens from varied backgrounds devoted the past year to reviewing

the activities of various government entities, investigating citizens’ complaints, responding to

concerned citizens’ inquiries, and drafting the enclosed final Grand Jury Report.

I hope that the governmental agencies and the citizens of Calaveras County will accept our

recommendations in the spirit in which they are offered, i. e., the principles of Duty – Honor –

Country, a firm belief that the efforts of many dedicated county employees should be recognized,

and the hope that we have identified some areas where it may be possible to affect positive

change.

Throughout the year, all committees continually reported their findings and details of their

inquiries to the whole Grand Jury, which then decided on a course of action. As a result, each

section of this report is based on careful and extensive investigation and has been adopted by at

least 12 members of the Grand Jury, as required by Penal Code section 933.

On behalf of the 2001- 2002 Calaveras County Grand Jury, I would like to thank Court Executive

Officer Mary Beth Todd and the staff of the Superior Court, the Honorable Judge Mewhinney,

and especially you for your support. A special thanks goes to the County Counsel.

Finally, I would like to thank this year’s Grand Jurors for their tireless efforts. All of them have

approached the task of Grand Juror in a conscientious and responsible way. For most, this work

has been done at a considerable sacrifice of time, use of personal funds, and adjustment of

personal lives.

Sincerely,

Dieter F. Kilian

Foreman

2001- 2002 Grand Jury

Final Report

The 2001/ 2002 Calaveras County Grand Jury approved this Final Report on May 22, 2002.

S/____________________________________

Dieter F. Kilian, Foreman

I accept for filing this Grand Jury Final Report for the year 2001- 2002, and certify that it

complies with Title V of the California Penal Code on June 10, 2002.

S/____________________________________

John E. Martin

Presiding Judge of the Superior Court

Any persons interested in receiving a copy of this 2001- 2002 Grand Jury Final Report may do so

by contacting the Calaveras County Superior Court or by accessing the County website…

www. co. calaveras. ca. us.

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Table of Contents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i

Members of the Grand Jury . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii

Calaveras County Grand Jury . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv

How to Contact the Grand Jury . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv

California Grand Juries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v

FINAL REPORTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v

Audit and Finance

A. Annual Audit FY 2000- 2001 Contract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6

B. Annual Audit FY 2001/ 2002 Contract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

C. Teeter Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10

Education and Library

Calaveras County School Districts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11

Government and Administration

A. Airport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18

B. Animal Shelter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

C. Emergency Notification. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29

Human Services

Child Protective Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32

Law and Justice

A. Jail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

B. Sheriff’s Department. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Citizen’s Complaints

Calaveras County Water District . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Legal Advertising/ Public Notices. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41

Building Department Policy Governing Private Projects. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Barking Dogs, Noise Abatement, and Animal Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Brown Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Adult Protective Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Juvenile Probation Case Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Possible Elder Abuse and Mismanagement at Senior Housing Project. . . . . . . . . . . 45

ii

Page

Central Calaveras Fire and Rescue Protection District. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Improprieties in the Former District Attorney’s Office. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Jail and Arrest Policies of Calaveras County. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Legality of Advertising Billboards Along Highway 12 Office . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Skateboard Facility at Turner Park . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49

Code Compliance and Environmental Health Department. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

Calaveras County Sheriff’s Department Policy Concerning Impounded Property . . 50

Planning Department Variance Decision. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

iii

MEMBERS OF THE 2001- 2002 GRAND JURY

Linda Beck

Ted Dodge

Jerry Galindo

Richard Green

Dieter F. Kilian – Foreman

Catherine Luchsinger

Richard Lyneis

Millie Mascot

Hallie Matson

Roy McCann

Fay Messer

Debbie Orbe

Martin Pollyea

Maggie Ross

Diane Schilling

Bill Todd

Gary Tofanelli – Foreman Pro Tem

Susan Vandale

Margaret Warrick

iv

CALAVERAS COUNTY GRAND JURY

The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution and the California Constitution call for a

Grand Jury. The Grand Jury is an investigative body created for the protection of society and

enforcement of its laws. Grand Jurors are officers of the Superior Court, but function as an

independent body. A Grand Jury works to ensure that the best interests of all citizens of the

county are being served by their government bodies. Grand Jurors are selected at random from

DMV records and voter registrations as well as interested individuals who apply or who are

nominated by the Superior Court. Jurors are impaneled for one year beginning July 1 and may

choose to stay on one more year with the approval of the Superior Court Judge. One unique

provision of the Grand Jury is its power, through the Superior Court, to aid in the prosecution of

an agency or individual they have determined to be guilty of an offense against the people.

The major function of the Calaveras County Grand Jury is to examine county and city

government and special districts to ensure their duties are being lawfully carried out. The Grand

Jury reviews and evaluates procedures, methods, and systems utilized by these agencies to

determine if more efficient and economical programs may be used for the betterment of the

county’s citizens. It is authorized, but not limited, to inquire into charges of willful misconduct

or negligence by public officials or the employees of public agencies. Neither official request

nor public outcry should force the jury to undertake an inquiry, which it deems unnecessary,

frivolous or undesirable.

The Grand Jury is required to investigate the conditions of jails and detention centers, and to

investigate complaints made by or on behalf of prisoners. It is also authorized to inspect and

audit the books, records and financial expenditures of all agencies and departments under its

jurisdiction, including special districts and non- profit agencies, to ensure funds are properly

accounted for and legally spent.

The Grand Jury generally limits its investigations to the operations of governmental agencies,

charges of wrongdoing within public agencies, and the performance of unlawful acts by public

officials. The Grand Jury cannot investigate disputes between private parties or matters in

litigation.

HOW TO CONTACT THE GRAND JURY

Those who wish to contact the Grand Jury may do so in writing:

Foreperson

Calaveras County Grand Jury

P. O. Box 1414

San Andreas, CA 95249

Complaint forms may be requested by calling ( 209) 754- 5860 or by downloading a blank form

from the Grand Jury website at www. co. calaveras. ca. us/ departments/ grand_ jury. html.

v

CALIFORNIA GRAND JURIES

California is one of the states to initiate prosecution by either indictment or complaint. The first

California Penal Code contained statutes providing for a Grand Jury. Early grand juries

investigated local prisons, conducted audits of county books and pursued matters of community

concern. The role of the Grand Jury in California is unique in that by statutes passed in 1880, the

duties include investigation of county government.

As earlier stated, the authority for the Grand Jury system in the United States lies in the Fifth

Amendment of the U. S. Constitution. Provision for the Grand Jury in California is contained in

Article 1, Section 3 of the California Constitution. California is served by a Grand Jury system,

which provides ( with certain exceptions where separate civil and criminal grand juries are

authorized) one Grand Jury for each county. Its functions are ( 1) Civil: to review the conduct of

local government and ( 2) Criminal: to inquire into public offenses committed or triable within

the county. Only seven states provide for investigation of county government by a Grand Jury

beyond alleged misconduct of public officials.

FINAL REPORT

The Final Report of the Grand Jury consists of findings and recommendations of investigations

and reviews and is released to the Superior Court Judge by June 30 of each year. It is made

available to the new Grand Jury, the media, the public, and government officials.

6

AUDIT AND FINANCE

One of the areas of concern of the Grand Jury is its responsibility for selecting a state certified

public accounting firm experienced in the auditing of California counties, investigating

complaints and reviewing the performance of Auditor/ Controller, Assessor, Treasurer/ Tax

Collector, and the Technology Services Department.

A. ANNUAL AUDIT FISCAL YEAR 2000- 2001

REASON FOR INVESTIGATION:

Pursuant to Penal Code section 925, the Grand Jury shall investigate and report on the

Operations, Accounts and Records of the aforementioned County Departments.

BACKGROUND:

The independent audit firm of Smith and Newell was contracted by previous Grand Juries to

perform the audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States

of America, and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in government auditing

standards issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. A formal contract for FY

2000- 2001 was not properly executed by the Grand Jury for FY 2000- 2001.

The introduction in the Auditor/ Controller’s office of an improved computer system called IFAS

( Bi- Tech) in addition to a payroll module known as Megabyte resulted in some unforeseen

obstacles complicated by the conversion process. Some of these problems were identified in

previous audits.

SCOPE:

Audit of General Purpose Financial Statements of the County of Calaveras, California, for the

year ending June 30, 2001.

PROCEDURE:

The firm of Smith and Newell was issued a formal contract to perform the audit for FY 2001.

FINDINGS:

The FY 2001 audit was conducted, and the firm made a number of recommendations to the

various county departments. Most recommendations appeared procedural in nature. At the time

of this report, the majority of the recommendations had already been implemented and action

plans in place to complete the rest. The one exception is the recommendation that the county

create a project task force to begin the process of planning for implementation of Governmental

Accounting Standards Board ( GASB) 34.

7

SUMMARY:

The FY 2001 audit results stated, “ the accounting methods and procedures adopted by the county

conform to generally accepted accounting principles as applied to governmental entities.” This

reflects an excellent improvement over the FY 2000 audit, which was performed by the same

audit firm.

8

B. ANNUAL AUDIT FY 2001- 2002 CONTRACT

In June 1999, the Government Accounting Standards Board ( GASB) established a new

framework for the financial reports of state and local governments. This new framework, or

financial reporting model, represents the biggest single change in the history of governmental

accounting and financial reporting.

REASON FOR ACTION:

Pursuant to Penal Code section 925, the Grand Jury shall investigate and report on the

Operations, Accounts, and Records of the aforementioned County departments. The Grand Jury

may enter into a joint contract with the Board of Supervisors to employ the services of an expert.

BACKGROUND:

It was determined to be in the best interest of the county to solicit an audit firm with the

capability to assist in the establishment of GASB 34. Requests for Proposal were submitted to

seven Certified Public Accounting firms. Four responded with proposals, one letter of “ no

quote” was received, and two did not respond at all.

SCOPE:

Determine the audit firm most capable of performing not only GASB 34 implementation but also

able to perform the audit of the county records for FY 2001- 2002.

PROCEDURE:

The Grand Jury reviewed in detail all received proposals. They were evaluated on their technical

expertise, relating to GASB 34, and their experience in performing county audits within

California. Overall pricing was also a major consideration.

FINDINGS:

In the final analysis, the CPA firm of Bartig, Basloe & Ray met all the criteria. The Calaveras

Grand Jury voted to recommend to the Board of Supervisors that BB& R be awarded the contract.

The Calaveras Board of Supervisors approved the Grand Jury recommendation, and a contract

was issued.

SUMMARY:

The Auditor/ Controller’s Office feels confident that with the technical assistance provided by

this firm, they will be able to have GASB 34 fully implemented for FY 2002- 2003.

9

RECOMMENDATION:

The Auditor/ Controller’s Office is urged to report to the Grand Jury their progress with the

implementation of GASB 34.

RESPONSES REQUIRED:

Auditor/ Controller’s Office

10

C. TEETER PLAN

REASON FOR INVESTIGATION:

The Copperopolis Fire Protection District has refused to accept the recommendation of both the

Grand Jury and Auditor/ Controller’s Office that CFPD adopt the Teeter Plan.

BACKGROUND:

Under the Teeter Plan, the County Audit Department advances each local special district the total

amount of property tax revenues it is entitled to receive. The participating local governmental

entities will then have a consistent, predictable cash flow and are able to budget accurately since

revenues are not restricted to actual collections. The county government keeps any late

payments along with their penalty amounts.

