BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY MEMBERS
Ivor Thomas Foreman Paradise Michael Coates Foreperson Pro Tempore Paradise Donna Mathis Secretary Forest Ranch Lyle Akin Sergeant-At-Arms Gridley
Weldon Bauman Paradise Albert Beck Chico Gaye Buckholdt Chico Richard Spellmann Chico Sharon Lancaster Paradise Barbara Meade Chico Klaren Odor Chico Beverlee A. Perry Paradise Troy Prater Chico Cynthia Pruitt Paradise Maureen Vogel Chico Loretta Steinke Chico Jeannie Stone Durham Margaret Swick Chico Kenneth Waibel Oroville FINAL RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, THE 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY HAS CONDUCTED THE BUSINESS OF ITS TERM AND HAS REACHED CERTAIN CONCLUSIONS, AND
WHEREAS, THE 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY DESIRES TO DISCLOSE THE SUBSTANCE OF THOSE CONCLUSIONS FOR THE BENEFIT OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT, ITS AGENCIES AND THE CITIZENS OF BUTTE COUNTY;
BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE ATTACHED PAPERS, COMMENDATIONS, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ARE ADOPTED AS THE GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT AND SUBMITTED TO THE PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF BUTTE, TO BE ENTERED AS A PUBLIC DOCUMENT PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA LAW.
THE ABOVE RESOLUTION PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY AT THE BUTTE COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT IN OROVILLE ON THE 22ST DAY OF JUNE 2006.
GRAND JURY STATEMENT
THE 2005-2006 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY, IMPANELED ON JULY 8, 2005 PLEDGED ITSELF TO CONDUCT ITS BUSINESS IN AN ETHICAL MANNER, TO BE RESPONSIVE TO CITIZEN COMPLAINTS, TO VISIT AND REVIEW OFFICES AND AGENCIES, AS MANDATED, TO UNDERTAKE TO VISIT AND REVIEW VARIOUS OTHER AGENCIES, TO ACCOMPLISH THE GOALS IT SET FOR ITSELF AND, AT THE END OF ITS TERM, TO RENDER A COMPREHENSIVE FINAL REPORT TO THE CITIZENS AND AGENCIES OF BUTTE COUNTY.
FURTHER, THE 2005-2006 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY PLEDGED ITSELF TO UPHOLD THE FOLLOWING VALUES THROUGHOUT ITS TERM:
TO RECOGNIZE ITS PURPOSE AND DUTIES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA;
TO MAINTAIN THE CONFIDENTIALITY AND INTEGRITY OF ALL GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS;
TO RECOGNIZE THE IMPORTANCE OF APPLYING TO ALL INDIVIDUALS THE SAME OBJECTIVE STANDARDS OF CONDUCT AND RESPONSIBILITY;
TO RESPECT EVERY INDIVIDUAL'S RIGHT TO PRIVACY;
TO RECOGNIZE THAT THE GRAND JURY FUNCTIONS LAWFULLY AS A LEGAL ENTITY AND THAT NO SINGLE GRAND JUROR, WHEN ACTING ALONE, HAS ANY POWER OR AUTHORITY TO REPRESENT THE GRAND JURY;
TO REMAIN VIGILANT TO DETECT AND AVOID ANY PERSONAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST THAT MAY ARISE DURING THE COURSE OF PERFORMING THE BUSINESS OF THE GRAND JURY;
TO RECOGNIZE THE IMPORTANCE OF RELYING ON THE OPINIONS AND EXPERTISE OF OTHERS MORE SKILLED IN PARTICULAR MATTERS REGARDING THE BUSINESS OF PUBLIC OFFICE AND GOVERNMENT;
TO RESPECT THE DISCRETIONARY POLICY-MAKING OR OPERATIONAL POWERS OF PUBLIC OFFICIALS; AND
TO RECOGNIZE THE IMPORTANCE OF MAINTAINING ACCURACY AND INTEGRITY IN OUR ACTIVITIES, AND TO KEEP OUR REPORTS CONFINED TO MATTERS WITHIN THE SCOPE AND POWER OF OUR AUTHORITY. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
THE 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY SINCERELY APPRECIATES, ACKNOWLEDGES AND THANKS THE FOLLOWING PEOPLE AND ORGANIZATIONS FOR THEIR SUPPORT, GUIDANCE, AND PROFESSIONAL ASSISTANCE AND ORIENTATION, AND FOR HELPING TO MAKE THIS FINAL REPORT POSSIBLE:
THE HONORABLE BARBARA ROBERTS, JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, BUTTE COUNTY, WHO INITIALLY IMPANELED AND PRESIDED OVER THIS GRAND JURY;
THE HONORABLE STEVEN HOWELL, JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, BUTTE COUNTY, WHO PRESIDED OVER THE CONCLUSION OF THIS GRAND JURY;
COUNTY COUNSEL BRUCE ALPERT, ASSISTANT COUNTY COUNSEL DAVID MCCLAIN AND CHIEF DEPUTY ELIZABETH MCGIE;
DISTRICT ATTORNEY MICHAEL RAMSEY AND HIS CHIEF INVESTIGATOR TONY ’44’ KOESTER;
THE STAFF OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF BUTTE, INCLUDING SHAROL STRICKLAND, COURT EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ANDREA NELSON, DEPUTY COURT EXECUTIVE OFFICER, AND SANDY JONES, DEPUTY COURT EXECUTIVE OFFICER
BUTTE COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT BAILIFFS;
BUTTE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: CURT JOSIASSEN, JANE DOLAN, MARY ANNE HOUX, WILLIAM CONNELLY, AND KIM YAMAGUCHI;
THE BUTTE COUNTY DEPARTMENT HEADS, THE COUNTY AND DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENTS OF SCHOOLS, AND THEIR STAFFS;
OFFICERS WHO GUIDED MEMBERS OF THE GRAND JURY THROUGH THE BUTTE COUNTY JAIL AND THE JUVENILE HALL;
THE OFFICERS AND STAFF OF THE CHICO POLICE DEPARTMENT;
ALL THOSE WHO AGREED TO BE INTERVIEWED DURING INVESTIGATIONS AND VISITS;
CALIFORNIA GRAND JURY ASSOCIATION FOR THE TRAINING SEMINARS; AND
OUR ENDLESSLY PATIENT AND UNDERSTANDING FAMILIES AND EMPLOYERS WHO SUPPORTED US WHILE WE PERFORMED THIS CHALLENGING PUBLIC SERVICE.
A BRIEF HISTORY AND OVERVIEW OF THE GRAND JURY WHAT IS A GRAND JURY?
THE NAME OF "GRAND JURY" DERIVES FROM THE FACT THAT THE BODY USUALLY HAS A GREATER NUMBER OF JURORS THAN A TRIAL (PETIT) JURY. THE CONCEPT OF THE GRAND JURY TRACES ITS ROOTS TO CLASSICAL GREECE. ANCIENT ATHENIANS EMPLOYED AN "ACCUSATORY BODY" MUCH AS THE SAXONS OF EARLY BRITON DID. IN FACT, FROM 978 UNTIL 1016 ONE OF THE SAXON DOOMS (LAWS) REQUIRED AN ACCUSATORY BODY OF 12 FOR EVERY 100 MEN. THE ACCUSING BODY WAS EXHORTED "NOT TO ACCUSE AN INNOCENT MAN OR SPARE A GUILTY ONE."
THE MODERN EUROPEAN JURY SYSTEM BEGAN TO EVOLVE DURING THE ELEVENTH AND TWELFTH CENTURIES. AS EARLY AS 1066, DURING THE NORMAN CONQUEST OF ENGLAND, COURTS SUMMONED BODIES OF SWORN CITIZENS TO INVESTIGATE CRIMES THAT HAD COME TO THEIR ATTENTION. INITIALLY, THESE EARLY JURIES BOTH ACCUSED AND TRIED SUSPECTS, AND SINCE THE MEMBERS OF THE ACCUSING BODIES WERE SELECTED FROM SMALL JURISDICTIONS, THEY NATURALLY PRESENTED ACCUSATIONS BASED ON THEIR PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE.
DURING THE REIGN OF HENRY II (1154-1189), JURIES WERE DIVIDED INTO TWO TYPES - CIVIL AND CRIMINAL - WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF EACH INFLUENCING THE OTHER. THE OATH TAKEN BY THESE JURORS PROVIDED THAT THEY WOULD FAITHFULLY CARRY OUT THEIR DUTIES, THAT THEY WOULD AGGRIEVE NO ONE THROUGH ENMITY NOR GIVE DEFERENCE TO ANYONE THROUGH LOVE, AND THAT THEY WOULD CONCEAL THOSE THINGS THAT THEY HAD HEARD. BY THE YEAR 1290, CIVIL JURIES WERE GIVEN AUTHORITY TO INQUIRE ABOUT THE CONDITIONS OF BRIDGES AND HIGHWAYS AND REVIEW THE PRACTICES AND CONDITIONS IN THE JAILS.
THE MASSACHUSETTS BAY COLONY IMPANELED THE FIRST AMERICAN GRAND JURY IN 1635 TO CONSIDER CASES OF MURDER, ROBBERY AND WIFE BEATING. BY THE END OF THE COLONIAL PERIOD THE INSTITUTION OF THE GRAND JURY WAS FIRMLY FIXED IN AMERICA'S NEW AND EVER- EVOLVING SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT. ALTHOUGH THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT SPECIFICALLY MENTION GRAND JURIES, THE FIFTH AMENDMENT PROVIDES THE GUARANTEE THAT "NO PERSON SHALL BE HELD TO ANSWER TO A CAPITAL, OR OTHERWISE INFAMOUS CRIME, UNLESS ON THE PRESENTMENT OF INDICTMENT OF A GRAND JURY….” GRAND JURIES WERE USED IN OUR EARLY HISTORY TO PROTEST GOVERNMENTAL ABUSES, TO PROPOSE NEW LAWS AND VERY OFTEN TO DETERMINE WHO SHOULD FACE TRIAL. TODAY, FORTY-TWO STATES HAVE SOME FORM OF GRAND JURY, AND CALIFORNIA IS ONE OF THE STATES THAT STILL ALLOW PROSECUTION TO BE INITIATED BY EITHER CRIMINAL GRAND JURY INDICTMENT OR BY JUDICIAL PRELIMINARY HEARING.
GRAND JURY SYSTEM TODAY THE CALIFORNIA STATE CONSTITUTION CALLS SPECIFICALLY FOR THE USE OF GRAND JURIES IN THE GOVERNANCE OF THE STATE, AND IN 1849 THE CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE AUTHORIZED GRAND JURIES IN EACH COUNTY. THE LEGISLATURE PASSED LAWS IN 1880 THAT REQUIRED GRAND JURIES TO REVIEW AND INVESTIGATE THE ACTIVITIES OF COUNTY GOVERNMENT, AND IN 1983 THE STATE ADDED MUNICIPALITIES AND DISTRICTS TO THE PURVIEW OF GRAND JURIES. CERTAIN LARGER JURISDICTIONS - SUCH AS THE CITIES AND COUNTIES OF SAN FRANCISCO AND LOS ANGELES - IMPANEL SEPARATE CRIMINAL (INDICTMENT) AND CIVIL (WATCHDOG) GRAND JURIES EACH YEAR. SOME COUNTIES IMPANEL A SEPARATE CRIMINAL GRAND JURY ONLY WHEN NEEDED. THE BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY SERVES IN BOTH CAPACITIES. AS CONSTITUTED TODAY, THE GRAND JURY IS A PART OF THE JUDICIAL BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT AND IS AN ARM OF THE COURT. THE GRAND JURY DOES NOT HAVE THE FUNCTIONS OF EITHER THE LEGISLATIVE OR ADMINISTRATIVE BRANCHES AND IT IS NOT A POLICE AGENCY OR POLITICAL GROUP. IT IS AN INVESTIGATIVE BODY HAVING AS ITS OBJECTIVE THE DETECTION AND CORRECTION OF FLAWS IN GOVERNMENT.
THE PRIMARY CIVIL FUNCTION OF THE GRAND JURY, AND THE MOST IMPORTANT REASON FOR ITS EXISTENCE, IS THE EXAMINATION OF ALL ASPECTS OF COUNTY AND CITY GOVERNMENT, INCLUDING SPECIAL DISTRICTS AND JOINT POWERS AGENCIES, SEEING THAT THE PUBLIC'S MONIES ARE HANDLED JUDICIOUSLY AND THAT ALL ACCOUNTS ARE PROPERLY AUDITED - IN GENERAL, ASSURING HONEST, EFFICIENT GOVERNMENT IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE PEOPLE.