SCOPE:

Under this method of tax apportionment ( Teeter Plan), the county currently apportions taxes on

an accrual basis three times a year: 55% in December and 40% in April with the balance due

June 30.

PROCEDURE:

Extensive interviews were conducted with the Calaveras County Auditor/ Controller’s Office

along with review of material contained in the Auditor/ Controller Department’s special district

meetings of May 8, 2001, the taxing jurisdiction meeting of June 28, 2001, and the CFPD special

board meeting of March 21, 2001. During these meetings, the advantages of the Teeter Plan

were presented in detail. Members of the CFPD Board of Directors were present at all meetings.

FINDINGS:

The distinct advantages of the Teeter Plan were presented in detail several times to the CFPD.

All other county fire districts have accepted the Teeter Plan as a reasonable way to manage their

monies. Copperopolis is the only district, fire or otherwise, choosing to do business differently.

RECOMMENDATION:

Once again, the Grand Jury believes the Copperopolis Fire Protection District should adopt the

Teeter Plan for tax apportionment.

RESPONSES REQUIRED:

Copperopolis Fire Protection District

11

EDUCATION AND LIBRARY

SUBJECT: REVIEW OF SALARIES AND EXPENSES OF CALAVERAS COUNTY

SCHOOL DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENTS, SCHOOL DISTRICT

FUNDING, AND THE ROLE OF THE CALAVERAS COUNTY OFFICE

OF EDUCATION

REASON FOR REVIEW:

Pursuant to California State Attorney General ( AG) Opinion No. 95- 113, dated September 13,

1995, a grand jury may investigate and report upon the manner in which a school district

performs its duties and functions. This opinion was predicated upon a 1965 California AG

opinion which concluded that a school district is a “ special purpose assessing and taxing district”

and therefore falls within the terms of California Penal Code section 933.5, thereby giving grand

juries oversight and investigative authority over the performance of school district activities.

Each year, the Calaveras County Grand Jury examines county and city government and special

districts to ensure their duties are being lawfully carried out. The Grand Jury reviews and

evaluates procedures, methods, and systems utilized by these agencies to determine if more

efficient and/ or economical programs may be used for the betterment of the county and its

citizens. The Grand Jury is authorized to inspect and audit the books, records, and financial

expenditures of all agencies and departments under its jurisdiction, including special districts and

non- profit agencies, to ensure that funds are properly accounted for and legally spent.

This review was not prompted by any citizen or governmental complaint. At the time of this

review, the 2001- 2002 Grand Jury had not received any complaints regarding school districts or

school district personnel.

BACKGROUND:

Calaveras County has four school districts ( approximate student populations in parentheses):

Calaveras Unified School District ( 4,000), Vallecito Union School District ( 1,030), Bret Harte

Union High School District ( 960), and Mark Twain Union Elementary School District ( 758). In

the remainder of this report, these districts will be referred to as Calaveras Unified, Vallecito,

Bret Harte, and Mark Twain.

Calaveras Unified is the largest district, consisting of six elementary schools, one middle school,

one high school and several alternative education programs. The Vallecito district has two

elementary schools and one middle school, Bret Harte operates a single high school plus

alternative education programs, and Mark Twain has one elementary school and one

elementary/ middle school.

12

SCOPE:

In September 2001, an interview request was mailed to each of the four school district

superintendents asking for an interview date during the months of October or November.

Attached to each request was a list of questions. The questions related to salary, benefits,

expense categories, authorization/ approval of expenses, controls over use of funds by

superintendents, access to funds, reimbursement, records of expenditures, and use of unexpended

monies.

PROCEDURE:

Each interview was held at a school site within the district. The interviews were conducted by a

minimum of four grand jurors. Each interview lasted between one and two hours.

FINDINGS:

There is no formula or rule that determines how much a board of trustees can pay a

superintendent. The pay varies based on factors they take into account such as education,

experience, and past accomplishments. Generally speaking, the bigger the school district the

higher the salary. Separate high school districts tend to pay their superintendents a little more

because there is more value to the property, with labs and shops and more specialized equipment

and facilities. Unified school districts ( K- 12) may pay a little more because the superintendent is

responsible for the whole operation. There is somewhat of a free market economy in operation.

Salaries of superintendents in our area are in the average range. Base salaries for the four

superintendents range from $ 100,000 per year for Calaveras Unified to $ 83,000 for Vallecito.

The Mark Twain superintendent receives $ 85,000 and Bret Harte $ 91,000.

Automobile/ Mileage: All of the superintendents use their personal vehicle for district business.

The Vallecito superintendent receives $ 4,000 per year for expenses, mostly used for mileage and

maintenance of his vehicle. The Mark Twain superintendent is allotted $. 29 per mile and $ 200

per month. The Bret Harte superintendent gets $ 5,100 per year ($ 425/ mo.). He drives 15,000 to

18,000 miles per year on district business. The Calaveras Unified superintendent does not

receive an allotment for mileage or personal vehicle use, but he has unlimited access to gasoline

at the school district’s gas pump. When on business out of the area, he must pay for gasoline

himself. Due to the large geographic area covered by Calaveras Unified, and the number of

schools, he drives approximately 40,000 miles per year on school district business.

Medical: All of the superintendents are covered by the same medical- dental- vision policies as

their certificated ( teaching) and classified ( non- teaching) staff. It is a Blue Cross, Delta Dental,

and Vision Service Plan package administered by Central Valley Trust, a medical management

firm specializing in the teaching profession. Employees have plan options differing in out- of-pocket

expense depending on the extent of coverage provided and the amount paid by the

district. It is not a 100% employer paid program.

Annuity: The Calaveras Unified superintendent receives an annual $ 7,000 tax- sheltered

annuity. The other superintendents do not receive annuities.

13

Conference/ Travel: School district superintendents attend between one and four out- of- area

professional conferences per year. The districts pay for the cost of the conference, lodging, and

may or may not pay a “ per diem” for meals. The Calaveras Unified superintendent goes to 3- 4

conferences per year and pays for his own meals. The Bret Harte superintendent has a $ 5,000

per year conference/ travel budget. Monies that are not spent are returned to the district’s general

fund. The Mark Twain and Vallecito superintendents are reimbursed for the cost of their

conference/ travel expenses.

Cell Phone/ Laptop Computer: The Vallecito superintendent has a district provided laptop and

a cell phone, which are also used by other district employees. The Mark Twain and Calaveras

Unified superintendents have a district cell phone, but not a laptop. The Bret Harte

superintendent has both. All superintendents have desktop computers in their offices connected

to school district networks.

Expense Accounts: None of the superintendents have an expense account, per se, from which

they can draw funds to pay for goods or services, which they deem necessary for the

performance of their duties. They are able, however, to draw from specific funds, categories, or

allotments, which are earmarked for specific use and approval through a system of checks and

balances.

Note on School District Funding: School districts receive funding from three sources: federal,

state, and local. In each of these categories, some monies have restricted uses and some are

unrestricted. Local monies consist largely of local taxes, bond funds, and developer ( growth)

fees. State monies are those funds proposed by the governor and passed by the state legislature,

mostly made up of general revenue limits funds ( see CCOE Section, below). Those monies are

known as average daily attendance ( ADA) and are monies given to each school district in the

state based on a formula involving the number of students in attendance. Federal funding is

usually, but not always, tied to special education programs and the education of other categories

of “ at risk” students. Between 80% and 85% of a school district’s budget is spent on salaries and

benefits for staff. Of that percentage, approximately one- eighth goes to salary and benefits for

administrators.

Approval/ Control of Use of Funds: In all cases, a superintendent’s use of funds, either for

himself or for his district, involves a multi- step process. As mentioned earlier, funding for any

item or service is predetermined by its allocation to a specific category or budget. Initial or final

approval for use of funds is the jurisdiction of each school district’s Board of Trustees. Some

items or services are pre- approved by virtue of their being in an allotment of monies available to

the superintendent to use at his discretion. At other times, the superintendent may want to

present it to the Board in an informal manner to make sure there will be no future problem with

its approval in the formal process. At each board meeting, school board trustees review a

computer printout, which lists all district expenses for the reporting period.

In each of our four school districts, the following process or “ chain of command” in the issuance

of a pay warrant for an expenditure, or a minor variation of it, is the rule: first, a request for

reimbursement form, with receipts attached, or a purchase order, is submitted for approval to a

supervisor or administrator; next, it goes to the school district’s business manager or director of

14

business services; and lastly, it goes to the Board of Trustees for final approval. In addition, each

school district’s records are audited annually by an independent auditor. The audit report is sent

to the Calaveras County Office of Education ( CCOE) for examination and then on to the State

Controller’s Office. Also, an interim report of each school district’s financial condition is sent

by each district to the County Office of Education twice per year for review.

Access to Funds: The superintendents were asked how they access their funds, by credit card,

petty cash, or reimbursement. None of the superintendents reported they used petty cash. Mark

Twain has a checking account with a $ 1,000 limit, which is available for unusual expenditures

and emergencies. This account requires two signatures. Calaveras Unified does not have a

district credit card. Bret Harte has a district credit card with a $ 2,000 limit, basically used by the

superintendent for travel expenses. Other staff may use it with approval. The Vallecito

superintendent carries a district credit card with a $ 5,000 limit. He uses it mainly to purchase

gasoline, for which he is allocated eighty- five gallons per month or $ 2,000 per year. This credit

card may be used by other staff, as approved by the superintendent. The expense is charged to

the appropriate budget account. Mark Twain has a credit card with a $ 1,000 limit, which is used

infrequently. Reimbursement of expenses is available to all superintendents. The Mark Twain

superintendent states that he rarely makes use of the reimbursement process. The Vallecito

superintendent never does, nor does Calaveras Unified. The Bret Harte superintendent submits

claims for reimbursement 6- 8 times per year.

The Role of the Calaveras County Superintendent of Schools: In February 2002, the

Calaveras County Superintendent of Schools was interviewed regarding the role the Calaveras

County Office of Education ( CCOE) plays in the structure of public education in Calaveras

County. The following information was provided.

Generally speaking, school district funding, and funding for CCOE, is based on the number of

students served. It is called average daily attendance, or ADA. Those monies generated are

called revenue limit funding. Historically, prior to the passage of Proposition 13 in 1978, the

bulk of funding school districts were entitled to was raised through local property taxes. In the

1970’ s several events occurred that shifted control away from local tax revenues for schools and

redirected them to the state.

Traditionally, a disparity had existed between the wealth of school districts based on property

taxes. A wealthy district with a high property tax base would get more money, whereas rural

schools in areas with little business or industry to support a tax base would be struggling. In a

1970’ s court case, that disparity was ruled unconstitutional. The court ordered the state to find a

way to equalize those revenue limits over time. This was accomplished over a period of twenty

years, evening out the amount of the cost of living allowance ( COLA) that the school districts

received from the state. Wealthier districts gradually received less COLA and poorer districts

more.

A second way that the state became involved in school district funding was a direct result of

Proposition 13 limiting available funds by lowering property taxes. At this point the state

essentially said it would provide funding from general revenues collected through various types

of taxes. About two- thirds of funding now comes from the state and one- third from local

15

property taxes. Prior to Proposition 13, the opposite was the case. [ Actually, however, all

monies are from state funds, since even property taxes do not remain in the county in which they

are generated, but go to Sacramento and are reallocated back to school districts.] Over the years

this has had the effect of some loss of local control over school district funding. The governor

and the legislature pull the purse strings. When the state talks, school districts must listen.

An additional source of financial assistance to school districts is known as equalization aid. This

is extra state aid, provided in some years, to a low- revenue district to increase its base revenue

limit toward the statewide average. However, despite past attempts to close the gap between

school district revenues, some disparity continues to exist between the affluent and poorer

districts.

Two general categories exist in the description of school district funding, restricted and

unrestricted. Unrestricted funds consist of the general revenue limits previously described and

may be used, as the name implies, with little restriction. Restricted funds, whether federal or

state in origin, are earmarked for a specific purpose. These categorical funds include, but are not

limited to, special education programs, Gifted and Talented Education ( GATE), School

Improvement Program ( SIP), “ Title” programs for economically disadvantaged and at- risk

students, transportation, building funds, grants, etc.

The formula for calculating average daily attendance ( ADA) changed a few years ago. It used to

be when a child came to school, the school district could count him for attendance, and the state

would give the district the money for the child being there that day. The district was also paid if

the student had an excused absence, such as being ill or having a doctor’s appointment. Now,

the state pays only when the student is actually there. This is known, in school district circles, as

the “ butt in the seat” rule. The amount a school district receives per child per year is based on

their revenue limit, and there are slight differences between limits. Assuming a child were in

attendance for a full 180 day school year, the district would receive, depending on its revenue

limit funding level, approximately between $ 4,500 and $ 7,000 per year for that child.

There is a popular misconception that the superintendents of the county offices of education have

direct authority and control over the school districts in their counties. In the 1850’ s, it was put

into the California Constitution that there would be a county superintendent of schools who

would “ superintend” the schools in his county, and it would be an elected position. About 20

years ago the voters in each county were given the choice of keeping it in an elected position or

changing it to an appointed position by the board of supervisors. Most counties, about five-sixths,

voted to keep it elected, as did Calaveras County. In actuality, the authority of the county

superintendent of schools is limited.

By constitutional direction, the authority over school districts by the CCOE superintendent of

schools is primarily financial. Each school district must prepare a yearly budget and send it to

the CCOE for review. The budget is put through a set of criteria to determine if the district will

be able to meet its financial obligations for that year and the succeeding two years, and they have

enough money in reserve in case of emergencies. This procedure was a result of the bankruptcy

of the Richmond School District about ten years ago. The legislature then passed a law, AB

1200, ordering each county superintendent of schools to oversee and approve the budgets of

16

school districts in his county because it was too complicated, and there were too many districts

for Sacramento to monitor.

The CCOE prepares the payroll for all of the school districts. The CCOE also audits the

district’s books and purchase orders to make sure charges are being made correctly and financial

mistakes are not being made. Voluntarily, the CCOE handles the credentialing of teachers for

the districts, helps teachers apply for the right credentials, assists in the renewal of credentials,

makes sure teachers take the proper classes, and guarantees they have the proper credential for

the type of class being taught.

On the curriculum side, the CCOE assists school districts in staff development, teacher training,

coordination of inservices, summer training, and operation of a media center where teachers can

obtain curricula materials for use in their classrooms.

The CCOE also offers educational programs for students who are expelled or at risk of failure,

and for those who wish an alternative to attendance at a traditional school district facility. These

programs fall under the categories of independent study and home schooling. The CCOE

prepares grants and conducts workshops, which assist the school districts and their staff. In

addition, the CCOE operates before and after school child care programs for districts in the

Highway 4 corridor.

The CCOE Superintendent of Schools sees his role as an advocate for the students in the county

and for the public, not that the school district superintendents aren’t there for that reason also, he

points out. When he receives a complaint or an inquiry from the public, he always tells them he

will check into the situation and get back to them. He lets them know the boundaries of his

authority. He considers himself a facilitator rather than a coordinator; he cannot order a school

district to do something but hopes to be able to facilitate a solution to the problem. The school

district superintendents are appointed by their boards, and he believes that this is a relationship

upon which he should not tread. On the other hand, if a problem has countywide significance, he

attempts to be proactive and entreats the districts to work together so the situation will not

become an issue.

SUMMARY:

This year, the Grand Jury undertook a review of the salaries and expenses of our school district

superintendents. Calaveras County has four public school districts: Calaveras Unified School

District, Bret Harte Union High School District, Mark Twain Union Elementary School District,

and Vallecito Union School District. Each district is administered by a board of trustees

consisting of five elected members and a superintendent appointed by the board. In addition, the

Calaveras County Office of Education ( CCOE) provides support services for the districts, mainly

in the financial/ accounting areas. It also assists in teacher services and operates independent

study, home study, and child day care programs. The CCOE has an elected superintendent and

an elected board of trustees. The salary and expenses of the CCOE Superintendent of Schools

was not reviewed.

17

Interviews were conducted, individually, with each school district superintendent. The

superintendents received a questionnaire in advance. The data collected can be summarized as

follows: salaries range from $ 83,000 to $ 100,000 per year; all superintendents use their own

vehicles when on district business and are compensated in various ways; all superintendents

receive the same medical benefits as do teaching and non- teaching staff; all superintendents

attend conferences out of the area and are reimbursed, in varying degrees, for their expenses;

some superintendents have cell phones and/ or laptop computers available to them, some do not;

none of the superintendents have a specific expense account from which they can draw monies

for discretionary use. Various expenses are charged to different accounts and a tight chain of

command exists to oversee the use of those monies. Superintendents access their funds in

various ways through reimbursement, purchase order, and limited credit card use. In all cases,

the board of trustees is the ultimate authority in approving the use of funds by their

superintendents.

CONCLUSION:

It became clear during the interviews of our four school district superintendents that they work

long, hard hours in the performance of their duties. Coordinating the needs of the students,

teachers, support staff, administrators and parents is no easy task. Their compensation is

equitable. The opportunity for financial malfeasance is minimal, as all funds are pre- approved,

post- approved, and examined at several steps along the way, at both local and state levels. It is

clear that there are numerous safeguards in place to protect against the misuse of public funds.

The 2001- 2002 Calaveras County Grand Jury wishes to thank the following superintendents for their

courtesy and assistance in the preparation of this report: Mr. John C. Brophy, Calaveras County Office of

Education; Mr. James L. Frost, Calaveras Unified School District; Mr. Chris Von Kleist, Mark Twain

Union Elementary School District; Mr. Michael Chimente, Vallecito Union School District; Mr. Joseph

W. Wilimek, Bret Harte Union High School District.

18

GOVERNMENT AND ADMINISTRATION

A. CALAVERAS COUNTY AIRPORT / MAURY RASMUSSEN FIELD

REASON FOR REVIEW:

The review was conducted pursuant to California Penal Code section 925, which states in part:

“… investigations may be conducted on some selective basis each year.” Records of past

Calaveras County Grand Juries show that the airport has not recently been subject to a review.

The 2001- 2002 Grand Jury received no formal complaints about the Calaveras County airport.

The investigation was considered to be a routine review of a Calaveras County facility.

BACKGROUND:

The Calaveras County airport is located approximately 5 miles southeast of the community of

San Andreas on Highway 49. Its address is Route 3, 3600 Carol Kennedy Drive, San Andreas,

California. The airport opened in December 1981. A grand opening ceremony was held in July

1982.

SCOPE:

The Grand Jury toured the airport under the able guidance of the manager. Ms. Kathy

Zancanella has been in the position of airport manager since 1989. All information gathered and

reported here was either provided by her or obtained from official publications.

PROCEDURE:

Several interviews with the manager were conducted and all questioning was conducted by at

least two members of the Grand Jury pursuant to California Penal Code section 916. Some

information was obtained on Airport Day 2002, which was organized as an open house event

and, according to the airport manager, had the largest number of visitors ever.

FINDINGS:

The airport is equipped to handle ninety percent of general aviation activities. DC- 3s have used

the landing strip and several private business jets are landing periodically. The California

Department of Forestry uses the airport to stage their firefighting tankers, observation planes and

helicopters, as well as airborne command and control platforms in the event of major fire

emergencies. The airport has an annual budget of approximately $ 282,560. The county’s

General Fund has never been asked to provide operational funds or funds for expansion or

improvement of airport or industrial facilities. It appears that the airport is completely self-supporting.

There are several non- airport related businesses located in the developed area of the airport.

Those businesses are operating their facilities on a land lease basis. The Calaveras County

19

Office of Emergency Services and the County Sheriff’s department share a hangar to house their

lake patrol boats and other equipment. Hangar space is rented on a monthly basis. Rents range

from $ 132 to $ 175. Larger hangar space is leased at $ 0.18 to $ 0.19 per square foot. Storage

spaces command a rental range between $ 79 and $ 84. Tie- down spaces are available at $ 27 and

parking costs $ 11. Office space consists of a lobby, pilot room and several private offices.

Rents for office space range between $. 60 and $. 83 per square foot. Leases and rents are

collected on a monthly basis. The current waiting list for hangar space consists of 48 parties and

changes constantly. Time frame for availability varies.

In addition to rents, income is generated by fuel sales, charges for current services ( utilities) from

business tenants, and aircraft tax. Major items of expenditures are insurance, maintenance of

buildings and grounds, runway and aprons, professional and special services ( manager’s contract

and administrative/ accounting help), and special department expense used as a reserve for

unusual expenses.

There is a signed agreement with a job description for the position of Airport Manager. Duties

are summarized below.

• Oversee all airport operations

• Oversee the maintenance of airport property

• Market available airport business space

• File grant applications for economic development

• File grant applications for airport improvements through the Federal Aviation

Administration ( FAA), the Division of Aeronautics, and the California Aid to

Airports Programs.

• Provide monthly financial and activity reports

• Assist County in preparation of a budget

While the airport is self- supporting, the county has occasionally extended loans, which the

airport is then obligated to pay back. Grants and loans have been used to develop additional

hangar space either for aircraft storage or commercial use. At present, grant funding in the

amount of $ 505,000 has been requested from the FAA for airport improvements. Such grants

require a 10 percent match; specifically a 5.5 percent share match from the airport and a 4.5

percent share match from the State Division of Aeronautics.

Future projects include additional water sources, a new sewer system, and a new access road

along portions of the NE airport boundary to allow development of further hangar space. Such a

road would also take passenger car and truck traffic off the run- and taxiway in front of the

existing hangars. To amplify the seriousness of this situation, the following information and

guidance was recently provided by the Safety Officer of the California State Department of

Transportation, Division of Aeronautics. His concern pertains to the unnecessary vehicle

operations within the Airport Operating Areas ( AOA) of the Calaveras County airport. He

specifically mentions the FAA’s efforts to educate airport managers about this dangerous

practice. Furthermore, it is a violation of the county grant assurances to the FAA and could

jeopardize future federal funding for the airport. The County has also received grant funds from

the Division of Aeronautics and is obligated to maintain dominion and control of the airport

20

property. If it appears that this problem cannot be corrected, it will adversely affect state funding

and possibly the airport permit. The AOA is defined as the airside area, or the airport side of the

buildings at the airport. Vehicle operations within the AOA are to be restricted to absolute

necessary activities within the specific area of the AOA such as aprons and taxiways. Typical

justification includes loading of aircraft passengers and freight or to access the owner’s hangar.