THE GRAND JURY HAS THREE WAYS TO EXERCISE ITS POWERS: BY REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING COUNTY GOVERNMENT, CITIES, SPECIAL DISTRICTS AND JOINT POWERS AGENCIES. BY INDICTMENT, BRINGING CHARGES AGAINST AN INDIVIDUAL FOR CRIMINAL OFFENSE. BY CIVIL ACCUSATION OF AN OFFICIAL OR EMPLOYEE WHERE THE RESULT, ON CONVICTION, WOULD BE REMOVAL FROM OFFICE.
A LARGE PORTION OF THE PUBLIC WRONGLY BELIEVES THAT AN INDIVIDUAL, PARTICULARLY A PUBLIC OFFICIAL, APPEARING BEFORE THE GRAND JURY SUGGESTS GUILT OF MALFEASANCE, MISFEASANCE, OR NONFEASANCE. IT IS THE CONSTITUTIONAL RESPONSIBILITY OF THE GRAND JURY TO REVIEW THE CONDUCT OF GOVERNMENT EACH YEAR. THIS ENTAILS HAVING PUBLIC OFFICIALS APPEAR BEFORE THE JURY FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING INFORMATION RELATIVE TO THEIR DEPARTMENTS OR OFFICES. WHILE IT IS A PART OF THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM, A GRAND JURY IS AN ENTIRELY INDEPENDENT BODY. THE PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY, THE COUNTY COUNSEL, AND THE STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL ACT AS ITS ADVISORS, BUT CANNOT PREVENT THE ACTIONS OF THE JURY EXCEPT ON ISSUES OF LEGALITY. THE GRAND JURY IS NOT ACCOUNTABLE TO ELECTED OFFICIALS OR GOVERNMENTAL EMPLOYEES.
DUE TO THE CONFIDENTIAL NATURE OF A GRAND JURY'S WORK, MOST, IF NOT ALL, MUST BE CONDUCTED IN CLOSED SESSION. MEMBERS OF A GRAND JURY ARE SWORN TO SECRECY, THUS ASSURING ALL THAT APPEAR BEFORE IT THAT THEIR TESTIMONY WILL BE HANDLED IN STRICT CONFIDENCE. NO ONE MAY BE PRESENT DURING THE SESSIONS OF A GRAND JURY EXCEPT THOSE SPECIFIED BY LAW, AND THE MINUTES OF ITS MEETINGS MAY NOT BE INSPECTED BY ANYONE, NOR CAN ITS RECORDS BE SUBPOENAED.
THE GRAND JURY SERVES AS AN OMBUDSMAN FOR CITIZENS OF THE COUNTY. THE GRAND JURY MAY RECEIVE AND INVESTIGATE COMPLAINTS BY INDIVIDUALS REGARDING THE ACTIONS AND PERFORMANCES OF COUNTY OR OTHER PUBLIC OFFICIALS. ADDITIONALLY, THE CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE SPECIFIES THAT THE GRAND JURY SHALL INQUIRE INTO THE CONDITIONS AND MANAGEMENT OF THE PUBLIC PRISONS, JAILS, AND JUVENILE DETENTION FACILITIES WITHIN THE COUNTY.
THE MEMBERS OF THE GRAND JURY ARE COLLECTIVELY GRANTED SPECIAL POWERS AND PRIVILEGES TO AID THEM IN CARRYING OUT THEIR DUTIES. THE GRAND JURY IN ITS OFFICIAL CAPACITY IS PERMITTED, WITH LIMITED EXCEPTIONS, ACCESS TO AND THE RIGHT TO INSPECT GOVERNMENT FACILITIES, AND TO REVIEW OFFICIAL BOOKS AND RECORDS TO WHICH OTHER CITIZENS ARE DENIED ACCESS. THE GRAND JURY MAY ISSUE SUBPOENAS AS NECESSARY. THE GRAND JURY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ARE TO BE UNBIASED AND IMPARTIAL.
HOW IS THE JURY SELECTED? EACH FISCAL YEAR THE BUTTE COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT SUMMONS A LARGE NUMBER OF QUALIFIED CITIZENS WHO HAVE RESIDED IN THE COUNTY FOR OVER A YEAR AND ARE AT LEAST 18 YEARS OF AGE. THE COURT MAKES IT CLEAR THAT SERVICE ON THE GRAND JURY IS VOLUNTARY. POTENTIAL JURORS SHOULD BE REASONABLY INTELLIGENT, OF GOOD CHARACTER, AND MUST POSSESS A WORKING COMMAND OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE. FROM THE POOL OF WILLING CANDIDATES, THE COURT MAKES A GOOD FAITH EFFORT TO SELECT QUALIFIED MEN AND WOMEN WHO ARE DIVERSE IN AGE AND SOCIOECONOMIC, ETHNIC AND EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUNDS, AND WHO REPRESENT THE VARIED GEOGRAPHIC AREAS OF THE COUNTY.
SUPERIOR COURT JUDGES AND STAFF INTERVIEW THE BODY OF QUALIFIED AND WILLING CANDIDATES AND CHOOSE 30 POTENTIAL JURORS. NINETEEN MEMBERS MAKE UP A FULL JURY. AT THE DISCRETION OF THE PRESIDING JUDGE, AS MANY AS 10 MEMBERS FROM THE PREVIOUS YEAR'S JURY MAY "HOLDOVER" OR SERVE A SECOND TERM. IN ORDER TO CONSTITUTE THE FULL PANEL OF 19, NAMES ARE DRAWN AT RANDOM, AND NEW JURORS ARE ADDED TO THE EXISTING HOLDOVERS. JURORS SERVE FOR A TERM OF TWELVE MONTHS BEGINNING IN JULY. OVER THE COURSE OF THE YEAR AND AS NECESSARY, ALTERNATES ARE CALLED IN SEQUENTIAL ORDER FROM THE POOL OF REMAINING POTENTIAL JURORS.
HOW DOES IT WORK? THE PRESIDING JUDGE APPOINTS A FOREPERSON TO PRESIDE AT MEETINGS. THE GRAND JURY ORGANIZES ITSELF INTO OFFICERS AND COMMITTEES AND DETERMINES WHICH OF THE VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS AND FUNCTIONS OF COUNTY, CITY AND JOINT POWERS GOVERNMENT IT WILL REVIEW. IT ALSO REVIEWS COMPLIANCE WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF PREVIOUS BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURIES.
INQUIRIES ON THE PART OF THE JURY, LETTERS AND COMPLAINTS FROM CITIZENS, AND DICTATES OF THE STATE PENAL CODE COLLECTIVELY DETERMINE THE JURY'S WORK. THE GRAND JURY AIMS TO IDENTIFY POLICIES IN GOVERNMENT THAT MAY NEED IMPROVEMENT. ALL ACTIONS OF THE JURY - INCLUDING ANY COMMUNICATION FROM THE PUBLIC AND ALL DELIBERATIONS AND VOTES ARE COMPLETELY CONFIDENTIAL. THE JURY DOES PUBLISH A REPORT OF ITS SIGNIFICANT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.
THE JURY'S FINAL REPORT, HOWEVER, TYPICALLY REFLECTS ONLY A SMALL PART OF THE JURY'S ACTUAL ENDEAVORS OVER THE COURSE OF ITS TERM. STATE LAW REQUIRES SPECIFIC AND DETAILED RESPONSES FROM DEPARTMENTS UPON WHICH THE JURY RENDERS FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN ITS REPORTS. ELECTED OFFICIALS HAVE 60 DAYS TO RESPOND; PUBLIC AGENCIES HAVE 90 DAYS. THE WORK OF A GRAND JURY IS DEMANDING. MOST MEMBERS CAN EXPECT TO INVEST APPROXIMATELY 500 HOURS OF TIME OVER THE COURSE OF THEIR TERM, BUT THE WORK CAN BE BOTH GRATIFYING AND PERSONALLY REWARDING. SERVICE ON A JURY LEADS ONE TO A MUCH IMPROVED UNDERSTANDING OF THE ORGANIZATION AND BUSINESS OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT, AND TO THE PERSONAL SATISFACTION OF HAVING CONTRIBUTED TO ITS IMPROVEMENT. THE GRAND JURY EXPERIENCE PROVIDES A UNIQUE AND VALUABLE OPPORTUNITY FOR COMMUNITY SERVICE.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
BUTTE COUNTY WIDE REPORTS ANIMAL CONTROL IN BUTTE COUNTY A-2 BUTTE COUNTY FAIR A-15 OLD HUMBOLDT ROAD WAGON TRAIL A-18
BUTTE COUNTY SCHOOLS GRIDLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT SALARIES AND PENSIONS B-2 CHICO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT HEALTH CARE IN ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS B-7 DISPOSITION OF SURPLUS EQUIPMENT B-15 ASSOCIATED STUDENT BODY FUNDS B-19
LAW ENFORCEMENT IN BUTTE COUNTY LAW ENFORCEMENT IN BUTTE COUNTY C-2 TASERS AND TASER USE IN BUTTE COUNTY C-8 CHICO POLICE DEPARTMENT C-11 BUTTE COUNTY EMERGENCY OPERATIONS EXERCISE C-19 OFFICER INVOLVED SHOOTINGS/CRITICAL INCIDENTS PROTOCOL C-22
CITIES, TOWNS, AND SPECIAL DISTRICTS TOWN OF PARADISE TOWN OF PARADISE D-2 TOWN OF PARADISE DEVELOPMENT FEES D-11 CITY OF OROVILLE PERSONNEL ISSUES / HIRING PRACTICES D-13 OROVILLE FIRE DEPARTMENT D-22 PUBLIC WORKS, PARKS AND TREES DEPARTMENT D-33 BOLT’S ANTIQUE TOOL MUSEUM D-36 EL MEDIO FIRE DEPARTMENT EL MEDIO FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT D-38 FEATHER RIVER RECREATION AND PARKS DISTRICT FEATHER RIVER RECREATION AND PARKS DISTRICT D-44
THE BUTTE COUNTY AUDITOR-CONTROLLER PART I--THE OFFICE AND STAFF E-2 ADDENDUM: BUTTE COUNTY HUMAN RESOURCES E-17 PART II--AUDITING THE AUDITOR AND HIS AUDITORS E-24
THE BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY ISSUES IMPACTING GRAND JURY EFFICIENCY F-2
BUTTE COUNTY WIDE REPORTS
NEW SPCA FACILITY NEARING COMPLETION, OROVILLE, CA.
OLD HUMBOLDT WAGON TRAIL—MAY, 2006 ANIMAL CONTROL IN BUTTE COUNTY A-2 BUTTE COUNTY FAIR A-15 OLD HUMBOLDT ROAD WAGON TRAIL A-18
Butte County Animal Sheltering And Control Agencies
Reason for Visit and Review
The Grand Jury decided to review and visit a sampling of animal control agencies and shelters primarily because they had not been visited by the Grand Jury in several years. Our interest is in how the county and cities participate with various animal shelter control operations and how service is provided. The population of Butte County continues to increase, as does the animal and pet population.
Background
We have found that the greatest concern within Butte County Animal Control Agencies is the need to improve the spaying and neutering of pets. The feral cat population also continues to be a problem. Numerous litters of puppies and kittens are dropped off annually at all the shelters, but in particular from the south area of Butte County. The population at the shelters is primarily composed of, abandoned pets, surrendered pets, loose animals, confiscated pets, injured and lost pets. Space at all the shelters is stretched thin to accommodate the animal population.
Review
Our review included the following agencies that provide animal control and sheltering.
County of Butte City of Chico City of Paradise Animal Control Chico Police Department Paradise Police Depart. Northwest S.P.C.A Butte Humane Society Paradise Animal Shelter (Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals)
County of Butte
Animal Control is a division of Environmental Health, which is part of a larger division within the Butte County Public Health. Pets taken in by Animal Control are housed at the Northwest S.P.C.A. in Oroville. There are three primary functions of animal control that are governed by this county department. 1. Detection and inoculation for rabies 2. Response to animal issues, ranging from dead animals on roadways or property, to dog bites, livestock attack, and free roaming animals. 3. The sheltering of animals for a minimum of five days as mandated by law. These animals will not be available for adoption until the five-day hold period expires.
A-2 BUTTE COUNTY WIDE REPORTS : 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
Staffing: Butte County
The Deputy Director of Environmental Health One supervisor of Animal Control Five animal control officers
Vehicles are also provided for the animal control officers, to respond to calls in the unincorporated area of Butte County. Funding for the staff and vehicles is provided through the County’s General Fund, and by a $5.00 per parcel fee paid by county residents. Services charged to the county by Northwest S.P.C.A are $82.14 per animal for the five-day hold period.