Vehicles should then be parked in designated areas. Owners or Fixed Base Operator personnel

may fuel aircraft, tug aircraft for maintenance, or access hangars. These activities are acceptable

provided they do not use or minimize the use of taxiways. Emergency vehicles may operate on

the runway to accomplish the necessary tasks relating to an emergency. The Aviation Safety

Officer urges airport management to address these problems in the airport procedures manual, to

implement an education program for tenants and local pilots, and to install the necessary fencing,

gates and signage. He suggests having an enforcement program including airport regulations

adopted by county ordinance, fines, and enforcement by a local law enforcement officer.

The Grand Jury came to the conclusion that the planned new access road would be extremely

helpful to direct vehicular traffic away from the AOA, thus assuring safety and financial support

of the county airport by state and federal agencies.

For further information, please see the attached airport location and layout drawing, as well as a

page of the Airport Master Record, and an excerpt from an airport directory. Information

provided by these addenda cover exact location, coordinates, magnetic variation, telephone

numbers, hours of operation, elevation, pattern altitudes, runways, lights, fees, approaches,

communication frequencies, weather contacts, charts, and local information as to rental cars,

restaurants and lodging.

CONCLUSION:

The Calaveras County Airport/ Maury Rasmussen Field appears to be efficiently run. It is the

opinion of the Grand Jury the County is served by a dedicated manager, who is also a pilot. The

manager is an independent contractor and not an employee of the County. Money, as in most

county projects, is needed to expand the airport facility. Improved water and sewage systems are

urgently needed. Safety concerns should be greatly reduced if an access road is built.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

1. The Airport Manager is urged to aggressively market her plans for a new access road and

additional hangar space.

2. Safety issues as they impact vehicular traffic in the Airport Operating Areas should be

addressed by Calaveras County, including possible county ordinances and funding.

3. Calaveras County Administration should actively pursue airport water and sewage issues.

4. Availability of grant share monies, as well as support in dealing with state and federal

agencies, should be provided by County agencies.

21

RESPONSES REQUESTED:

1. Calaveras County Board of Supervisors

2. Calaveras County Airport Management

22

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AIRPORT MASTER RECORD PRINT DATE 033- 02- 2000

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION FORM APPROVED OMB 2120- 0015

> 1 ASSOC CITY: SAN ANDREAS 4 STATE: CA LOC ID: 0O3 FAA SITE NR: 02141.11A

> 2 AIRPORT NAME: CALAVERAS CO- MAURY RASMUSSEN FIELD 5 COUNTY: CALAVERAS, CA

3 CBD TO AIRPORT( NM): 04 SE 6 REGION/ ADO: AWP / SFO 7 SECT AERO CHT: SAN FRANCISCO

GENERAL SERVICES BASED AIRCRAFT

10 OWNERSHIP: PUBLIC > 70 FUEL: 100LL 80 90 SINGLE ENG: 67

> 11 OWNER: COUNTYOF CALAVERAS 90 MULTI ENG: 3

> 12 ADDRESS: GOVERNMENT CENTER > 71 AIRFRAME RPRS: MAJOR 92 JET:

SAN ANDREAS, CA 95249 > 72 PWR PLANT RPRS: MAJOR TOTAL 70

> 13 PHONE NR: 209- 754- 6303 > 73 BOTTLE OXYGEN:

> 14 MANAGER: KATHY ZANCANELLA > 74 BULK OXYGEN: 93 HELICOPTERS:

> 15 ADDRESS: PO BOX 695 75 TSNT STORAGE: TIE 94 GLIDERS:

SAN ANDREAS, CA 95249- 0815 76 OTHER SERVICES: 95 MILITARY:

> 16 PHONE NR: 209- 754- 4208 INSTR RNTL 96 ULTRA- LIGHT:

> 17 ATTENDANCE SCHEDULE:

MONTHS DAYS HOURS FACILITIES OPERATIONS

NOV- APR ALL 0800- 1700 > 80 ARPT BCN: CG 100 AIR CARRIER:

MAY- OCT ALL 0700- 1800 > 81 ARPT LGT SKED: * DUSK- DAWN 101 COMMUTER:

> 82 UNICOM: 122.800 102 AIR TAXI:

18 AIRPORT USE: PUBLIC > 83WIND INDICATOR: YES- L 103 G A LOCAL: 12,500

19 ARPT LAT: 38- 08- 46.019ON ESTIMATED 84 SEGMENTED CIRCLE: YES 104 GA ITNRNT: 12,500

20 ARPT LONG: 120- 38- 53.4240W 85 CONTROL TWR: NO 105 MILITARY:

21 ARPT ELEV: 1,325 SURVEYED 86 FSS: RANCHO MURIETA TOTAL 25,000

22 ACREAGE: 93 87 FSS ON ARPT: NO

> 23 RIGHT TRAFFIC: 31 88 FSS PHONE NR: 916- 354- 0161 OPERATIONS FOR 12

> 24 NON- COMM LANDING: NO 89 TOLL FREE NR: 1- WX- BRIEF MONTHS ENDING 22 Nov 1999

25 NPIAS/ FED AGREEMENTS: NGY

26 FAR 139 INDEX:

RUNWAY DATA

> 30 RUNWAY IDENT: 13/ 31 H1 H2

> 31 LENGTH: 3,603 65 65

> 32WIDTH: 60 65 65

> 33 SURF TYPE- COND: ASPH- G ASPH- G ASPH- G

> 34 SURF TREATMENT: NONE NONE NONE

35 GROSSWT: SW 13

26 ( IN THSDS) DW

37 DTW

38 DDTW

LIGHTING/ APCH AIDS

> 40 EDGE INTENSITY: MED

> 42 RWY MARK TYPE- COND BSC- G / BSC- G - / - - / -

> 43 VGSI / V4R / /

44 THR CROSSING HGT / 31 / /

45 VISUAL GLIDE ANGLE / 3.00 / /

> 46 CNTRLN- TDZ - / - - / - - / -

> 47 RVR- RVV - / - - / - - / -

> 48 REIL / / /

> 49 APCH LIGHTS / / /

OBSTRUCTION DATA

50 FAR 77 CATEGORY A( V) / A( V) / /

> 51 DISPLACED THR / / /

> 52 CTLG OBSTN TREE / / /

> 53 OBSTN MARKED/ LGTD / / /

> 54 HGT ABOVE RWY END 25 / / /

> 55 DIST FROMRWY END 660 / / /

> 56 CNTRLN OFFSET 75L / / /

57 OBSTN CLNC SLOPE 18 : 1 / 50 : 1

58 CLOSE- IN OBSTN / / /

DECLARED DISTANCES

> 60 TAKE OFF RUN AVBL ( TORA) / / /

> 61 TAKE OFF DIST AVBL ( TODA) / / /

> 62 ACLT STOP DIST AVBL ( ASDA) / / /

> 63 LNDG DIST AVBL ( LDA) / / /

(>) ARPT MGR PLEASE ADVISE FSS IN ITEM86 WHEN CHANGES OCCUR TO ITEMS PRECEDED BY >

> 110 REMARKS:

A017 FOR ATTENDANT AFT HRS CALL 209- 772- 1738.

A081 MIRL RY 13/ 31 OPERS DUSK- 0000; AFT 0000 ACTVT MIRL - CTAF; ACTVT VASI RY 31 - CTAF.

A110 - 1 EFFECTIVE RY GRADIENT RY 13 0.6% UP.

A110* G THIS AIRPORT HAS BEEN SURVEYED BY THE NATIONAL OCEAN SERVICE. FOR INFORMATION ON

GEODETIC CONTROL, CONTACT THE NATIONAL GEODETIC SURVEY, 301- 443- 8168.

111 INSPECTOR: ( S ) 112 LAST INSP: 22 Nov 1999 113 LAST INFO REQ:

FAA Form5010- 1 ( 3/ 96) SUPERSEDES PREVIOUS EDITION

23

24

Information provided by: Airplane Owner’s and Pilot’s Association ( AOPA)

Airport Directory 2001- 2002

SAN ANDREAS – Calaveras County/ Maury Rasmussen Field ( ∅ Ο3)

Location: 4 mi. SE of city

Coordinates: N38- 08.76; W120- 38.89

Mag var: 15E

Navaids: LIN 114.8 059 17.4

Telephone: 209- 736- 2501

Fax: 209/ 736- 2402

Hours: 8 am to 6 pm summer; 8 am to 5 pm winter

Elevation: 1325

Pattern altitudes: 2303 MSL all aircraft

Runways: 13- 31 3,603 X 60, asphalt; right tfc ry 31, tree ry 13, lights PCL

Lights: SS to SR, 122.8 ( 5 clicks in 5 sec, med intensity); beacon PCL aft midnight

Fees: hangar, tiedown

Approaches: GPS RNAV

FSS: Rancho Murieta 122.2, 122.3

Com freq: APP Oakland Center/ 126.85; UNICOM/ CTAF 122.8

Weather contacts: AWOS 118.525, 209/ 736- 2523

Charts: San Francisco; L2

Noise abatement: Runway 31 heading to 1800 MSL; avoid ovrflt of subdivision ½ mi.

Rental cars: 49er Subaru- Isuzu 736/ 2514; 736- 4949

Restaurants: Appletree 6 mi 736- 9566; many Bed & Breakfast

Lodging: Angel’s Inn 6 mi 736- 4242; Black Bart Inn & Restaurant 5 mi 209/ 754- 3802;

Bonnie’s Inn Motel 5 mi 754- 3212; Gold Country Inn 6 mi

Camping: On field

Local attractions: International Frog Jumping Jubilee/ 3rd wkend in May; Mercer Cavern 18 mi;

Moaning Cave 15 mi; Norcal SPB

Notes: Intensive flight training

Davids Aviation, Inc.: 209/ 736- 2526, 209/ 736- 4554; Fax: 209/ 736- 2527;

Location: CTR; Fees: Overnight; Hours: 8 am to 5 pm winter; 8 am to

6 pm summer & spring; Frequency: 122/ 8; Fuel: Texaco 80, 100LL

Marc’s Flying Service: 209/ 736- 2325; Hours: Mon- Sat 8am- 6pm; Computerized

weather svc: Y; Frequency: 122.8

Norcal Aviation: 209/ 736- 4554; Fax: 209/ 736- 2527; Location: CTR; Fees: overnight;

Hours: 24 on req; Computerized weather svc: Y; Frequency: 122.8;

Fuel: Texaco 80, 100LL; Self service: 8 am to 5 pm

Helipads: H1 65 X 65, asphalt; H2 65 X 65, asphalt

25

B. CALAVERAS COUNTY ANIMAL CONTROL FACILITY

REASON FOR REVIEW:

The review was conducted pursuant to California Penal Code section 925, which states in part:

“… investigations may be conducted on some selective basis each year.” Records of past

Calaveras County Grand Juries show that the County Animal Control facility has been the

subject of many prior Grand Jury investigations. Not only the County Animal Control facility,

but also the Domestic Animal Control Division of the County’s Agriculture and Environmental

Management Agency have received formal complaints from the county citizenry.

BACKGROUND:

The Calaveras County Animal Control facility ( shelter) has been a long recognized problem with

past Grand Juries since 1986. Final reports of past Grand Juries have many times reflected the

need for change in this outdated facility. Grand Jury recommendations have included many

requests for minor changes: cage configuration, lighting, isolation of incoming animals until

checked for communicable diseases, urine and feces elimination from existing cages, filling of

cracks in concrete floor to prevent infectious disease bacteria to escape disinfection, drop- off

cages for dogs and cats to provide proper isolation of individual animals, protection to shelter

animals from summer heat and winter cold, etc. Major changes have included requests for a new

shelter.

Last year’s Grand Jury received letters and reports by the Calaveras County Health Services

Agency, the Environmental Health Department Land Use Agency, and the Angels Camp

Veterinary Hospital. Some of these reports document much needed improvements at the shelter.

SCOPE AND PROCEDURE:

The Grand Jury visited the shelter and was escorted by the Animal Control Director and his on-site

supervisor. Discussions regarding the shelter and its future were held with members of the

Board of Supervisors and the Animal Control Director and his staff. Information and guidance

on how to set up and run a proper domestic animal control facility were obtained by the Grand

Jury from members of the West Coast Regional Office of the Humane Society of the United

States and the Calaveras County Humane Society. Copies of all brochures, booklets and papers

collected from those agencies were turned over to the Shelter Director and all members of the

Board of Supervisors. These packets also included information on how to secure grants from

State and Federal agencies. All interviews were conducted by no less than two members of the

Grand Jury pursuant to California Penal Code section 916.

FINDINGS:

The tour of the Grand Jury through the shelter was conducted in August 2001. Some

recommendations made by last year’s Grand Jury were implemented. Lighting had been

improved. Additional drop- off cages for cats had been added. Some of the cracks in the dog

26

cage area had been sealed. However, the Grand Jury found that the seal was considered

inadequate and had to be replaced. A new freezer has been installed to store euthanized animals.

Deceased and euthanized animals are now taken to the county land fill at least twice a week.

While all of these actions are appreciated, they, nevertheless, do not address the major

shortcomings of the existing shelter.

Since the Grand Jury tour, Calaveras County Humane Society Volunteers have painted some of

the rooms in the “ get acquainted” area, have purchased new cat cages on wheels, and had new

flooring installed in some of the areas including the administrative area restroom. All these

improvements were paid for by the Humane Society. It is obvious that the Humane Society’s

concern is that these animals are living in a clean area conducive to adoption and redemption of

shelter- housed animals.

Following are statistics provided by Calaveras County Animal Control from January 1, 2001 to

September 30, 2001.

Number of licenses issued: 5,724

An animal is held before euthanasia an average of 6- 7 days.

Dogs impounded: 369

Dogs turned in to shelter: 341

Dogs released to owner: 296

Total dogs handled: 1,006

Dogs redeemed by owner: 194

Redemption rate: 19.3%

Dogs adopted: 146

Adoption rate for dogs: 18%

Dogs euthanized: 652

Euthanasia rate: 64.9%

Cats impounded: N/ A

Cats turned in to shelter: 879

Total cats handled: 879

Cats redeemed by owner: 9

Redemption rate: 1.1%

Cats adopted: 88

Adoption rate: 10.2%

Cats euthanized: 782

Euthanasia rate: 89%

Total other animals: 36

Adoption fees: Cats are $ 5.00 adoption and $ 15.00 for spay/ neutering.

Dogs are $ 15.00 adoption and $ 25.00 for spay/ neutering.

Total payments to veterinarians for treatments, onsite visits at the shelter and supplies:

$ 3,556.49. Payments to veterinarians for spay/ neutering: $ 4,907.50. Total for these

expenses: $ 8,463.99.

112 citations were issued, including “ fix- it tickets” for non- licensing.

27

The Animal Control facility has a total of 5 employees. All are full time. No part- time or

volunteers.

No grant monies have been received by the shelter.

In October 2001, several members of the Grand Jury toured the Tuolumne County Animal

Control Facility, and in their opinion, it is an impressive operation. The Tuolumne shelter is a

joint venture with the Humane Society. That facility was built by the Humane Society. The

animal shelter leases part of the building for their use, and the Humane Society occupies the

other side of the building.

As a much needed fundraiser, the Tuolumne County shelter held a contest for school children.

The topic was drawings of animals, and the winning picture was used to decorate coffee mugs,

which were then made available to the public for a donation. All of these activities show a

concerted effort to run an efficient shelter.

The Calaveras County Board of Supervisors has allocated $ 100,000 toward a study of a new

facility. County administrators have told the Grand Jury that a new facility could be built in the

present location. Noise abatement and safety were issues that could be handled, so we were told.

The Grand Jury was further told that a task force or committee was being formed under the

guidance of the Shelter Director to explore all possibilities to plan a new shelter for Calaveras

County. In October 2001, a member of this year’s Grand Jury was selected and accepted to be

part of this committee. However, she has not yet been invited to attend any meetings. The

Humane Society has an active volunteer program. The Calaveras County animal shelter’s

acceptance of those volunteers is appreciated and encouraged.

CONCLUSION:

The Grand Jury is concerned the above information and statistics are indicative of the Board of

Supervisors low prioritization of animal shelter issues. Recommendations for a new shelter by

prior Grand Juries have not been implemented. As stated in last year’s final report, one of the

major problems appears to be that the Director of Animal Control is over tasked. He is in charge

of too many other management functions in his position as Agriculture and Environmental

Agency Commissioner to be effective in negotiations for a new shelter. Competent as he may

be, he does not have enough time to conduct, plan and attend all meetings necessary in

connection with a new shelter project, since by his own admission, he only devotes about 10 to

15 percent of his time to shelter affairs. Only a full- time position, newly created and staffed with

a competent individual whose sole job it will be to oversee and be responsible for the planning,

fund acquisition, construction and subsequent running of a new shelter, is the answer for this

continuing problem. Last year’s Grand Jury referred to the shelter as a “ disgrace” to the County.

Very little progress has been made.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

1. Aggressively research and apply for facility improvement and/ or grants and funding

options for a new facility

28

2. Hire a full time animal control director

3. Expand the volunteer program

4. Arrange for an annual health inspection of the present facility by the Environmental

Health Department

RESPONSES REQUESTED:

1. Board of Supervisors

2. Animal Control Director

29

C. CALAVERAS COUNTY EMERGENCY NOTIFICATION

The Calaveras County Darby Fire in September 2001 occurred during the events of September

11. It became alarmingly clear that Calaveras County not only lacked an adequate, uniform

system to advise residents of current fire information, but also lacked a countywide alert system

for emergencies in general.

REASON FOR INVESTIGATION:

The dissatisfaction, apprehension, and heightened anxiety of Arnold area residents was due to

the lack of reliable, up- to- date information regarding risks/ scope of the Darby Fire.

BACKGROUND:

During the Darby Fire many residents were either evacuated, on evacuation alert, or worried

about their status while flames from the fire were visible from their residences. The means of

disseminating information was poor at best. Concurrently, the national crisis produced increased

concern. Information, however insufficient, for residents affected by the fire came from the

California Department of Forestry ( CDF), the US Forest Service, the Calaveras Sheriff’s

Department, and other sources:

• Many residents mistakenly relied on the news coverage of the fire from TV stations that

were often unaware of current developments and were not area specific.

• The fire departments provided telephone numbers but often with out- dated, non- specific

information.

• The radio stations in Sonora and Jackson were not received by all residents. The Sonora

station periodically aired information provided by CDF, but was not always available,

particularly on weekends.

• The public access TV station information was at least a day old, and not available during

the power outage.

• Power failure/ interruption left many area residents reliant on neighbors or friends as the

only source of information.

• Power failure in surrounding areas lead to more speculation about the proximity of the

fire.

SCOPE:

While the Darby Fire brought this lack of notification procedures to the forefront, other

emergencies in the county such as water quality, road closures, etc. would apply.

FINDINGS:

At a community meeting with District 3 supervisor, representatives from fire departments, CDF,

and the Sheriff’s department, community turnout was significant, and the major complaint was

lack of easily accessible information. While CDF posted notices at several locations along

Highway 4, and also provided updates to radio stations, it was not appropriate to expect residents

30

to leave their homes at risk and drive around looking for posted notices. The forest service

stationed an employee at a local market, and using charts and diagrams, he attempted to dispense

information to shoppers. This method of holding continuous small, public gatherings was

ineffective. Inquiries were limited to specific information for each attendee, and was not

disseminated to the general public.

The acting County Administrative Officer ( CAO), also the head of the Office of Emergency

Services ( OES), was invited to attend the November 6, 2001 meeting of the full Grand Jury. His

presentation was followed by a discussion on the need for a system of emergency notification to

replace what is currently used ( described above). Subsequently, the Grand Jury chose to study

the situation and make suggestions. The District 3 supervisor and the CAO suggested the use of

a “ banner” at the bottom of the TV screen during regular programming to inform the public

during emergencies. This would be helpful, but only in circumstances where power supplies

were not disrupted. A newspaper article mentioned that the Board of Supervisors had

recommended the CAO follow up with a need assessment and recommendations.

On April 23, 2002, the Grand Jury received a report from the OES, which addressed issues in

terms of short- term and long- term avenues to pursue. Short- term actions cover public

notification during major fire events and could be implemented by this coming fire season.

These actions involve OES and CDF coordinating their efforts to seek more efficient means of

approving quicker press releases. Further, CDF is developing a new protocol so that during fires

they will be more responsive to our local public information needs. Long- term actions are very

complex and involve many local and state agencies, including Public Access Television

( Channel 5), AT& T cable service, Public Access Advisory Committee, State Office of

Emergency Services, Emergency Alert System, and the FCC. The direction of these actions

appears to use television, specifically Channel 5, as the mechanism through which the public will

be notified and updated during emergencies. In this OES report, an earlier suggestion by Grand

Jurors, to use a telephone system, was felt to be of no benefit to the public at this time. The

report states, “ CDF already provides manned emergency phone lines during major fire events.”

SUMMARY:

There is a need for emergency notification to county residents during emergencies. This

notification must be available during power outages. This would require telephones that do not

rely on electric power. The fact that some residents do not receive Channel 5 must be considered

in the plan. Finally, the system must be area specific.

RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended the county install on its PBX an automated digital recording device that could

play a recording. Many PBXs have the capability built in through voice mail. If this capability

does not exist on the county offices’ PBX, a recording device such as an Interalia unit could be

added with multiple ports where callers could simultaneously listen to the same recorded

message. The desired number of callers who could access the recording without getting a busy

signal would dictate the number of ports and phone lines that would be required. If desired, it

could be re- recorded/ updated remotely through a phone line into the PBX. The telephone

31

number for the emergency recording, where any concerned citizen can call to get updated

information in the event of a fire or any other emergency, could be disseminated to property

owners and residents throughout the County, listed in each phone directory, on the County

Internet site, etc.

RESPONSES REQUIRED:

1. Board of Supervisors

2. Office of Emergency Services

32

HUMAN SERVICES

CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES ( CPS)

REASON FOR REVIEW:

The review was conducted pursuant to California Penal Code section 925, which states in part,

“… investigations may be conducted on some selective basis each year.” The focus of the review

was directed to one component of Human Services offered to residents of Calaveras County,

namely, CPS. This program is required by state mandates to provide very specific services. The

review attempted to examine CPS to determine the level of compliance to the state mandates.

SCOPE:

The review was limited to the five major services to Calaveras County children in need of

protection.