The Deputy Director of Environmental Health has a great concern for the welfare of animals and for the safety of the Butte County residents. He expressed a desire for low-cost spay and neuter clinics, as well as the need for additional shelter space. This need will be met with the completion of the new Northwest S.P.C.A.
Grand Jury members interviewed two animal control officers. They both stated the biggest problems they face in the county are the limited number of animals that are spayed and neutered, vaccinations for rabies, and licensing of animals. The animal control officers are kept busy with various job duties that include, but are not limited to, responding to citizen calls, loose animals including livestock, wild animals, rabid animals, dead and injured animals, abuse and neglect cases and court cases regarding abuse and neglect. Most of their calls however, are regarding dog bites, barking, or dogs running loose.
Animal Control officers have concerns about personal safety, their only defense is pepper spray and in most cases, they respond to calls alone. Responding to calls alone, cell phone signals are often weak or non-existent in the remote areas of the county. Some situations require two people to handle, including handling large dead animals, injured animals, rabid animals, or trying to control loose livestock.
Northwest S.P.C.A.
Butte County contracts with SPCA to provide sheltering services. The current shelter facility is old and run down. A new facility is under construction and should be opened by summer of 2006. This new facility is located close to the current animal shelter. The new facility will offer so much more for animals and staffing needs. The kennels offer two completely separate areas for the dogs. One kennel area is for dogs offered for adoption; the other is for dogs that are there for the five-day hold or being evaluated for adoption purposes. The cats have their own areas as well and there is also a puppy/ kitten viewing area that allows for interaction between pets and possible adopters. There is an animal receiving room, health exam room, ample parking that will also accommodate disabled persons, excellent waste disposal system for kennel care, and new restrooms for men and women that offers lockers for their personal needs. We
A-3 BUTTE COUNTY WIDE REPORTS : 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
were also shown a common meeting room that will allow for training, lunch/break room, and act as a base for animal control officers to share or gather information.
Our visit began with the Executive Director of Northwest S.P.C.A. The Executive Director seemed very energetic and enthusiastic about her job. Her knowledge in animal care and management comes from many years of working in animal care and learning on the job. She recognized the shortcomings and condition of this facility and spearheaded the financing and support for the new facility. Her management deserves recognition. Despite the age and poor condition of this current building, the comfort and well being of the animals is top priority.
Our tour began in the front office, which was very confined and cramped for workspace. We then toured the kennels, which although small, were very clean. The dogs were also very well groomed and clean. The staff makes sure all dogs are bathed and groomed regularly.
On this visit, most of the dogs had their own kennel with only a few sharing runs. There are times when more have to be crowded into these small kennels. We continued through to the cat room. All cats and kittens are housed in one room in cages. Due to poor ventilation and the inability to separate all the cats, many suffer from respiratory problems. These cats and kittens are given a lot of attention by staff and volunteers. There are some outside runs that are used to exercise animals and also for the occasional livestock that need sheltering.
This facility inserts microchips into all animals that are adopted. They also offer this service to the public for a small fee. However, there appears to be a variety of non- compatible microchips, which can cause problems identifying pets. Different shelters cannot read different types of microchips.
All animals are spayed and/or neutered whenever possible. If at the time of adoption, the pet is not spayed or neutered, a deposit is required. When proof is shown of spaying and neutering, then the deposit is refunded to the new owner. If not, the money is placed into a special fund for spaying and neutering.
Please see Exhibit A for a fee schedule for this shelter.
The concern of the executive director and the staff at Northwest SPCA is having the ability to offer free or low-cost clinics. The executive director hopes to see this special fund grow to allow for low-cost spay and neuter clinics. Butte County residents have an obligation to assist in controlling the pet population and avoiding unnecessary euthanasia of animals.
Staffing and Hours: Northwest S.P.C.A.
• Board of Executive directors • Executive director
A-4 BUTTE COUNTY WIDE REPORTS : 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
• Staff includes: 11 full time employees; 5 are animal control officers 1 part time employee 3 - 5 weekly volunteers offering 3-5 hours per week each SWAP (Sheriff’s Work Alternative Program)
Hours of Operation: Mon.-Fri. 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Sat. 12.00 noon to 3:00 p.m. Closed on Sunday
City of Chico
Our next visit was to the Chico Police Department (CPD). The CPD is responsible for animal control within city limits. The City of Chico contracts with Butte Humane Society for the sheltering of animals for the mandated five-day hold.
One of the CPD’s Captains is the liaison between the CPD and Butte Humane Society. The Captain is concerned about the welfare of all animals that end up at the shelter. He would like to see clear guidelines established and followed by both animal control officers and shelter employees. This would insure proper tracking, handling, and placement of the animals that are held for the five days.
The Captain provided us with the following background history with respect to the shelter. The Shelter belonged to the City of Chico in the early 90's. Later during the 90's, the City gave the shelter to Butte Humane Society. Then, due to financial difficulties, the City gave a lump sum to Butte Humane Society to buy the shelter back. At that time, the city was paying a fee per animal to Butte Humane Society.
Currently, Butte Humane Society uses the facility, owned by the City, rent free. They have a contract with the City of Chico for sheltering the animals brought in for the five- day hold. The city pays for the animal control officers and the supervisor, as well as the vehicles used for animal control. This is in addition to the monthly contract fee.
Staffing: City of Chico • Chico P.D. Captain • 1 Animal Control supervisor • 2 Animal Control officers
The police department provides the vehicles for animal control within the city limits. These animal control officers respond to a variety of calls within the city limits. These employees are not sworn officers and do not carry firearms.
We interviewed the Animal Control Supervisor. The Supervisor has been with animal control for 25 years. She would like to see all employees working with the same guidelines and tracking system. The animal control officers maintain a record of A-5 BUTTE COUNTY WIDE REPORTS : 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
animals they pick up and leave at the shelter. At that point, tracking the animal is not always consistent.
City Manager
We met with the new City Manager. He had been with the City for 15 months at the time of our interview and was still getting familiar with the operation of Chico City government. He had already become familiar with the contract between the City and Butte Humane Society and had looked into other shelter facilities to see how other operations are managed and what their costs are.
This interview was prompted by the recent proposed request by the Humane Society to increase the monthly contract amount. This increase of $13,000.00 a month prompted the City of Chico to call for an audit. The City Manager provided us with the last 5 years of contract costs by the Butte Humane Society to the City of Chico.
Previously the contract amount was as follows:
Cost History for Butte Humane Society, Chico 2001-2002 contract range was $6,400 – $6,700 per month 2003 increased to $14,000.00, based on $80.00 per animal 2004-2005 increased to $21,000.00 2006 $21,000.00 with intentions to submit a bid for an increase to $34,000.00 per month.
No records or facts to support the need for increase were available at the time of the Grand Jury review. Grand Jury members are concerned about the amount of the proposed increased in the contract Butte Humane Society is requesting from the City. While exploring and gathering information, it was clear that the City is open for options if the contract is not renewed. They await the outcome of the audit to verify the need for an increase of $13,000.00 per month.
There is no doubt the current building is in need of upgrading or replacing. Currently, there are no plans in place for remodeling or replacing the shelter by the City. The City does not oversee the daily operations of the shelter and so does not dictate where funds are to be used.
Butte Humane Society
We interviewed the Executive Director at Butte Humane Society on two occasions. The first interview included the Shelter Board President and the Executive Director. The second interview was with the Executive Director only. The Executive Director has been with the shelter for approximately five years. She started with the shelter as a volunteer, then applied when the position of Executive Director became available. She has been in that position for about three years.
A-6 BUTTE COUNTY WIDE REPORTS : 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
Upon approaching the shelter in Chico, it was evident that the Butte Humane Society has outgrown its facility by the number of outside pens that are visible in front and to the rear of the main building. Our tour began in the front office, which handles all intakes of animals and adoptions. The intake of animals includes those brought in by animal control officers, as well as the public. Our tour included all kennels inside and out, animal rooms, laundry area, and sick and quarantined area. There are two cat rooms shared by adoptable cats. There is also an area for sick cats or new ones brought in.
There are approximately 40 kennels located inside and outside the building. The ventilation system, as well as the drainage system for cleaning the kennels, is in need of updating or replacement. The interior was damp, dark, and cramped, which creates an environment that can harbor disease. The exterior pens are larger in size to accommodate the overflow. There is shelter available in each pen to allow the dogs to escape the elements.
The Executive Director’s office is also in need of space and ventilation. We did not notice a staff room, but did note a laundry room where dogs are also bathed. Butte Humane Society collects all impound fees. There is a deposit fee charged at the time of adoption on all animals for spaying and neutering. All deposit fees collected at adoptions that are not refunded are placed in a special fund for spaying and neutering animals. Not all animals adopted out are spayed or neutered for a variety of reasons. If an animal is too young or ill, then the surgery must wait. A deposit is taken at the time of adoption that is to be used toward a spay or neuter surgery. It is left to the discretion of the adoptee at this point to make sure their pet is neutered. No tracking system is in place to insure these pets are neutered.
Staffing and Hours: Butte Humane Society Board of Directors Executive Director Shelter staff Staffing includes: ¾ 13 paid employees (includes the executive director, shelter manager, office staff and kennel tech [11 of these are full time, 2 are part time]) ¾ 20 to 30 volunteers weekly, giving a total of 60 hours of time ¾ Volunteers include, community, SWAP, ROP from local schools and court cases.
Hours of Operation: Sunday, Monday & Thursday 12:00 to 6:00 p.m. Friday & Saturday 12:00 to 7:00 p.m. Closed Tues. & Wed.
The Executive Director informed us that the Butte Humane Society had purchased 20 acres north of Chico with the intent of building a new facility. They are currently in the process of obtaining a permit. At our last meeting, she indicated that they were not sure if they were going to place a bid for services to the City of Chico for animal control.
A-7 BUTTE COUNTY WIDE REPORTS : 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
For fee schedule and adoptions, see Exhibit B
Town of Paradise
Paradise Police Department Paradise Animal Control is part of the Paradise Police Department. We met with the Lieutenant of the Paradise Police Department. The Police Department works with Paradise Animal Shelter and often has offered support by responding to calls when needed. The Town owns and operates the shelter. Recently, Measure N was passed that placed a $12.00 per parcel fee on property owners within the Paradise Town limits. That provides approximately $144,000.00 a year for animal control and the shelter. This shelter has an enormous amount of support from the business community, citizens, and a group known as PASH (Paradise Animal Shelter Helpers).
The police department is very proud of their animal shelter and the community support it receives. For a period of time, they were understaffed. Responding to calls or keeping the shelter open to the public was difficult. The problem with feral cats is also a problem in Paradise. Hopefully, with the additional staffing and continuing support from the community, the feral cat population will become more contained.
Paradise Animal Shelter
Grand Jury members visited the Paradise shelter next. We met the new supervisor who was recently promoted after submitting her application for the position. She had been an animal control officer for the Town of Paradise for 17 years. The shelter is not large, but extremely clean and comfortable inside. They could use some extra space and updating for animal and staffing needs. We toured the facility, which included approximately 25 kennels. They have hopes of expanding the shelter to accommodate their needs. Three of the 25 kennels are used for cats. There is a separate area for sick or injured cats. Any dog in quarantine is also in the same kennel area, but at the end of the building. This is one of the areas that could use improvement for the health of the animals.
The shelter supervisor stated that they never have to buy dog food. Many large retailers donate large bags of dog food that has been damaged in transit. Their philosophy, which also reflects efficiency, is that they will accept most brands of dog and cat food to insure that food is available at all times. Many times, these animals are offered extra special treats in addition to regular dog or cat food. The cost of spaying and neutering here is paid for by the kindness of PASH and the cooperative efforts of the local veterinarians. Their adoption fees are minimal because of this enormous support. Measure N allowed the Town of Paradise to increase the animal control staffing, services, and hours of operation for the public.
A-8 BUTTE COUNTY WIDE REPORTS : 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
Staffing and Hours: Paradise Animal Shelter No Board of Directors Paradise Police Department Lieutenant 1 Supervisor 2 Animal control officers (non sworn officers) Volunteers (Includes PASH, community, students, businesses)
Hours of Operation: Monday through Saturday 11:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Closed on Sunday
For fee schedule, adoptions, and hours of operation, see Exhibit C.
Findings
1. The County of Butte and Town of Paradise have a parcel fee on property owners to assist animal control. 2. All animal control agencies have concerns for low-cost spay and neuter clinics. 3. Animal welfare is top priority by all animal control agency staff. 4. All facilities are in need of updating or replacement for animal needs and staffing needs (excluding N.W.S.P.C.A). 5. All animal control agencies have been operating in inadequate facilities. 6. Community support enhances the success of all animal shelters. PASH is an excellent example of this. 7. Butte County residents need to assume more responsibility for their pets to help curtail the overpopulation. 8. Hours of operation between shelters lack standardizing for public access. 9. ADA accessibility is limited (excluding N.W.S.P.C.A). 10. There appears to be a variety of microchips which can cause a problem in compatibility and identification of pets. 11. There is no single agency that oversees or inspects the shelters. 12. The communication system for Butte County animal control officers needs improvement. 13. The City of Chico has no dedicated per parcel fee for animal control.
Recommendations
1. Butte County animal control needs to evaluate their current communication system and resolve their communication needs in remote county areas. 2. All Butte County animal shelters should try to standardize the microchip process. 3. Local animal control agencies need to establish an oversight committee to aid in maintaining healthy and disease free facilities. 4. We recommend that City of Chico investigate the possibility of a parcel fee or a measure as approved by voters to assist in animal control needs.
A-9 BUTTE COUNTY WIDE REPORTS : 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
5. Have all shelters work together to establish consistent hours and days of operation. 6. All shelters need to evaluate compliance with ADA standards for accessibility and parking.
Commendations Paradise Animal Shelter is extremely successful in meeting the needs of both the animals and their community. With the continuous efforts from PASH and the local veterinarians, retailers, and citizens, support in the form of donations help to make this shelter successful.
At Butte Humane Society, we found that, as with other shelters, the concern for animal welfare is a very high priority. They have had success in their annual fundraiser for the shelter. It did not appear that there is any organized volunteer organization that helps Butte Humane Society to help cut costs.
Northwest S.P.C.A. has been successful in recruiting funds to build the facility that they so desperately needed. This new facility will meet the needs not only of the animals sheltered there, but for staff and the community.
Responses Required (Penal Code 933 & 933.05) Butte County Animal Control City of Chico, Animal Control Town of Paradise Animal Control (Police Department)
A-10 BUTTE COUNTY WIDE REPORTS : 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
Exhibit A Northwest S.P.C.A
Fee schedule
Impound $20.00 $40.00 (x2) $60.00 (x3)
Transport $25.00
Boarding $ 7.50 per night
Unaltered penalty (State) $35.00 $50.00(x2) $100.00(x3)
Microchip $15.00
License $15.00 altered $20.00 unaltered
Rabies vaccinations $ 8.00
Quarantine boarding $10.00 per night
Owner surrender Dog less than 6 months of age $25.00 Dog more than 6 months of age $75.00
Cat under 6 months of age $20.00 Cat over 6 months of age $40.00
Adoption/ S/N deposit (Spay/neuter) Dog $30.00 + $30.00 Cat $25.00 + $20.00
** All fees pertaining to redemption, quarantine, or surrender of an animal, are payable by cash ONLY**
A-11 BUTTE COUNTY WIDE REPORTS : 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
Exhibit B
Butte Humane Society and City of Chico Fee schedule
Please note there are three different agency/state fees imposed on this schedule.
City Fees (per day) Impounds Dogs/puppies Cats/kittens Livestock
1st offense $25.00 $10.00 $25.00 2nd. offense $35.00 $15.00 $30.00 3rd. offense $45.00 $20.00 $35.00
Boarding $ 8.00 $ 8.00 $ 8.00
Boarding fee assessment begins on the day of impounding, regardless of time of impounding. *Multiple animals from the same household are charged impound and boarding fees for the 1st offense only.
Disposal Pick up for disposal by City AC (animal control) $5.00 $ 5.00 Brought in by public 0-49 lbs. $ 8.00 50-100 lbs. $12.00 Over 100 lbs. $25.00 Livestock $60.00 Spay/Neuter Fine 1st offense $35.00 $35.00 N/A 2nd offense $50.00 $50.00 N/A 3rd offense $100.00 $100.00 N/A
*All subsequent offenses carry $100.00 fine * < = less than > = more than * Adoptions Spay/Neuter
A-12 BUTTE COUNTY WIDE REPORTS : 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
*s/n = spay/neuter Dog $60.00 + $50.00 s/n deposit Materials Fee for volunteers $15.00
Volunteer Hours Volunteer hours for dogs Male/neutered up to 75 lbs 11 hrs. Male/neutered over 75 lbs 15 hrs. Female spayed up to 60 lbs 11 hrs. Female spayed 61-75 lbs 14 hrs. Female spayed over 75 lbs. 25hrs. Dogs > 1yr but < 3 yr. add 12 hr Dogs > 5 yr. add 7 hrs.
Volunteer hours required for cats. Cat $45.00 + $40.00 s/n deposit Hours for kittens 4 Hours for cats 6
Rabbit $20.00 Guinea Pig $10.00 Hamster/rats Mice $ 5.00 Exotics Staff quote Micro-chipping $15.00 Euthanasia Dogs 30 lbs. $20.00 30-69 lbs. $30.00 70-100 lbs. $40.00 over 100 lbs. $50.00 Cats/rabbits $20.00 Puppies/kittens <3mos. $10.00 Birds $10.00 Pocket Pets* $ 5.00 Rats/mice/hamsters/etc. Exotics staff quote.
Cremations
Private 0-24 lbs. $95.00 Group 0-24 lbs. $ 70.00 25-49lbs. $105.00 25-49lbs. $ 80.00 50-75lbs. $120.00 50-75lbs. $ 90.00 75-99lbs. $140.00 75-99lbs. $100.00 0-120lbs. $170.00 100-120lbs. $110.00 over 120lbs. $220.00 over 120 lbs. $130.00
A-13 BUTTE COUNTY WIDE REPORTS : 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
Exhibit C Paradise Animal Control Fee Schedule
Adoption fees
Dogs $22.00 Cats $16.00 Small animals (rabbits, chickens, etc.) $ 3.00 Small livestock (sheep, goats, pigs, etc.) $14.00 Large livestock (cattle, horses, etc.) Sealed bids
Surrender fees
Dogs $15.00 puppies/kittens $ 3.00 (under 3 mos) Cats $ 2.00 kittens under 8 wks $ 1.00
Impound ($8.00 per day board)
Altered dogs & cats 1st offense $25.00 2nd offense $35.00 3rd offense $65.00 Unaltered dogs & cats 1st offense $36.00 2nd offense $50.00 3rd offense $100.00
Quarantine ($11.00 per day)
Euthanasia Dogs <50 lbs $31.00 over 50 lbs $60.00 over 80 lbs $75.00
Cats $2.00 Puppies <3mos. $3.00 Kittens <8 weeks $1.00
Disposal Dogs < 50lbs. $16.00 Dogs > 50lbs. $31.00 Cats $3.00
A-14 BUTTE COUNTY WIDE REPORTS : 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
BUTTE COUNTY FAIR
Reason for Visit/Investigation
The Grand Jury is charged with investigating the operations of various Butte County government offices and districts. The last time the Butte County Fair went through this process was with the 1999-2000 Grand Jury.
Background
The Butte County Fair was established in Gridley, California on March 22, 1946 by a resolution adopted by the Butte County Board of Supervisors. In 1948, the Fair moved to its present location on East Hazel Street located one block east of Highway 99. The grounds consist of 38 acres of lawn, trees, exhibit halls, livestock barns, and a rodeo arena. It is the hub of community activities with events occurring practically every weekend. The Butte County Fair is a non-profit organization and is funded partially through taxes levied on licensing of Pari-mutuel horse racing. The Pari-mutuel funds continue to shrink due to competition with casinos and the Fair is faced with continually finding ways to offset the shortfall. The budget for the year was set at $650,000 with $150,000 coming from Pari-mutuel funds and the balance coming from state approved grants, private donations, revenue from interim events, and Fair income. The California State Department of Food and Agriculture Division of Fairs and Expositions and the Butte County Board of Supervisors approve the yearly budget. Currently Butte County Fair is one of 78 in the state.
Investigation The Butte County Fair was reviewed in three areas: • Administration • Maintenance • The Fair and related activities
The Grand Jury interviewed two members of the Board of Directors, the Chief Executive Officer (CEO), two maintenance personnel, and the office manager after the Fair in August. The fairgrounds were also toured on the second day of the Fair with the CEO. All members of the Fair’s staff were open and cooperative.
The Butte County Fair Association, consisting of an eight member Board of Directors and the Chief Executive Officer, administers the Fair. The Board of Directors is appointed by the Butte County Board of Supervisors to serve four-year terms; a minimum of four directors are from District 4, and no more than one director from each of the remaining Supervisorial districts.
The Butte County Fair Association operates the Fair according to the regulations of the California Department of Food and Agriculture. The Association operates by the guidelines of the Procedure Manual agreed upon by the Fair Board and the current CEO. The manual spells out the responsibilities of the CEO and the Board of Directors.
A-15 BUTTE COUNTY WIDE REPORTS : 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
The manual was complete, but some of the areas of responsibility seemed to overlap and it lacked the Fair’s mission statement. The Fair does have a mission statement, but it is separate and needs to be included in the procedure manual. The Fair maintains a year round staff of 4.5 individuals: the CEO, Office Manager, 2 maintenance men and a part time bookkeeper. The number increases to approximately 120 to 150 individuals during the Fair. Many of the part-time employees return yearly to work. The administration staff of the Butte County Fair work diligently to maintain a team approach to all tasks undertaken. Since the Butte County Fair has very limited discretionary funding, improvements are prioritized according to health and safety issues. This puts an upgraded office computer network low on the list, although it is justified from a business perspective. Currently the Butte County Fair is rated as an A-grade Fair, which corresponds with “Excellent.” The grade is based on timeliness of state required reports, compliance to health and safety factors, financial stability and audit results. To help assure a continued high rating the budget is submitted to the state in November. This grade level is one of the factors that determine the amount of funding from the state. The budget is also submitted to the county for approval. In 1997 the Fair revenue reserves were approximately $4,000 and now the reserves total $89,000, according to the CEO. The current CEO has been at the Fair for 8 years. The CEO works year round to prepare for the Fair that takes place in August. Planning in many cases has been done two to three years in advance to anticipate the change in interests of the attendees. The CEO spends a majority of her time in seeking grants and other funding for maintenance and improvements.
The facilities at the Butte County Fair are aging. Most of the buildings are original structures. Many of the buildings have been revamped structurally to provide the safest facilities possible and also the most durable. Each year the facilities undergo a fire inspection prior to the Fair. Beginning in 2000 a schedule was set up to replace all roofs with metal. In 2004 the grandstands were upgraded and in 2005 they were modified again to assure they were ADA compliant. The grandstand restrooms were also upgraded to ADA standards in October 2004. Starting 1999 new electrical lines and electrical panel upgrades were put in to replace old lines and to relocate others. Additional work was completed on this project in early summer 2005. The CEO and the Board of Directors give a lot of credit to the Butte County community for their continued support of the fairgrounds. Many of the nonprofit groups have worked with Fair staff in providing donations in the form of materials used to rebuild and relocate some of the show rings in the livestock area. Some groups have come in to help paint some of the buildings. Other groups have made monetary donations. The Fair Board, CEO, and Maintenance Supervisor agree that trees are a safety issue that needs to be addressed in the very near future. The trees are 60-year-old Modesto Ash. Normally, these trees live about 30 years. Staff is currently researching information to develop a plan for scheduled replacement of trees. Additional equipment such as a backhoe and a stick boom could be utilized to maintain the current and future plantings. They have received one grant to trim the trees but that was several years ago and they are in need again.
The Butte County fairgrounds are utilized on two levels: A) Interim Events - These occur during the year other than in August and B) The Butte County Fair - A five day event
A-16 BUTTE COUNTY WIDE REPORTS : 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
held in August. The Interim Events include parties, dinners, weddings, swap meets, consumer and craft shows, concerts and much more. Interim Events create a year round fiscal impact on the community. According to California’s Fairs: Striking Gold at the Butte County Fair1, year round activities at the fairgrounds, “bring approximately 91,569 individuals spending an estimated $452,120 in the county.” The Butte County Fair is a special venue, designed for an audience of various ages and various interests. The Fair basically consists of the carnival and concessions, commercial exhibits, judged exhibits (agricultural, floricultural, and horticultural) and entertainment. The carnival has a great impact on Fair attendance. Because families need to feel the carnival is a safe environment for youth, the CEO looks for a company that will give a good family carnival show for the money and usually awards a 5-year contract. There have been significant and dynamic changes in recent years to the production of Fairs, but entertainment has been impacted, mostly due to the local casinos bringing in big name entertainers on a regular basis. The Butte County Fair cannot compete, so Grandstand entertainment is now contracted from a circuit of less well-known performers.