PROCEDURE:

Calaveras CountyWorks and Human Services administers CPS. Therefore, a scheduled on- site

agency review was conducted at the Mountain Ranch Road facility in San Andreas. Pursuant to

California Penal Code section 916, which requires no less than two members of the Grand Jury

to conduct an interview/ investigation, three jurors met with the CPS program manager, and a

social work supervisor. The administrator and the staff supervisor were well prepared for the

interview. They seemed eager to respond to the jurors’ inquiries, and provided concise answers

and general information as requested.

FINDINGS:

Children enter the CPS system through a variety of pathways. Referrals come from the family

itself, neighbors, relatives, and the court system. Another source of referral comes from

“ mandated reporters”. These reporters are required by law to report any suspected child

abuse/ neglect cases. These are people who are professionally involved with the child, i. e.,

teachers, therapists, doctors, etc. If the mandated reporters fail to make a report, they face a

misdemeanor charge. The referents are not liable if their report is made in good faith.

The following five state mandated programs provide services to the children in need of varying

degrees of protection. The information provided indicated all five mandated services are being

provided in Calaveras County.

1. Emergency Response ( ER) is an immediate response where the family/ child is seen

within two hours. The review revealed that of a total 793 reported cases in 2001, 115

cases were deemed ER cases, and were seen within the 2- hour limit. Police become

involved in the event that a purported crime has been committed.

33

2. Family Maintenance ( FM) is provided if it is determined a child can be safely left in

the care of the family unit, and services are focused on keeping the family together.

3. Family Reunification ( FR) is provided where supervision services are required as a

child is returned from out- of- home placement. The juvenile court may require certain

actions by the parents, for example substance abuse counseling, parenting classes, or

drug testing, in order to alleviate risks to the child as he re- enters the family unit.

Court orders often determine the frequency of social work supervision and visitation.

4. Permanency Planning ( PP) includes adoption services. The focus is to place a child

in a permanent home as soon as possible in situations where reunification is deemed

impossible. This early permanent placement plan serves to avoid multiple or long

term foster home placement and to meet the child’s right to have a permanent home.

5. Independence Planning ( IP) is a service to aid children who leave foster care due to

reaching the age of 18, or the emancipation of minors.

The jurors conducting this review were provided the following statistics for 2001:

1. CPS total reports: 793

2. Reports investigated: 558

3. The remaining reports were evaluated out, or “ settled at intake.”

4. Total investigations: 115 within 2 hours, with remaining 443 in 10 days.

5. Out- of- home placements: 152

6. Family maintenance services provided: 89

CPS has 10 ½ approved positions. Staffing is a serious concern. It was reported that two

positions are vacant at any given time. Staffing is down one- third due to vacations, long- term

illnesses, or failed recruitment efforts. This places the staff in a difficult situation in terms of

meeting the state mandates. Clearly, these staffing conditions create undue stress, risking early

“ burn- out” in the stressful job of protecting abused and neglected children.

CONCLUSION:

The insufficient salary levels in Calaveras County add to this staffing crisis. The educational

requirements, i. e., BA degree, or preferably a Masters Degree in Social Work ( MSW) are not

competitively compensated. Currently there is no Children’s Shelter or emergency care facility

in Calaveras County, but some homes are specially licensed to provide this level of care. An

example would be a newborn tested positive for drugs who cannot safely return home with the

parents. It was estimated 80% of alleged child abuse/ neglect cases involve children living in a

home where drugs and alcohol are abused. Despite their many advantages, due to staffing

shortages, satellite offices are not currently considered a viable option.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

1. Increase salaries and other compensations, i. e., alternate work schedule options.

34

2. Explore the feasibility of a county operated Children’s Shelter, including emergency care.

3. Closely monitor social worker caseload standards.

RESPONSES REQUIRED:

1. Board of Supervisors

2. CPS Program Manager

.

35

LAW AND JUSTICE

A. CALAVERAS COUNTY JAIL

The Calaveras County Jail is located within the Calaveras County Sheriff’s Department complex

at 891 Mountain Ranch Road, San Andreas, California and operates under the supervision of the

Sheriff. The Jail Commander is a sworn officer of the Sheriff’s Department with the rank of

captain.

REASON FOR INVESTIGATION:

Penal Code section 919 states that the Grand Jury shall inquire annually into the condition and

management of public prisons within the county.

BACKGROUND:

The Grand Jury visited the County Jail in November 2001. The visit was focused on general

conditions, staffing, inmate procedures, and whether any progress had been made with the new

county jail and sheriff’s office project.

PROCEDURE:

As part of its investigation, the Grand Jury conducted interviews with the sheriff, the jail

commander and the ranking sergeant. The Grand Jury reviewed information based on interviews

and documentation received. Interviews were conducted by no less than two members of the

Grand Jury pursuant to Penal Code section 916.

FINDINGS:

1. The Physical Plant

The policies and procedures governing the Calaveras County Jail met or exceeded the Minimum

Standards for Local Detention Facilities as outlined in Titles 15 and 24 of the California Code of

Regulations.

The need for a new jail has been recognized for over twenty years. The Needs Assessment and

Project Funding committees and sheriff’s office personnel are pursuing all avenues for location

of facility, architectural design, and project funding. On April 4, 2002, the county sheriff’s

department was among seven counties presenting proposals to the California Board of

Corrections Executive Steering Committee for the 2001/ 2002 Construction Grants Program.

Sheriff Downum invited two jurors from the Grand Jury to attend the hearing. Supporters

included representatives from the sheriff’s department, executive director of the County

Chamber of Commerce, chief probation officer, members of the Calaveras County Board of

Supervisors, Angels Camp police chief, Superior Court judge, building director, county

administrative office and CHP lieutenant commander. The Calaveras County presentation was

36

well organized, used visual aids, answered inquiries from the committee, supplied statistical data,

and demonstrated a complete understanding of the current and future needs of a new detention

facility. The presentation not only stressed the need to replace the present antiquated facility, but

also focused on the risk and safety issues of detainees and jail staff.

Calaveras County requested $ 8,000,544 in grant funds. This grant request was subsequently

denied.

The present Calaveras County Jail was built in 1963 and was last remodeled in 1999 when four

high security cells were added. The physical layout of the facility is antiquated and lacks proper

visual observation of cells, walkways and high security areas. The staff offices are inadequate in

size, and the hallways are narrow. The facility, however, was found to be very clean and well

maintained.

The Board of Corrections mandated capacity is 56 male and 9 female inmates. Inmates

classified as intoxicated and those with civil complaints are not included in the capacity ratio.

Inmates are in the facility up to 6 hours for intoxication and to a year or longer for more serious

offenses. Most inmates are there for pre- trial confinement. Some sentences require inmates to

be transported to the State Prison Receiving Center in Tracy for further processing.

2. Jail Staffing

The jail operates three shifts. Two shifts consist of four correctional officers per morning and

evening shifts. Two correctional officers staff the midnight shift. Additional officers are added

for specific events.

3. Medical Services

Medical, psychiatric and dental services are provided by the California Forensic Medical Group

( CFMG). A registered nurse conducts a four- hour per day “ sick call” Monday through Friday.

A physician is on call 24 hours a day, seven days a week and is present at the facility two days

per week. CFMG also provides pharmaceuticals by prescription, x- ray services, and disposal of

biohazardous medical waste generated by the jail. CFMG is responsible for the development of

written policies and procedures used by the jail that conform to applicable state and federal

guidelines. Summaries of health care, pharmaceutical services, and medical chart reviews are

provided, reviewed, and discussed at quarterly CFMG meetings with the sheriff, mental health,

social services, environmental, and public health medical officer.

4. Dietary Standards

Food is prepared in the jail kitchen, which was immaculate. Facilities, sanitation, food

preparation and storage exceeded the standards mandated by the state. The on- site dietary

supervisor provides meals at a cost to the county of about $ 2.00 per meal.

37

5. Inmate Rules and Regulations

There is no commissary in the facility. Prisoners order merchandise in writing, and a vendor

brings the items, which are checked prior to release to the inmate. Prisoner funds are

safeguarded and can only be spent through the vendor system.

There are written policies and procedures that allow reasonable access to a telephone beyond

those required by law. Policies and procedures also provide that there is no limitation on the

volume of mail. However, when there are valid security reasons the mail may be read and/ or

searched in the presence of the inmate. Indigent inmates are allowed two postage- free letters

each week to family and friends, and unlimited postage- free correspondence with his/ her

attorney and the courts. The jail library includes legal reference materials. The library contains

current information on community and resource services, plus religious, educational, and

recreational reading material.

CONCLUSION:

The growth of Calaveras County and the lack of funding forces the personnel to work in a

facility that is over- crowded. This situation presents potential danger to employees and inmates.

The county jail is not rated to provide for juvenile offenders.

RECOMMENDATION:

The Grand Jury strongly encourages the county’s supervisors, sheriff, probation department, the

Needs Assessment and Project Funding committees, and the public to exhaust every avenue to

expedite construction of the jail and sheriff’s office project. The Grand Jury also recommends

the jail and sheriff’s office project provide facilities for juvenile offenders.

RESPONSES REQUESTED:

1. Board of Supervisors

2. County Sheriff

3. Needs Assessment and Project Funding committees

4. Probation Department

38

B. CALAVERAS COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT

The county jail shares the facility with the sheriff’s department. Sub- stations are located in

Arnold, Copperopolis, Mountain Ranch, Valley Springs, and West Point. They are staffed by

deputies and volunteers. There are four geographical areas in the county, each consisting of 250

square miles, with five county sub- stations.

REASON FOR REVIEW:

This review was conducted pursuant to Penal Code section 925, which states the Grand Jury

shall investigate and report on the operations, accounts, and records of the officers, departments,

or functions of the county.

1. Personnel

The sheriff’s office personnel numbers 95, including 56 sworn officers. The cost to the county to

recruit, hire and train a deputy is approximately $ 25,000. Because of the cost of training, the

department attempts to employ deputies with a commitment to the community.

2. Volunteers

The sheriff’s office relies heavily on volunteers. Each volunteer donates time in four- hour

blocks. Volunteers pay for their own uniforms. Training consists of driver’s assessment, office

training, and radio procedure. There were over 7,000 hours of volunteer time in 2001. In

addition, much of the needed maintenance of the volunteer patrol vehicles is donated by local

businesses.

CONCLUSION;

The growth of Calaveras County and the lack of funding have caused the jail and the sheriff’s

office to bulge at the seams, despite the utilization of five sub- stations. Personnel are required to

work in a facility that is sub- standard.

The Grand Jury found the volunteer sheriff’s program is a vital asset to the sheriff’s office and

Calaveras County. Individuals and businesses who volunteer their time and money are to be

commended for their dedication and commitment to the community.

39

CITIZEN COMPLAINTS

The Grand Jury is part of our government, an adjunct of the judicial system, and depends on the

public treasury for its resources. It largely depends on the intelligence, sense of public service,

and good will of its members. It also receives and acts upon citizen complaints. It has

jurisdiction in selecting the direction of its investigations. Neither official request nor public

outcry should force the jury to undertake an inquiry, which it deems unnecessary or undesirable.

Even though a matter may be in litigation, the Grand Jury may still pursue issues relevant to its

interests and scope of authority.

Individual county departments can work on solving problems. However, when that fails, the

Grand Jury provides the next level of resolution. General questions to a department about a

mutually received complaint may be helpful in motivating them to be more thorough.

Complainants are no more entitled to information about Grand Jury investigations than anyone

else. Discretion is taken when dealing with those complainants who are contacted for additional

information or who contact the Grand Jury for status reports. The Grand Jury is obligated only

to provide the results of its inquiries in the final report, and not to specific individuals.

Some of the complaints received and dispatched by the 2001- 2002 Grand Jury are as follows:

ITEM: CALAVERAS COUNTYWATER DISTRICT

This complaint indicated the Calaveras CountyWater District ( CCWD) had charged a customer

for something the customer did not want or need. In addition, the customer questioned the

legality of collection of CCWD fees by the County Tax Collector via county property tax bills.

BACKGROUND:

The CCWD customer was charged the minimum monthly base rate for water and sewer.

Customer stated he was on well water and septic sewer and that he did not want or require the

services of CCWD.

SCOPE AND PROCEDURE:

Interviews were conducted by at least two members of the Grand Jury. The newly elected

President of the Board of Directors of CCWD was interviewed at a general meeting of the Grand

Jury. The Grand Jury investigated pursuant to Penal Code section 916. Interviews were

conducted at the Calaveras County Auditor/ Controller’s office, at the offices of CCWD, and at

the Grand Jury meeting facility. Obtained and reviewed were the California Water Codes,

CCWD Resolution no. 99- 56, section 31701 ( e) and the Calaveras County Board of Supervisors

Minute Orders and Resolutions.

40

FINDINGS:

CCWD Resolution No. 99- 56 dated October 13, 1999, changed the monthly “ stand by fee” from

$ 10.00 to a “ minimum base rate”. After Resolution No. 99- 56, customers have the option to pay

the minimum base rates or to disconnect entirely from CCWD. If a customer chooses to

disconnect and then reconnect in the future, the customer would be charged the full amount of a

new hook up fee. This change of policy is legal under the current California Water Code that

governs CCWD’s actions.

On July 12, 1993, the Calaveras County Board of Supervisors approved Resolution No. 93- 261.

This resolution authorized the Auditor/ Controller to place delinquent and unpaid fees due to

CCWD on County tax bills pursuant to California Water Codes sections 31701 ( e) and 31701.5.

On August 30, 1993, a Board of Supervisors Minute Order was passed unanimously authorizing

the Chairman to sign an agreement with CCWD authorizing reimbursement to the County for

costs of collection of CCWD delinquent charges on County tax bills.

An agreement for reimbursement costs of collection of delinquent charges for Resolution No. 93-

261 was signed on August 30, 1993. The following excerpts are from this agreement between

the Board of Directors of CCWD and the Calaveras County Board of Supervisors:

The County agreed to collect delinquent charges for CCWD. CCWD agrees to reimburse

the County $ 250 or 2% of the delinquent charges, whichever is greater, for each year in

which the County collects the delinquent charges. CCWD agreed to pay the County a

one- time- only initial set- up charge for the Fiscal Year 1993- 94.

Section 31701 ( e) indicates the Board of Directors for CCWD each year provides in

writing to the Calaveras County Board of Supervisors and Auditor a list of delinquencies

for each fiscal year to be included on the County tax rolls.

ACTION:

Complainant was notified by letter outlining the information described above.

CONCLUSION:

CCWD has recently addressed, in public hearings, many of the issues that have tarnished the

image of the CCWD with its customers and the citizenry of Calaveras County as a whole. The

current Board of Directors acknowledges the past mismanagement of vast amounts of monies

held in assets or operational fund accounts. Such mismanagement has resulted in drastic rate

increases in recent months. The current Board of Directors has reevaluated CCWD’s operating

procedures and has made many changes in its operational philosophy. The Grand Jury hopes

that the effectiveness of these positive changes will improve the somewhat tarnished image of

CCWD with the general public and will become evident in reduced rates and fees for services

rendered. One recurring issue of complaints against CCWD is the unfortunate name choice,

which includes the word “ county”. Many complainants assume erroneously that the water

41

district is a Calaveras County entity, and as a result direct their anger and frustration against the

County Administration. Some thought might be given to affect a change in this matter.

RECOMMENDATION:

Calaveras CountyWater District should search for and adopt a new name without a connotative

link to the Calaveras County Administration.

RESPONSES REQUESTED:

Calaveras Water District Board of Directors

ITEM: LEGAL ADVERTISING/ PUBLIC NOTICES

County administrative staff solicited and the Board of Supervisors subsequently accepted the bid

of the Eckblom Publishing Company to publish legal advertising and public notices in a

newspaper of general circulation legally qualified and adjudicated for the printing and

distribution of such matter pursuant to Government Code section 6023.

BACKGROUND:

The Board of Supervisors, by resolution, accepted the Eckblom Publishing Company bid to

provide the required service in December 2000 for the period January 1, 2001 through December

31, 2002. The awarded contract included an agreement to provide newsstands with the Daily

News in every community where other newsstands are available, to the satisfaction of the

County. Citizens complained about the unavailability of the Daily News in several county

locations.

FINDINGS:

Investigation by the Grand Jury revealed that several areas of the county were not provided with

newsstands. In some communities where the Daily News was available, extensive searches were

necessary in order to find locations where the weekly newspaper could be found. After Grand

Jury investigations, attempts were made by the Daily News to broaden distribution, but the

newspaper is still extremely difficult to find in some areas.

Calaveras County legal advertising is of importance to all residents of the county because it

includes agendas for all scheduled public meetings of county government entities, including

meetings of the Board of Supervisors, all legal notices, plus all meeting minutes, ordinances,

delinquent tax lists and display ads which could include such important items as jobs that are

available within county government.

These legal advertisements should be easy to find and readily accessible to all residents of the

county. It should not be necessary to visit location after location within a community in an

attempt to find the Daily News. In some communities where it is distributed, it is not present in

42

a newsstand, but only in an unmarked stack at an obscure location within the stores and other

businesses.

CONCLUSIONS:

The process of delivery of the county’s legal advertising is very unsatisfactory and needs to be

corrected. The publisher of the Daily News was within his rights to submit a bid for the right to

publish the county legal notices. The Board of Supervisors proved it was shortsighted by

awarding the contract based solely on lowest cost. Countywide availability, as opposed to lowest

cost, should be considered by the Board of Supervisors in choosing a vehicle for the county’s

legal advertising when the item comes up for renewal.

RECOMMENDATION:

1. That a publication with a larger circulation and better distribution be considered for

contract award.

2. The Board of Supervisors should review the process by which they award contracts.

RESPONSE REQUIRED:

Board of Supervisors

ITEM: BUILDING DEPARTMENT POLICY GOVERNING PRIVATE

PROJECTS

BACKGROUND:

A complaint alleged that building department inspectors not only drew up plans for private

parties, but also later reviewed and approved their own plans. It further alleged the same

inspectors forged the names of other employees purported to have performed the reviews.

PROCEDURE:

In view of the obvious criminal actions of alleged forgery, the Grand Jury decided to involve the

District Attorney. Investigators of the district attorney’s staff conducted the inquiries.

FINDINGS:

Originally, county policy had been that no employee of the County could conduct any business

requiring county approval, issuance of permits, etc. The County determined that was an

unworkable policy. As a result, the County rewrote its policy to allow county employees to work

on or own a private project or business, as long as guidelines are followed to avoid a conflict of

interest.

43

While this policy is applicable to all county employees, the Building Department has its own

interpretation of the county guidelines as they pertain to its employees and staff. It is mandatory

that inspectors drawing up plans for an outside party cannot do so without the approval of the

head of the Building Department. Subsequently, building inspectors do not approve their own

plans. Inspectors do not perform plan checks. Customers must pick up their own permits and

inspectors are not allowed to inspect projects they have drawn.

RECOMMENDATION:

The head of the Building Department should closely monitor work performed by his staff on a

private basis and prevent any commingling of activities in connection with the permit process as

required by the County.

RESPONSE REQUESTED:

Building Department

ITEM: BARKING DOGS, NOISE ABATEMENT, AND ANIMAL CONTROL

BACKGROUND:

A complaint alleged that an illegal dog kennel and “ puppy mill” were being operated in Circle

XX area. It further alleged that animal control failed to prevent continued operation of those

kennels. Barking dogs continued to be a nuisance.

FINDINGS:

The Grand Jury investigated the original complaint, which was followed by another letter

delineating further allegations of improprieties by the dog owners. When we contacted domestic

animal control, we were informed that Animal Control was aware of the stated problem and was

looking into it. Further investigation showed that complaints and petitions by neighbors had

been initiated and circulated for about 18 months. The interaction between complainant and

Animal Control resulted in a hearing by the Board of Supervisors to rule on the dog owner’s

request for a kennel permit. The permit was not granted because the dog owners are still out of

compliance with county ordinances. Citations have been issued, and Animal Control continues

to monitor the activities in connection with noise abatement and alleged animal abuse. Animal

Control is handling the details as they apply to this complaint.

RECOMMENDATION:

Animal Control should monitor this situation for code compliance and noise abatement.

RESPONSE REQUIRED:

Animal Control

44

ITEM: BROWN ACT

BACKGROUND:

A complaint was received about a possible violation of the Brown Act by a member of a veterans

district board in a denial of unemployment benefits by the Economic Development Department

( EDD), a California state agency.

PROCEDURE:

The Brown Act, and its applicability to veterans memorial district boards, was reviewed.

FINDINGS:

Veterans memorial district boards are subject to the Brown Act. While the Brown Act applies to

public meetings of district boards, it does not apply to the acts of a single individual acting in the

capacity of his position. Furthermore, the EDD is a state agency, and thus outside the

jurisdiction of the Calaveras County Grand Jury.

ITEM: ADULT PROTECTIVE SERVICES

BACKGROUND:

The 2000- 2001 Grand Jury acted on a complaint about abuse and neglect of an elderly man by a

worker of the Adult Protective Services Unit of the Calaveras County Social Services Agency.

That Grand Jury conducted an investigation and found no willful misconduct, malfeasance or

neglect. An additional letter received by the 2001- 2002 Grand Jury required a follow up.

PROCEDURE:

Inquiries were made with the court clerk to determine status of cases cited.

FINDINGS:

The matter is now the subject of legal action. No further action was taken by the Grand Jury.

ITEM: JUVENILE PROBATION CASE PLAN

BACKGROUND:

A complaint was received by the mother of a youth involved with the juvenile criminal justice

system regarding the case plan written for her son.

45

FINDINGS:

A reading of the complaint revealed that the case plan had been subject to Court proceedings and

had received a judicial review, placing it beyond the scope of the Grand Jury.

ITEM: POSSIBLE ELDER ABUSE AND MISMANAGEMENT AT A SENIOR

HOUSING PROJECT

BACKGROUND:

In the initial complaint, specific charges were not explicitly stated. The Grand Jury requested

further detailed information. The letter received as a result of the Grand Jury’s inquiry was still

non- specific.

PROCEDURES AND FINDINGS:

Research into the ownership and licensing of the facility revealed the program is operated by a

private corporation under Federal Housing and Urban Development ( HUD) regulations, and thus

outside the Grand Jury’s jurisdiction. Adult Protective Services was contacted to determine the

procedure for reporting elder abuse.

ACTION:

Complainant was informed about the jurisdiction of the Grand Jury and was urged to contact

Adult Protective Services with specific abuse complaints.