Commendations • The team effort of all individuals to present to the public a quality experience is outstanding. • The effort of the CEO to find alternative funding in the form of grants represents a stellar commitment to her position and the citizens of Butte County. • The efforts of the Maintenance personnel to repair and maintain an aging facility
Findings 1. Working with an extremely slim budget the Butte County Fair staff work as a team at all levels to provide the citizens of Butte County with a very well run, safe, efficient and enjoyable event. Every effort has been made to provide the citizens of Butte County the best the budget will allow.
Recommendations 1. The Fair Administration should follow through with current plans to set up a tree maintenance schedule. 2. Continue to evaluate upgrading and networking office computers to enhance efficiency. 3. The Fair Association and CEO should review & update the Policy Manual and include the Fair’s Mission Statement. 4. Continue to provide a safe environment for the public events is phenomenal.
Responses Required (Penal Code Sect 933 & 933.5) Butte County Fair Association Butte County Fair CEO
1 Individual Fair Economic Impact Report Striking Gold at the Butte County Fair, (cdfa.ca.gov/fe/SWEReport) A-17 BUTTE COUNTY WIDE REPORTS : 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
OLD HUMBOLDT ROAD WAGON TRAIL
Reason for Investigation The Grand Jury responded to concerns relating to potential damage to the Old Humboldt Wagon Trail (east of Bruce Road, South of Highway 32 and parallel to Humboldt Road), as a result of planned development in the area of Chico.
Background The wagon trail was constructed between the years of 1863-1865 by the Humboldt Wagon Road Company, which was established by John Bidwell and a group of investors. The Humboldt Wagon Trail was built to link Chico and the Honey Lake area and improve access between the North Valley/Chico area and mining districts in Idaho and Nevada. Additionally, the route opened access to stands of virgin timber, which were important to the lumber industry of Butte County. The wagon trail thrived until the completion of the Central Pacific’s Trans-Sierra railroad in 1869. Eventually, railroad development and the creation of a large V-flume to transport timber down Big Chico Creek Canyon eliminated the need for the wagon trail.
Small sections of the Humboldt Wagon Trail remain today in the form of wagon wheel ruts, grade banks and staging stations east of Chico, up and through Forest Ranch and beyond. Deep wagon wheel ruts ground into the lava rock are a visible link to Butte County’s past. You can view this piece of Chico history by driving up the Old Humboldt Road just east of Bruce Road, in the area near the old Humboldt Dump and proposed Oak Valley Subdivision. The ruts and the rock wall are adjacent to Humboldt Road on the south side. As development progresses, the concern about preserving the Humboldt Wagon Trail in this area becomes more acute. Grand Jury members researched the trail’s history, current ownership of the land, and what effects the proposed Oak Valley subdivision and other future developments would have on the wagon trail.
We met with the Chico City Planning Director and the Senior Planner. They provided us with information on the Oak Valley subdivision that included the tentative subdivision map, the planned development permit, and its conceptual master plan. In addition, the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was included. The mitigation monitoring of this project will allow for a less than significant impact level of use around the Old Humboldt Road, thus preserving the wagon ruts. Currently, the proposed Oak Valley subdivision will not affect the wagon ruts, nor cause the ruts to be paved over. Instead, the proposed plan will offer a pleasant bike and walking path along the road. An additional concern is the property south of the wagon ruts and rock wall. Someone else other than the developer of Oak Valley subdivision owns this property.
The Senior Planner stated that proposed changes to the area south of the roadway are outside the project’s boundaries and would require the acquisition of right of way from the property owner to the south of the roadway. Preliminary development plans have been submitted to the City relating to that property south of Humboldt Road. These plans show an open space corridor that include the Humboldt Trail ruts and rock wall.
A-18 BUTTE COUNTY WIDE REPORTS : 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
There will be at least one new crossing of the trail with the extension of Yosemite Drive to serve the proposed subdivision. At least one more road entry to the lands south of Humboldt Road may be required for adequate traffic circulation. The timing of the development and development of entry roads is unknown at this time. The Chico City Council can at any time adopt or approve these plans or future plans with or without consideration for historical preservation.
As for the property south of the ruts, the owner has been advised of the historical significance of the old Humboldt wagon road. By applying for historical preservation, the owner would benefit in tax breaks and also, preserve a part of Chico history. This information was provided to the landowner by the Grand Jury, and given to the engineering company for that land use. There are also local archeologists who would assist the landowner in completing the forms in applying for official historic designation at little or no cost. Our hope is to insure that every effort is made by city government to include the residents of Butte County in efforts to preserve the history that helped build this county.
Findings 1. An Environmental Impact Report addressed concerns about protecting the remains of the Humboldt Wagon Trail from development by the Oak Valley subdivision and has been somewhat addressed in the subdivision’s environmental impact report. This report recognized the wagon trail and rock wall just south of it as a “legitimate historic resource.” Development in the area has been designed to limit its impact. 2. Grand Jury members met with the City of Chico Planning Director and a Senior Planner. They advised the panel that the subdivision plans call for the existing Humboldt Road to be widened and includes bicycle lanes on both sides of Humboldt Road. 3. The owner of the land south of Humboldt Road has been provided with information and application forms for historical preservation tax breaks. 4. There are no current approved plans in effect to protect areas of historical significance by the City of Chico. Recommendations 1. The City of Chico should include the Humboldt wagon trail and adjacent rock wall as an historic landmark in the Open Space and Environmental Conservation Element of the General Plan. 2. In the event that a development plan for the area is submitted, all environmental documents should take into consideration the historic significance of the wagon trail and minimize the impact to the historic area. 3. Mitigation should be required to preserve the wagon trail and rock wall as a permanent open space easement, prohibiting additional crossings or removal of these features unless necessary for public safety. RESPONSE REQUIRED (Penal code section 933 & 933.5) Chico City Council City of Chico Planning Director
A-19 BUTTE COUNTY WIDE REPORTS : 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT BUTTE COUNTY SCHOOLS
GRIDLEY HIGH SCHOOL
COMPUTERS AT SHASTA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL READY FOR DONATION
GRIDLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT SALARIES AND PENSIONS B-2 CHICO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT HEALTH CARE IN ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS B-7 DISPOSITION OF SURPLUS EQUIPMENT B-15 ASSOCIATED STUDENT BODY FUNDS B-19
BUTTE COUNTY SCHOOLS: 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
GRIDLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT SALARIES AND PENSIONS
Reason for Visit / Investigation
A teacher who had been retired for five years from the Gridley Unified School District (GUSD) wrote to the Grand Jury. He reported that his pension was being cut by about 15 percent following an audit of the GUSD by the California State Teachers Retirement System (STRS). He reported further that other retired teachers were also impacted. He asked the Grand Jury to investigate the propriety of such a large penalty being assessed against aged and long retired teachers.
Background
Cal STRS provides pensions to public school teachers throughout California. Teachers contribute a percentage of their monthly salary, which is matched by their school district. STRS invests the monies and pays pensions to teachers, based upon their years of work and their final salary. In order to prevent fraudulent claims, and maintain the integrity of their fund, STRS conducts audits of school districts at irregular intervals. It checks that the salaries reported by the districts for the teachers are valid, and that the payments are appropriate. Cal STRS audited GUSD on May 16, 2005, after many years of inattention.
Three very senior teachers retired from GUSD in July 2001. At that time the Gridley teachers had gone a number of years without a general increase, and the three teachers were at the maximum salary step level – Step 30. In the spring of 2001, the Gridley Teachers’ Association (GTA) ratified a new tentative agreement that would provide a Step 35 for senior teachers; the GUSD’s Board did not ratify the agreement until June 28, 2001. This was a retroactive agreement covering the 2000-01 school year. This contract was sent to the California Teachers Association’s attorney, but he did not respond; the GTA’s former representative told the Grand Jury that the attorney only responds when an item is not acceptable. The three teachers were given retirement benefits appropriate for Step 35.
A new contract between GUSD and GTA for the 2001-02 year did not include a Step 35, as there were no teachers qualified for that step. The salary for Step 30 in this new contract was the same as that available in the Step 35 for the previous year. This contract was signed about July 1, 2001.
The Cal STRS audit indicated that the salary increases for the three teachers on Step 35 constituted “spiking” because the step was not available to teachers in succeeding years. Consequently, STRS reduced the teachers’ pensions to the level they would have been prior to Step 35. In addition, it subtracted another 5 percent to recover the amount paid between 2001 and the audit.
Chico Unified School District was audited at approximately the same time as Gridley. One of their recently retired teachers was allowed to go back to work for a year so that B-2 BUTTE COUNTY SCHOOLS : 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
his pension would not be decreased. Individual school districts, such as Gridley and Chico, do not have the training and expertise to recognize the impacts on STRS retirement plans when changes are made to collective bargaining agreements.
Investigation
The Grand Jury’s investigations began with a review of the correspondence between STRS and the teachers, and research in California’s Education Code. This code specifies the action STRS may take if inappropriate claims or payments are made. The investigation then included interviews of: • Two of the three retired teachers, • The current superintendent of GUSD, • The teachers’ representative on the 2000-01 negotiating team, • The consultant for the California Teachers Association (CTA), and • Three Administrators in the Butte County Office of Education (BCOE). The Grand Jury also reviewed: • Action minutes for the meetings of the GUSD in the spring of 2001, • The agreement between GUSD and the GTA, • The budgets for the GUSD during the period 1996-2003, and • The STRS audit reports for the Gridley and for the Chico school districts. GUSD was unable to find the signed copies of the contracts it made with GTA, nor could it locate the taped minutes for the public Board meetings held in 2001.
The Education Code provides two methods for STRS to recover overpayments it may have made. Sections 24616 and 24617 cover the method chosen by the STRS auditor for recovering funds from the teachers. Section 23008(c), however, provides that the “employing agency who submitted the report shall reimburse the retirement fund in full for the amount of the erroneous disbursement.” A telephone conversation with a STRS representative verified the latter method is not preferred by STRS.
The three senior teachers have appealed the STRS finding and have been joined by GUSD. No hearing has been set yet by the State’s Attorney General but STRS continues withholding pension money from the teachers. Initially the teachers asked GTA for legal support in their appeal. The GTA’s lawyer said he couldn’t help them because they were no longer members of the union. Our interview with CTA’s consultant revealed a misunderstanding of the situation; CTA is now actively seeking legal remedies for the teachers. The outcome of these approaches is uncertain.
BCOE helps small, impoverished districts with their bookkeeping. In so doing it works closely with the State and has a good understanding of Cal STRS and its programs. Because of BCOE’s expertise, none of these small districts has failed a STRS audit.
The investigation found that no general increase had been granted to Gridley teachers for a number of years prior to 2001. The District had been given a state grant for extensive maintenance on the aged high school building; this included repairs on the roof, heating and air conditioning, plumbing, etc. The architect / contractor, however, B-3 BUTTE COUNTY SCHOOLS : 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
went bankrupt without finishing the work. The District was budgeting as much as it could, and borrowing from the County, to finish the work. As work progressed, new problems such as mold and dry rot were discovered and change orders were issued; these caused additional cost overruns. Repayment of the excess maintenance costs by the state did not occur for several more years. GTA, representing the teachers, was willing to cooperate with the District because of the building maintenance needs, and did not vigorously press for salary increases. According to a former GTA representative, the District asked the GTA to keep the CTA consultant away during negotiations because it was afraid the CTA might “blow the whistle” on its financial condition. This gave the District a negotiating advantage because the teacher negotiators did not have a clear picture of the District’s financial condition, nor of the effect changes in working conditions would have on a teacher’s retirement. The retired teachers who were interviewed stated the District wanted the highest paid teachers to retire and set out to reach that goal with incentives to retire. According to a former GTA representative, the Board directed that no minutes be taken in the meetings when the CTA representative was not present. People who know about the ‘no minute meetings’ are gone from Gridley, except for a member of the Board, and that person refused to provide information to the Grand Jury. The Board member eventually testified before the Grand Jury under subpoena, and confirmed the signing of the tentative collective bargaining agreement establishing Step 35 for the teachers in question. A letter from the GUSD Superintendent stated that the tentative agreement was not saved.
The GTA felt that the teachers were giving up needed raises because they wanted to help the District. The teachers were, indeed, underpaid compared with many other districts in Northern California. They were, however, continuing to get the contracted increases for years of experience and additional college course work. GTA believed that the State had given the District money in 1999 to be used for teacher salaries (it estimated that the teachers would each get an increase of about 10 percent). The GTA believed that this money was diverted for the high school remodel, but BCOE confirmed that there had been no such diversion. In fact, the State passed a measure in 1999 to help districts increase the salary of fully credentialed teachers to a minimum of $32,000 per year. It was a one-time offering and districts could participate or not. If they chose not to participate, they could not change their mind and join in a later year. The money to help a subscribing district to pay the cost would be ongoing. This was changed in 2000 by the State; it gave districts full reimbursement for bringing all fully credentialed teachers up to a $34,000 minimum salary. In subsequent years the State paid the same amount directly to the school district’s general fund. The GUSD subscribed to both programs. The table below, taken from the annual audits of GUSD, shows that the credentialed teachers, as a group, continued to get increases and that the State program for beginning teachers had an impact.