ITEM: CENTRAL CALAVERAS FIRE AND RESCUE PROTECTION DISTRICT

This complaint was twofold. The first part pertained to response time and property damage as a

result of inefficient uses of tax monies when purchasing equipment, and the second part

pertained to the misuse of funds to advertise the position of fire chief and the long period of time

before a new chief was hired.

Part A:

BACKGROUND:

The Central District is central to the county and includes Mountain Ranch, Glencoe, Railroad

Flat and Sheep Ranch. This area of responsibility is generally rural in nature with some

mountainous areas especially between Mountain Ranch and Sheep Ranch.

46

SCOPE AND PROCEDURE:

The scope of the inquiries was restricted to the subject of the complaint and all investigations

were conducted pursuant to Penal Code section 925. Interviews were conducted by at least two

members of the Grand Jury.

FINDINGS:

The Central District purchased surplus 4WD military vehicles. These vehicles met the NFPA

2001 Edition Section 1906 standard for wild- land fire apparatus. The vehicles are 4- wheel drive

for optimum effectiveness in the county terrain. The price was within the district’s budget. The

district was able to purchase used vehicles and do the retrofitting themselves. The Central

District also used the spare parts of used vehicles to assemble a much- needed tanker. The cost of

a new tanker is far beyond the budget.

Response time is determined by discovery, notification and road conditions. Because of the

winding roads in the area, the Central District responds as fast as the roads will safely allow.

Response time has not been affected due to lack of or inadequate equipment. There was

extensive fire damage to a structure over the past year because of its metal roof. As a result of

having a metal roof, the fire literally cooked the structure and contents before discovery. After

discovery and notification, the response was prompt. Allegations as to inadequate response time

and unnecessary property damage could not be substantiated.

Part B:

BACKGROUND:

Complainant alleged taxpayer funds were being misused to advertise for a new fire chief and that

it was taking too long to hire a new chief.

SCOPE AND PROCEDURE:

Interviews were conducted by two members of the Grand Jury at the Central District’s station

with the retiring Fire Chief.

FINDINGS:

The budget for hiring a new chief is determined by the Central District’s Board of Directors.

The Central District was given a $ 300 budget of which they had an estimated $ 100 remaining at

the time of the interview ( July 17, 2001). The Central District advertised at no charge on

Internet web sites and through interdepartmental notices. They paid for newspaper and trade

magazine advertisements. Efforts to find a chief produced 14 applicants. Before this interview,

they had hired a chief, however, that person resigned after six months for personal reasons.

The Board of Directors also determines the qualification stipulations. A qualified applicant was

hired as Fire Chief for the Central Calaveras Fire and Rescue Protection District on November

47

16, 2001. Allegations of misuse of tax funds during the hiring process of a new fire chief and the

long period prior to the hiring of a new chief appear to be unfounded.

ITEM: IMPROPRIETIES IN THE FORMER DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S

OFFICE

Complainant made two separate allegations of improprieties, to wit, the purported

misappropriation and mishandling of funds; and the unauthorized fixed asset purchases as well

as unauthorized capital improvement projects in the district attorney’s office. Both allegations

occurred prior to May 2001.

BACKGROUND ( First allegation):

Complainant stated that the District Attorney operates illegal bank accounts, continues to

maintain such bank accounts out of balance and un- reconciled, made unauthorized fixed asset

purchases and unauthorized capitol improvements in the District Attorney’s office.

FINDINGS:

The Grand Jury investigation showed no misconduct, malfeasance or negligence on the part of

the former District Attorney or his staff.

BACKGROUND ( Second allegation):

Complainant states that the selection process for the interim District Attorney by the Board of

Supervisors was not a fair weighing of qualifications of all applicants but rather a foregone

conclusion.

FINDINGS:

The Grand Jury investigated the selection process used by the Board of Supervisors to select an

interim district attorney. The procedure was public, well announced in advance, and several

applicants were interviewed. Final judgment as to the best- qualified individual rests solely with

the Board of Supervisors.

ITEM: JAIL AND ARREST POLICIES OF THE CALAVERAS COUNTY

SHERIFF

The Calaveras County sheriff and his deputies work under strict rules of conduct when they

arrest an individual and when a person is booked into the County Jail.

48

BACKGROUND:

Complainant argued that he was treated with unnecessary harshness while he was arrested at his

home and transported to the County Jail. The alleged rough treatment is purported to have

aggravated an old injury of subject. After he was booked into jail, complainant alleges that

medications he must take routinely were not given to him. His wife had brought these

medications to the jail after he was booked.

FINDINGS:

Deputies on patrol and jail guards must operate strictly by the rules and regulations provided by

the Sheriff’s office for their conduct. There is very little personal discretion that can be applied

by the officers. Handling of arrested persons and dispensation of medications to jail inmates is

strictly regulated. During its investigation, the Grand Jury found no misconduct, malfeasance or

negligence on the part of the Calaveras County Sheriff Department’s employees.

ITEM: LEGALITY OF ADVERTISING BILLBOARDS ALONG HIGHWAY 12

BACKGROUND:

The Valley Springs Chamber of Commerce apparently has been the sounding board for many

complaints about allegedly illegal billboard signs along Highway 12. These complaints were

generated by citizens and leaders of various local organizations. The Valley Springs Chamber of

Commerce presented these concerns to the Grand Jury in a formal complaint.

PROCEDURE:

Site review, meetings with county officials, discussions with the California Department of

Transportation ( CalTrans) and Viacom Outdoor Advertising, the owner of the billboards, are the

basis for the following.

FINDINGS:

The Grand Jury looked into the complaints of the Chamber of Commerce, which described the

signs as eyesores and possible safety hazards. While Calaveras County Planning Department

officials have determined the signs to be classified as “ legally existing nonconforming”, they

ostensibly sit on a CalTrans right of way easement. Originally the land belonged to the Union

Pacific Railroad Company whose Railroad Realty Services Corporation quitclaimed certain

signboard easements to Norried Family Properties, L. P., a Valley Springs partnership.

CONCLUSION:

CalTrans investigated the signs’ locations and determined they are located illegally on state right

of way. Viacom, the billboards’ present owner, was given the right to appeal the CalTrans

49

decision. At the time of this writing, Viacom chose to appeal, and a hearing has been scheduled

for May 28, 2002.

ITEM: SKATEBOARD FACILITY AT TURNER PARK

BACKGROUND:

A neighbor with property directly adjacent to the North end of Turner Park in San Andreas

complained about activities in connection with a skateboard facility located next to his property.

The complaint included noise pollution, seemingly unending operating hours without regard to

posted rules, and no evidence of any county approved plans, construction bids or permits.

PROCEDURE:

Minutes of meetings of the San Andreas Progressive Club, Calaveras County Planning

Commission records, information obtained from the District 1 supervisor, and input by the

sheriff, were reviewed and provided material for the following summary.

FINDINGS:

The property on which Turner Park is located was deeded for that purpose to the community of

San Andreas. Calaveras County accepted the land with the proviso that the San Andreas

Progressive Club, a non- profit organization, would take on the responsibility for maintenance,

operational costs and upkeep of the park. In September 1994, the County Planning Commission

held a public hearing. During the hearing, which was publicized properly, no complaints were

voiced. Following the Planning Commission’s hearing, a zoning change was proposed and

approved by the Board of Supervisors on November 1, 1994. This change allows the park to

contain recreational facilities. On the basis of those actions, no public hearing was required for

the addition of the skateboard facility. For construction of the skateboard facility, no public bids

were required because the facility was paid for with Progressive Club funds.

Minutes of the Progressive Club, a private organization not within the jurisdiction of the Grand

Jury, show the complainant has attended several meetings during which the addition of the

skateboard facility was discussed.

The Calaveras County Sheriff routinely patrols the park area and enforces all applicable loitering

and noise abatement regulations.

CONCLUSION:

We are of the opinion the complainant was informed of all aspects of the construction process.

While we may sympathize with the complainant’s situation and agree that more consideration

should have been given to adjacent property owners, we, nevertheless, can find no violations of

county ordinances in this matter.

50

ITEM: CODE COMPLIANCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH

DEPARTMENT

BACKGROUND:

The Grand Jury received a complaint concerning actions taken by the Director of the

Environmental Health Department, which operates under the Calaveras County Agriculture and

Environmental Management Agency. The complaint involved the repair or replacement of a

single residence septic system.

PROCEDURE:

The Grand Jury investigated this complaint by interviewing the Director of Environmental

Health, consulting with the On Site Sewage Division of the County Building Department, and

inspecting permit status as well as criminal complaint documents of the Superior Court.

FINDINGS:

Numerous inspections by the County Building Department, On Site Sewage Division, resulted in

a flow of correspondence between March 2000 and the time of this investigation. While the

County held that all work must be accomplished under permit, complainant argued that he is not

in a position to obtain the necessary loan to finance such a project. Deadlines were set and court

action ensued.

CONCLUSION:

The Grand Jury did not pass judgment on the merits of specific items in connection with a septic

system built to code, but rather looked at the procedure used by county officials to serve the

citizens of the county. We found no violations of county policies or any malfeasance,

nonfeasance or even discourtesy on the part of county employees.

ITEM: CALAVERAS COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT POLICY

CONCERNING IMPOUNDED PROPERTY

A complaint alleged theft of personal property from a citizen during the search and subsequent

seizure of a truck. As of the date of the complaint, the property had not been returned to the

citizen.

BACKGROUND:

It was alleged that a sheriff’s deputy took personal property from a citizen during a vehicle

search. Impounded items were a driver’s license and a tape from the vehicle’s tape recorder.

The vehicle also was held as evidence. The deputy had a backup officer who arrived on the

scene in a separate vehicle, and the complainant also had a witness.

51

FINDINGS:

The deputies on the scene applied all proper rules and regulations during the arrest of the

complainant. While it is true the subject’s vehicle, his driver’s license, and a tape from his tape

recorder were seized during the arrest, it is also documented the vehicle and the driver’s license

have since been returned to the subject. The tape is being held as evidence for further

adjudication of the subject’s court case. No misconduct or other unlawful actions on the part of

the deputies was discovered during the investigation. No further action will be taken by the

Grand Jury.

ITEM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT VARIANCE DECISION

This complaint alleged that permits issued by the Building Department and variances granted by

the Planning Department allowed the construction, in a residential area, of a commercial garage

building at 456 Mariposa Street, San Andreas.

BACKGROUND:

The controversy over this building has been presented to the Grand Jury in several complaints

and involves several different grand juries during prior years.

FINDINGS:

An industrial type metal building was erected in 1996 with proper permits on a private property

located in a single- family residential zone. During the following years, complaints about the

structure and its location were received and eventually reached the level of a hearing by the

Board of Supervisors. The Planning Department had granted a variance for this building to

remain as built. It appears that during October 2001, the Planning Department reviewed the

variances and decided to revoke it. The owner of the property appealed to the Board of

Supervisors, and in November 2001, the revocation of the granting of the variance was revoked

and the variance reinstated.

CONCLUSION:

While the existing situation may be regrettable as seen from the property owner’s perspective, as

well as the citizens of the immediate neighborhood, it is not the role of the Grand Jury to

arbitrate or pass judgment. It is, however, the role of the Grand Jury to check on the procedures,

which govern the action taken by the various county agencies. Our investigation showed no

evidence of malfeasance or nonfeasance on the part of county employees. Charges of willful

misconduct appear to be unjustified. The Grand Jury will take no further action.