The following table sets out the total GUSD teacher salaries, and percentage of yearly salary increases for 1995 – 2003.
Year Total Salaries % Change Million $ Yr to Yr B-4 BUTTE COUNTY SCHOOLS : 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
‘95-‘96 $4.067 ‘96-‘97 $4.653 11.4 ‘97-‘98 $4.951 6.4 ‘98-‘99 $5.169 4.4 ‘99-‘00 $5.734 10.9 ‘00-‘01 $6.227 8.6 ‘01-‘02 $6.742 8.2 ‘02-‘03 $6.979 3.5
Salary information from BCOE, however, shows that at least seven fully credentialed teachers in Gridley did not receive the $32,000 minimum salary specified by the State for 1999-2000. They were each shorted $975 by the district.
Teachers are expert at working with children, but not always with budget analysis and management confrontation. STRS is a convoluted and confusing retirement system, difficult for most untrained people to comprehend. It is difficult to keep up with the changes made to the plan by the legislature or its governing Board. Before retirement, teachers can just hope they will get the retirement they are planning on. STRS provides planning sessions but the people who prepare the reports and submit them to STRS are clerical staff. These employees come and go and therefore cannot provide continuity and communication of information to new staff. A better system for training clerical staff should be found.
Commendations
The Gridley School District has replaced a series of interim superintendents with a new administrator. This change has resulted in the financial stability now enjoyed by GUSD, and by the apparent good relations it has with staff. Communication is the key to openness between the Board, the Superintendent, GTA, CTA and the public. The superintendent and his entire office staff are new to GUSD and the superintendent indicated to the Grand Jury that he would never have allowed a meeting to occur without the CTA or meeting minutes.
The Butte County Office of Education is commended for its expertise in teacher salary and retirement issues. It uses this expertise to help districts to the extent it is asked, and to the extent its budget and staffing allow.
Findings
1. The teachers who retired at Step 35 are not responsible for their predicament. GUSD negatively impacted the pensions of the teachers that retired at Step 35 by removing the step from the 2001-02 agreements. 2. The salaries of at least seven fully credentialed Gridley teachers were underpaid about $975 in the 1999-2000 year. The District had pledged a minimum of $32,000 salary for each of them when it accepted the State’s beginning teacher program. B-5 BUTTE COUNTY SCHOOLS : 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
3. Local teacher associations and district bookkeepers are not well informed on all of the implications of new reform programs enacted by the legislature. Individual school districts, such as Gridley and Chico, do not have the training and expertise to recognize the impacts on STRS retirement plans when they make changes. This weakness has led to heavy financial penalties against long-retired teachers, some of whom are elderly. 4. Important documents, such as the tentative collective bargaining agreement from five years ago and Board minutes, have been reported lost by the GUSD.
Recommendations 1. GUSD should honor all commitments to the teachers who retired at Step 35, including the costs of the repayment schedules that have been imposed on the retired teachers. 2. GUSD should make a prompt payment of the salary underpayment found for at least seven teachers in 1999-2000. 3. All of the school districts in the County should work with BCOE to improve the training of staff in the ins-and-outs of STRS regulations. School district management should encourage the presence of a CTA consultant at the negotiations by local teacher associations, as it is an important ingredient for informed teacher participation. In the longer term, BCOE should provide a uniform interface for all of the districts with Cal STRS. This would be done in a manner similar to that now offered very small districts. Such an interface might prevent unfortunate financial problems for retired teachers in the future, and reduce the cost of duplication in bookkeeping for the districts. 4. The GUSD should ensure that important documents, such as labor agreements, signed contracts, and taped Board minutes are protected against loss. Key records should be retained permanently.
Response Required (Penal Code 933 & 933.05) Gridley Unified School District Butte County Office of Education
B-6 BUTTE COUNTY SCHOOLS : 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
CHICO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT HEALTH CARE IN ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
Reason for Visit/Investigation
The 2005-2006 Grand Jury reviewed many areas and functions of Chico Unified School District (CUSD). Keeping children healthy is a significant factor in a child’s ability to learn. The Grand Jury reviewed how school health offices contribute to keeping students healthy and attending school.
Background
The mother of a child enrolled at Emma Wilson School appeared before the CUSD Board of Trustees with a concern that food values were not listed on weekly menus. As a result she was unable to advise her diabetic son on what food choices he could safely make at school. Juvenile obesity and diabetes is a growing pediatric concern. As of December 2005, there were forty-nine (49) students known to have diabetes in CUSD. This prompted the Grand Jury to look at the way schools provide care to all students including those with special needs.
In 2003-2004, the Grand Jury wrote a brief report on Loma Vista School. It did not communicate the degree of care required, nor financial resources needed or used to provide and support the students.
Investigation
Grand Jury members selected six of the fifteen elementary schools to make unannounced visits. The schools were selected to cover a cross section of all the elementary students in Chico. The intent was to see how and what kind of health care is provided to students. The Grand Jury researched the California Health and Safety2 and Education Codes3 that outline what health services are required and who is to provide them. The Grand Jury interviewed: • Two administrators: Director – Pupil Personnel Services and Director – Classified Human Resources • Two managers: Manager – Maintenance and Operations and the Safety and Loss Control Coordinator • Three principals: Emma Wilson, Hooker Oak and Loma Vista Schools • Three Registered Nurses: Emma Wilson Elementary School (1) and Loma Vista School (2) • Six Health Assistants: One from each school – Emma Wilson, Citrus, Chapman, Hooker Oak, Marigold and a former Marigold Health Assistant who currently substitutes at Shasta Elementary School
2 Health and Safety Codes 120325-120380 3 Education Codes 49400-49415 B-7 BUTTE COUNTY SCHOOLS : 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
The services reviewed were staffing, communicable diseases, immunizations, prescription drugs, urgent and emergency issues, specialized health care and maximum weight standard for books. The Grand Jury also looked at temperature parameters for the schools4.
Chico Unified School District employs: • five (5) full time and two (2) part time Registered Nurses (RNs) • four (4) Licensed Vocational Nurses (LVNs) • twenty-four (24) Health Assistants (HAs).
Staffing for the health office includes an RN and an HA. The RN is scheduled one day a week at the assigned school and is available by cell phone when off campus during school hours. The school-nurse-to-student ratio is 1:3000.5 The HA is present a minimum of four (4) hours a day. Although the hours may vary from elementary school to elementary school, the HA is not available the entire time children are on campus.
To work in the school system, an RN must have a Bachelor’s Degree in Nursing, a current and valid California Nursing License and be certificated as a school nurse by the California Department of Education. Education documentation is in the nurse’s personnel file at the District Office.
HAs have been employed by the CUSD since the early 1990s to assist the RNs in providing health care. The first known job description for a “health aide” in CUSD is dated October 1993. In September 1997, the most recent update of the job description, the job title changed to “health assistant”. The HA, according to the job description, must have a high school or equivalent education and current basic CPR and First Aid certification. That certification is maintained in the district office. In addition, the assistant is required to have training in emergency medical services or a related field. Other requirements include the ability to operate modern office equipment, including a computer, type 30 words per minute, and have a valid driver’s license. It is preferred that the assistant have one year’s experience in providing first aid and care of children. The HA should be able to recognize a communicable illness and consult the RN. Requirements are minimal for the HAs considering the responsibility they have. HA education documentation is in the district office.
When a student is suspected to have a communicable illness, the student is isolated from other students and the parent is notified to come pick the student up from school. The parent is instructed to get care for the child from their doctor, and obtain a permission slip stating when the student can return to classes. When a student has been exposed to a communicable illness, a form containing instructions is sent home with the student.
4 An Assistant Administrator stated that the schools have temperatures set at 68 F heating and 78 F cooling. Verified by Manager – Maintenance and Operations. 5The National Association of School Nurses recommends a school-nurse-to-student ratio of 1:750. B-8 BUTTE COUNTY SCHOOLS : 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
The HA is responsible for maintaining individual student records that contain a medical history, individual medical problems and immunization records. They also make sure that all kindergarten and transfer students meet necessary immunization requirements. Medications are stored in locked cabinets and refrigerators. In one office, student medications were stored in an accordion folder inside a locked cabinet. Parental permission requests are in files on counters/desks, while all other medical records are in locked file cabinets.
School Administration Student Information (SASI) is a district-wide computer program to gather student information. Training in the program was offered initially when the program was installed. However, we heard from several HAs there has been no formal training since. Some HAs use the computer more than others. All of them enter immunization information into the computer, but some have difficulty with computers and are not adept at printing out reports. The computer program is capable of allowing entry of student visits and their health issues in a daily log but because some assistants prefer, a hand written daily log continues to be used. These logs are taken to the District Office monthly and copied. This is extra work that is repetitive and inefficient as there is a computer program available that is designed to collect and transfer data district-wide.
Each health office we visited has basic equipment such as a cot and blankets for ill students to use during visits, a thermometer and disposable cups for fluids. There is a bathroom either in the office, adjacent or near it. We saw a computer in each health office. There is a refrigerator for medications, cold packs, juice and water for visiting students. Two school refrigerators contained only those items. In the other refrigerators there were various food items belonging to “teachers and staff”. None of the refrigerators were locked.
Regulations about co-mingling food and drugs in the same refrigerator were not readily available from District personnel. On January 14, 2005 an “Information Memorandum” from Sue Stickel, Deputy Superintendent Curriculum and Instruction Branch, to the State Board of Education was issued.6 A consultant with California OSHA stated that some regulations carry significant weight.7 The regulations were written in vague language, but the consultant stated, “the interpretation would be food cannot be stored in the same refrigerator with medications. The need to err is on the side of safety at all times.”
Although CUSD has a formal Bloodbourne Pathogen Exposure Control Plan8 (revised in August 2005) to prevent injury and spread of disease, it does not talk about the actual
6 “subject: Program Advisory on Medication Administration pursuant to California Code of Regulations (CCRO Title 5, Article 4.1: Administration of Medication during the regular school day. This is a program advisory issued pursuant to Education Code Section 33308.5, which provides non-binding recommendations on administering medication to students ……” . “Refrigerators that are used for medication storage be kept locked, and their use be reserved exclusively for medication storage”. 7 Regulation 3203, #7, Title 8, Section 6760 and Regulation 3368. 8 Provided by Manager – Maintenance and Operations B-9 BUTTE COUNTY SCHOOLS : 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
disposal of sharps containers or biohazardous waste. Sharps containers and biohazardous waste containers were present in the health offices visited. Informally, sharps containers are sealed by the health assistant and delivered by the Safety and Loss Control Coordinator to a Butte County Health Clinic for disposal. According to HAs, biohazardous waste collection is done daily at each site by the custodian. Mission Laundry provides school linens and they are also licensed to transport bio-hazardous linens. In the event of unusual circumstances, the fire department and/or emergency medical technicians (EMTs) are called and they take responsibility for hazardous waste cleanup.
Urgent and emergency care needs are not routine at schools, but are always a possibility and staff must be prepared to meet those needs. Examples of such needs are severe allergy to a food (e.g. peanut butter) or a bee sting. Epi-pens contain potential life saving medication for children with severe allergies that could lead to life threatening (anaphylactic) shock. An epi-pen is a pre-loaded syringe with needle attached, containing one pre-measured dose of epinephrine. This emergency medication is kept in all schools west of the railroad tracks, where 9-1-1 calls may result in a delayed response due to railroad traffic. The other local schools keep an epi-pen only when a physician orders it for a specific student. Rural schools, such as Cohasset and Forest Ranch, routinely keep epi-pens in their health offices. In the Special Needs program the education aide assigned to a student with allergies carries an epi-pen and benadryl in a small fanny pack. There is also an epi-pen locked in the Special Needs classroom and one in the Special Needs health office for quick access when needed. Any time an epi-pen is used 9-1-1 is called.
CUSD hired both a Director of Nutritional Services and a Nutrition Specialist in 2005. The Nutrition Specialist provided a Carbohydrate Chart to every school to assist the diabetic students with diet choices. If the school has a diabetic child, a Carbohydrate Chart is displayed in the health office and a copy is forwarded to the parents. Schools without diabetic students have the charts filed in the health office. Diabetic students are usually medically independent and come to the health office to give their own medication. The RN or LVN gives medications to students with diabetes who can’t give their own, making a special trip to the school to provide that service if necessary.
Specialized health care is a component of federally mandated Special Education and often an integral part of a student’s Individualized Education Plan (IEP). “Special Ed” as it is widely known, is designed to give children from birth through age twenty-one years with special needs an equal opportunity to learn. It takes many resources to fulfill the requirements of this federally mandated program including physical care, education, health care and financial resources. As a federally mandated program, the state and local governments must pick up whatever the Federal Government does not pay. If schools require a resource for special needs students, CUSD must find a way to provide that resource even when it takes away from mainstream students/programs. During this investigation, we heard many times that Special Ed Programs were growing every year due to many factors such as advanced health care provided at birth which
B-10 BUTTE COUNTY SCHOOLS : 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
‘saves’ babies that would not have survived years ago. The program’s yearly growth heavily impacts school districts.
Special Education is offered to individuals with a variety of disabilities that range from congenital anomalies to speech impairments and brain injuries. Every student in the special needs program has an IEP specifying the type and amount of extra help they will get. CUSD has 1300 students in special education, which represents about 10% of the CUSD population. A team of parents, teachers, counselors, therapists and nurses meet periodically to update the plan. The special needs health program is in a state of transition. It was formerly run by the county and now by CUSD. Teachers and education aides who were responsible for much of the care in the classrooms under the county system are now encouraged by the RNs to take the children to the health office for medical care.
All of the schools provide health care for special needs students. Loma Vista School is a specialized environment where the majority of the enrollees have special needs. Any child is eligible to be enrolled in school, even though some are developmentally only five (5) months of age. Medical treatments required by some of the special needs students are catheterization, lavage, gastrostomy tube feeding, diabetic care, and seizure treatment. One full-time RN is at Loma Vista while another RN has an office there but also services the special needs students in the other schools.
Throughout the district there are three classrooms for emotionally disturbed students. This service is part of the Special Needs program. The classrooms are at Rosedale Elementary, Chico Junior High and Pleasant Valley High School. There is a fourth classroom at Loma Vista that is operated by the Butte County Office of Education. Hearing-impaired students are special needs students and are transported, with younger ones going to Oroville and older ones going to either Pleasant Valley High School or Chico Junior High School. Visually impaired (normally low vision) students are in a county program for special needs students and the students are mainstreamed into the regular classrooms. If they are legally blind, they have their own education aide. They are given assistance with materials and mobility.
For years, parents, teachers and pediatricians have been concerned about the weight of textbooks and the long-term effect on children having to carry heavy books. All types of backpacks and rolling packs have been designed to carry books and other paraphernalia children insist upon carrying. When we saw that Education Code 494159 addressed weight of textbooks carried to and from school and was implemented July 1, 2004 we thought the solution had been provided. However, we were concerned that the health office staff, principals and administrators were not aware of the maximum weight standard for books. After research the Administrative Office responded.10 We
9 Information found at www.cde.ca.gov/ci/cr/cf/txtbkwght.asp Assembly Bill 2532 required the State Board of Education (SBE) to adopt weight standards for elementary and secondary school textbooks by July 1, 2004. SBE complied with Ed Code 49415. Last modified 9/14/2005.
B-11 BUTTE COUNTY SCHOOLS : 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
also talked with a representative from California Department of Education and he sent a summary.11 That summary stated the weight standard is for individual books and not the total weight of required textbooks. However, we heard from several administrators and principals that plans are being implemented to make two sets of books available, one for each student to take home, and a set for each classroom. Some schools already have instituted this and are now discussing books on computer disks. They have great hopes that this will prevent the children from carrying heavy books and possibly injuring themselves.
The main office staff and teachers receive some basic health training from the Registered Nurse. The office staff takes care of student health needs when the RN or health assistant is not available.
The Grand Jury members noted, when making visits to the school sites, that many personnel and students were wearing coats inside the schools. In talking with an Assistant Administrator, we were told the schools thermostats are set for 68 degree heating and 78 degree cooling. The Manager – Maintenance and Operations, verified the settings. According to the Director of Pupil Personnel Services, the temperature setting information has not been given to parents so they can make sure their child is dressed appropriately. On three (3) separate visits to the district offices the Grand Jury found the temperature to range in the 70s. A weather graph12 was obtained for March 2006 and those outside high temperatures of the day are recorded on the days of the visits.
Temperatures:13 • 3/21/06 - outside high temperature 46 F Administrative Assistant’s office at 2:50 p.m. - 73.9 F Assistant Administrator’s office at 3:20 p.m. - 72.6 F • 3/22/06 – outside high temperature 44 F Administrative Assistant’s office at 3:00 p.m. - 72.5 F In a conference room at 3:10 p.m - 74.2 F • 3/27/06 – outside high temperature 52 F Superintendent’s office at 9:30 a.m. - 70.1 F
Health care in the schools visited is safe and appropriate and processes are in place for urgent and emergency situations. The offices have basic equipment including sharps
10 “district personnel are following the textbook adoption cycle promulgated by the California Department of education and will consider the requirements outlined in Education Code 49415 as new textbooks are recommended to the CUSD Board of Education for adoption. This is the first year that the district will purchase new textbooks since the requirements of Education Code 49415 have been in place.”
11 “Textbook Weight in California, Summary of the State Board of Education action.” 12 KCACHICO2 Weather Graph for March 2006 13 Taken with Infrared Thermometer model #480742, Class II Laser Product with FDA radiation performance standard 21. Brand ALL TRADE. B-12 BUTTE COUNTY SCHOOLS : 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
and bio-hazardous waste containers available for student care and data recording. Special accommodation is provided for nurses to travel to various schools to give shots to students when needed.
Special needs health care was not reviewed in depth, nor compared with the regular health care for this report. Providing health care to some special needs students is necessary but labor intensive and time consuming. It takes an enormous amount of patience, physical care, education, health care and financial resources to fulfill the federal mandate for special needs students. It is a federally mandated program and the state and local governments must pick up whatever the Federal Government does not pay. If Loma Vista requires a resource, CUSD must find a way to provide that resource.
Special needs students range from three (3) through twenty-one (21) years of age, with a variety of capabilities and body functions ranging from a five-month old to age appropriate within the public school system. The Grand Jury saw older children with the physical and mental capabilities of infants, including the need for all facets of infant care.
Commendation
CUSD deserves credit for their response to the Emma Wilson parent who appeared before the Board of Trustees with a concern that food values were not listed on weekly menus. Carbohydrate Charts were provided to school health offices to facilitate diet choices and are displayed or filed in the health office.
The health staff is commended for the warm and child friendly atmosphere in the health offices visited. Although the health office areas vary in size and suitability from school to school, the warmth and child friendly atmosphere helps the children feel at ease when they visit. A lot of time and personal effort have gone into the décor at the six sites visited. Children appear to have their health needs safely and adequately met by caring staff at the schools.
Findings
1. The school-nurse-to-student ratio is 1:3000 whereas the National Association of School Nurses recommends a ratio of 1:750. • The Health Aide is not available the entire time elementary school children are on campus. • Requirements for HAs are minimal for the responsibilities they have. • Office staff and teachers receive minimal training to assist students when the RN and HA are not available. 2. There is a Bloodbourne Pathogen Exposure Control Plan, but there are no written procedures for sharps and biohazardous waste disposal. 3. Not all HAs are proficient in using SASI. 4. There was food co-mingled with medications in refrigerators in some offices. B-13 BUTTE COUNTY SCHOOLS : 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
5. Special needs health care for students is complex, complicated and federally mandated. 6. School thermostats are set for 68 F heating while district offices were several degrees warmer.
Recommendations 1. Evaluate health care needs in the schools and available staffing yearly. Increase or decrease staffing as evaluation indicates. Offer Health Aides education opportunities. 2. Develop a formal written procedure for disposal of sharps containers and biohazardous waste and include the document in the Bloodbourne Pathogen Exposure Control Plan. File the plan at the district office. 3. Provide periodic re-training for HAs on the computer program, SASI. 4. Lock refrigerators used for student medications; segregate student drugs from employee foods and drinks; store students’ medications in a well-labeled, easily recognizable container in a locked cabinet. 5. Conduct in-service training for administrators, teachers and support personnel district-wide, about the impact of integrating special needs students into regular classrooms. 6. Best efforts should be made for all CUSD facilities to meet applicable heating and cooling standards district wide. 7. Make heating and cooling standards known to parents so they can take pro- active measures to dress their children accordingly.
Response Required (Penal Code 933 & 933.05) Chico Unified School District Board of Trustees Superintendent of CUSD Director Pupil Personnel Services Director Classified Human Resources Manager – Maintenance and Operations
B-14 BUTTE COUNTY SCHOOLS : 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
CHICO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT DISPOSITION OF SURPLUS EQUIPMENT
Reason for Visit/Investigation
Grand Jury members first heard about disposal of school owned surplus equipment at a Chico Unified School District (CUSD) Board of Trustees meeting on October 5, 2005. The agenda listed surplus items and the attached documentation revealed a number of items. The Grand Jury wanted to know the procedure that is used when equipment becomes surplus.
Background
On October 6, 2005 the Grand Jury called the Director – Fiscal Services and asked to see the equipment that had been approved to become surplus. We were told that the equipment had already been removed from sites to the Maintenance and Operations Yard or to Computers for Classrooms. The removal was done before the Board of Trustees declared the equipment surplus. The Grand Jury requested information from the Director of Fiscal Services on how equipment is classified as surplus, what happens to it afterwards, and asked to be involved in reviewing the equipment before it was voted on and approved by the Board as surplus equipment. On February 15, 2006, the Grand Jury found another request for surplus equipment on the agenda for the Board meeting and was surprised they had not been notified.
Computers for Classrooms, a local non-profit computer reclamation business, receives donations of computers from large and small businesses and individuals. The volunteers in the organization refurbish the computers, and every piece of equipment is recycled in some way. CUSD has a consultant contract with the Director of Computers for Classrooms and CUSD has first choice of the latest model computers for the classrooms and teachers at no cost.
Investigation
The Grand Jury investigation began by determining the people responsible for surplus equipment and making appointments to interview them. We interviewed: • Director – Fiscal Services • Director of Information Technology • Manager – Maintenance and Operations • Two Board of Trustee Members • Contract Consultant at Computers for Classrooms • Volunteer Coordinator at Computers for Classrooms
According to the Director – Fiscal Services, surplus equipment comes from all CUSD sites. Each school makes a determination of what is surplus from their site. The procedure starts with the completion of a four-part form that is an Inventory and Equipment Data Sheet (BS 19). That form is sent to the Business Office where it is B-15 BUTTE COUNTY SCHOOLS : 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
approved, signed and given a District number (D number). Once the form is approved it is separated and two copies go back to the site with appropriate color coded stickers. The items cannot be removed from the sites until the sites have the form and a sticker for each computer. All surplus equipment is handled the same to this point.
For all equipment, except computers, the Business Office generates a manifest and sends it to Maintenance and Operations. At that time, Maintenance and Operations schedules the specific date for equipment pick up. Dates for pick up of surplus equipment are usually scheduled quarterly. According to the Maintenance and Operations Manager all equipment that is listed on a driver’s manifest must be included on the load or verified with site personnel as to why it is not included in the pick up.
The equipment is picked up from school sites and either transferred to another site or brought to the corporation yard and then the manager takes pictures of the items. Ed. Code 17546 regulates the disposal of the equipment. The manager determines through the auctioneer what is saleable. The auctioneer takes those items, and once auctioned, sends CUSD a check. The Grand Jury was told that occasionally an off site yard sale is held. The remaining items are donated to a charitable organization or disposed of at the landfill.
Computer equipment is disposed of in a different manner. When the BS 19-Request for Approval for Disposal of Surplus Equipment is returned to the school site, along with blue stickers to be attached to each computer. Once computers are determined surplus and have the paper work, they can be delivered to Computers for Classrooms by site personnel, Maintenance and Operations or occasionally picked up by Computers for Classrooms. Computers without accompanying blue stickers will not be accepted by Computers for Classrooms. However, Computers for Classrooms does not physically count the computers because they are donations and there are large quantities coming from many organizations. They do, however, count the monitors because they contain cathode ray tubes that must be recorded and tracked according to California SB 20 and SB 50 and Federal Code 40CFR265.70 through 265.7714. Computers for Classrooms determine which computer equipment can be repaired and made available for use, and which must be disposed of by some method of recycling.
During the investigation, we were contacted by a parent from Shasta School and told there were two pallets of computers sitting out in the rain. There were pictures taken on March 12, 2006 of the computers by a Grand Jury member. Grand Jury members watched in a random manner for a three-week period and when it appeared that the computers were not removed, they contacted a Board member of CUSD. They met with the member of the Board at the school on April 4, 2006. The Grand Jury was concerned about the wet computers and potential destruction of reusable equipment, but more importantly about sensitive student and personnel information theft. The
14 Electronic waste recycling Act of 2003 (SB 20) signed into law September 24, 2003; amended by SB 50 on September 29, 2004; Federal Code may be accessed at www.envsci.rutgers.edu/`Strin.hazwaste/40CFR265-pfs.pdf
B-16 BUTTE COUNTY SCHOOLS : 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
member of the Board informed us that this was the second time that he had seen computers sitting out in the weather and easily accessible for theft, and said he thought the issue had been addressed on the first occasion by the former superintendent in a memo to all school sites.
When the Grand Jury initially conducted a cursory physical inspection of these computers, there were no appropriate color-coded (blue) stickers attached to indicate they were surplus. Upon examining the pictures, it was apparent that the computers in the pictures were different than the computers observed by the Grand Jury and the Board member. The pictures showed some computers clearly marked with blue stickers but not on pallets. From the pictures, it was confirmed that at least two separate stacks of computers had sat in the rain during the three-week period. Even though the surplus computers have no value to CUSD, they can often be refurbished for local classroom use or shipped to Canada and/or third world countries by Computers for Classrooms.
Under the current operating procedure, if twenty computers leave a site and only fifteen arrive at Computers for Classrooms there is no way to know where the other five computers are and what kind of student or personnel information is on them. The Grand Jury was unable to find a policy or procedure for specifically handling computer equipment including protecting potentially sensitive information on students and staff that might be on the computers. There is no manifest generated for the computers and no tracking from CUSD to Computers for Classrooms.
The Grand Jury understands that the sensitive information is erased using federally approved methods at Computers for Classrooms. According to the Consultant Agreement between Computers for Classrooms and CUSD there is no confidentiality clause regarding the security of sensitive information. The Board member shared that during the 2004/05 school year, a similar stack of surplused computers was found at another school. At that time a hard drive was removed and found to contain student information. The “out of sight out of mind” attitude of school site personnel leaves students and staff open to invasion of privacy. When surplus computers are left in vulnerable storage areas the chain of custody is broken.
The Director of Fiscal Services told the Grand Jury that equipment of less than a $500 value is not tracked; that equipment is removed from sites before the Board of Trustees declares it surplus for safety reasons and to avoid theft. Holding surplus equipment in a locked, open topped, outside storage area would indicate that theft is not a real concern. However, it is reasonable to assume that if someone were caught removing a piece of the surplus equipment, the proper authorities would be notified.
Commendations
We commend Computers for Classrooms for partnering with CUSD to bring free, late model refurbished computers to classrooms, students, teachers and other personnel. It
B-17 BUTTE COUNTY SCHOOLS : 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
is acknowledged that donations and the tireless efforts of the consultant and volunteers are behind the success of this program. The benefits are vast and far-reaching.
Findings
1. There is no prescribed chain of custody from site of use to disposal site for computer CPU/memory storage devices. 2. An incomplete disposition process for surplus equipment is in place: • A manifest for computers is developed only when Maintenance and Operations personnel delivers them • Surplus equipment is not treated or valued equally • Surplus equipment does not remain on the books until the Board approves the surplus equipment list • The number of surplus computers is determined but not tracked. 3. Surplus equipment is disposed of on a scheduled basis with or without Board approval. 4. Computers determined to be surplus by individual schools are not stored in a safe environment.
Recommendations
1. Develop a chain of custody procedure for all data found on hard drives or other types of digital storage devices to prevent unauthorized access to student, teacher, or employee private information. 2. Review and revise the surplus equipment policy and procedure to include: • Computer equipment • Have all surplus equipment handled by the same process • Surplus equipment should remain on the books until the Board approves the surplus equipment list • Hold equipment at Maintenance and Operations until Board approval for disposal is received. 3. Approval of the Board for equipment determined surplus should be required before the equipment leaves the Maintenance and Operations storage by any disposal method. 4. Surplus equipment pick-ups should be arranged so equipment is not left outside at individual sites.
Response required (Penal Code 933 & 933.05) Chico Unified School District Board Of Trustees Superintendent, Chico Unified School District Director of Fiscal Services, Chico Unified School District Manager–Maintenance and Operations, Chico Unified School District
B-18 BUTTE COUNTY SCHOOLS : 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
CHICO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ASSOCIATED STUDENT BODY FUNDS
Reason for Visit/Investigation
Members of the 2005/06 Butte County Grand Jury began attending Chico Unified School District (CUSD) Board of Trustee meetings in August 2005. The purpose was to monitor Associated Student Body (ASB) financial activities identified as problem areas by the Grand Jury Final Report of 2004-2005. An agenda item for the program Ancient Artifacts caught the attention of the Grand Jury. It was to be offered at one school for all 7th grade classes and paid for with ASB funds. The Grand Jury questioned if this was legal according to the California State Education Code.
On other agendas were three requests to conduct magazine drives with the proceeds split between ASB and the Parent Teacher Student Organizations (Parent Teacher Student Organization or PTSO, Parent Teacher Student Association or PTSA, and Parent Teacher Association or PTA). The percentage for the split of proceeds at the schools were dramatically different and the Grand Jury members wanted to know why the disparity.
Background
In the 2004–2005 Butte County Grand Jury Final Report, two reports – “Students Get What They Pay For” and “Marsh Junior High School Follows the Money” detailed investigations of ASB funds within CUSD. After attending the Board of Trustee meetings, the Grand Jury’s interest focused on the program, Ancient Artifacts and the magazine drives which are the major fund-raisers at all three Jr. High Schools. The Grand Jury wanted to know: • What was the Ancient Artifacts program? • How was the program presented to the ASB students? • Was the program curricular or extra-curricular? • Why did the percentage of splits from the proceeds of the magazine drive differ for each school? • Did CUSD make improvements in the ASB process?
Investigation
Grand Jury members interviewed: • Superintendent of CUSD • Two (2) Board Of Trustee members • Assistant Superintendent – Educational Services • Director Fiscal Services • ASB Directors at three (3) junior high schools • ASB Account Tech at a high school • PTSO Co-Presidents (2)
B-19 BUTTE COUNTY SCHOOLS : 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
• Independent auditor hired by CUSD in 2004-2005 When the Grand Jury interviewed people, approximately 50%, including one Board member, felt that the 2004-2005 Grand Jury report was a good thing because it “opened a can of worms that needed to be opened”. The others felt that the report did a great disservice to the children and teachers. Many student activities that had become common practice were curtailed for fear of not meeting the legal and fiscal constraints. Frequently heard from staff was “we had wonderful programs and the children can no longer have them because the schools are afraid they are going to do something wrong”. The Assistant Superintendent of Educational Services and Director of Fiscal Services both felt the report made CUSD pay attention to things that should have been done without the report. There has also been a lot of staff education that otherwise would not have occurred; a heightened awareness by administration and site principals and a restructuring of documents that go to parents. There is also better communication between the ASB Account Tech and Fiscal Services.
After the 2004-05 Grand Jury report was released, the CUSD Board of Trustees directed staff to draw up guidelines for ASB before the 2006-2007 school year. The ASB Practice (Draft 9/20/05) and Fundraising Practice (Draft 9/20/05) were included in the Responses to the 2004-2005 Grand Jury Final Report. A Board member said that the changes make it difficult for CUSD and students now, but it will work out for the better. It is believed by the Board member that other school districts are watching to see what comes of the actions taken on the report and a Board of Trustees member hopes CUSD will become a model for other school districts.
On November 28, 2005 the Grand Jury interviewed the new superintendent. With regard to the handling of ASB funds, he stated he was used to having a receipt for any money received. He said what was needed, and one of the biggest challenges for all ASB organizations, was to have the right number of eyes in money transactions. This is not an unusual observation. The independent auditor hired by CUSD to audit ASB funds found that at one school during the 2004-05 school year the bookkeeping was not clear or handled safely. He further stated that a standardized policy and procedure on the handling of money within ASB organizations is needed.
The Grand Jury found that in all schools visited the principals and student activity directors had attended seminars conducted by Fiscal Crisis Management Assistance Team (FCMAT) and all the schools have FCMAT guidelines. The Activity Directors told us the accounting systems for ASB had been updated and were similar. However, the Director of Fiscal Services stated that all ASB groups are on the same accounting system and are closer to having a common chart of accounts. They are using EPES software, a program designed for activity accounting. But the Grand Jury found that tracking money from fund-raisers and the monies collected for ASB activities are still handled in an inconsistent manner. The Grand Jury observed that one Jr. High school was now using standard accounting practices of double counting and having deposits made by a second party. B-20 BUTTE COUNTY SCHOOLS : 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
Prior to the 2004-05 Grand Jury Report, ASB funds were being spent on salaries for Account Techs and substitute teachers. As a result of the 2004-05 Grand Jury report, and FCMAT trainings, the salary payments were refunded to ASB accounts. However in an interview on April 10, 2006, the Assistant Superintendent of Education Services and Director of Fiscal Services both said that substitute teacher salaries could be paid from ASB funds when the primary teacher was at an ASB function. An e-mail received on April 25, 2006 from the Director of Fiscal Services to the Grand Jury says, “our attorney indicated the issue of paying for substitutes of ASB Advisors out of ASB funds is problematic and therefore I will contact the secondary schools accordingly.”
The ASB can vote to split the proceeds of their fundraisers in any percentage they want which surprised a Board member, as it did the Grand Jury. A Board member and the Assistant Superintendent of Educational Services both said that when consent forms for ASB fundraisers go before the Board it is for the most part routinely approved as long as it is signed off by all the appropriate parties and has a clear explanation about the request. One Board member specifically looks for a student signature. The Superintendent and Board president determine which items are placed on the agenda.
A PTSO fund-raiser at Marsh Jr. High School supports a computer/photography class where students take pictures, print them, offer them for sale and collect the checks and turn them in to PTSO. The classroom teacher then is able to submit bills for supplies to PTSO for reimbursement. At the time of the interview, PTSO had $10,000 of computer/photography class money in their bank account, controlled by parents. According to the PTSO co-presidents “all the money is used to pay for the computer lab supplies and repairs for picture taking purposes in the future”. It is a great technology-learning program, according to PTSO/parents, and they wonder why other schools don’t take advantage of the experience. However, the Grand Jury is concerned about PTSO acting as the computer/photography lab bank. Even though parent- teacher organizations and associations are organized and chartered to work for the benefit of youth, it begs the question as to who is ultimately responsible if money is improperly managed? According to Education Code 48937, CUSD is responsible for the supervision for all funds raised.
It is the opinion of the Assistant Superintendent of Educational Services and the Director of Fiscal Services that FCMAT gave them contradictory information about ASB, so an attorney from Southern California was hired for a second opinion. Whenever they posed a question, the attorney would take a long time to provide an answer and then provide it in the form of a brief. This time-consuming process was too cumbersome, so they sought and hired an attorney from Sacramento who is well versed on the subject. They feel there is definitely a conflict in laws and the way schools handle ASB funds. They both stated that there is never a week that goes by without some question coming up that they must refer to the attorney for an answer.
B-21 BUTTE COUNTY SCHOOLS : 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
The Director of Fiscal Services feels it is not possible for any one person at CUSD to know all the answers about ASB.
In interviews with ASB activity directors they stated that they are adjusting to the new FCMAT guidelines. The Bidwell Junior High School principal and ASB activity director were not nearly as traumatized by the guidelines as other schools, because they began making changes as a result of attending a FCMAT training session in 2000. They also developed an ASB request form with acceptable uses clearly spelled out as a guide for those considering a request of the ASB organization.
The activity directors, at all the schools visited, wished they had good directives to follow about ASB funds. They feel that they must ask the principal who must ask someone else for every little question they have. At least one activity director developed ASB voting and tracking records because there were none at that school. Some activity directors feel that the grand jury report caused changes but they have been “too little, too late”. One activity director stated that things were best when they were straightforward; that some decisions make people devious or subversive and that is what the report did; “almost immediately some people were looking for loopholes and how to beat the decisions by cleaning up the language to make it seem legal.”
A student activity director told the Grand Jury that the Ancient Artifacts consultant agreement was for a presentation for each 7th grade class, and it coincided with the study of the Roman Empire as an extracurricular activity. It was presented to the ASB student government and they approved it to be paid out of ASB funds. This was the first year for the presentation. The program is presented by the consultant who wears a facsimile of old Roman Clothing and discusses artifacts that he brings to class and their purpose and use in society. The students learned a great deal and it will most likely be considered for funding in the next school year.
In an April 10, 2006 interview with the Director of Fiscal Services the Grand Jury asked what he thought was the single most important thing that could happen in regard to ASB. He said, “I would like for the state to come out with a single set of guidelines for every school in the state and clearly delineate what they can and can’t do.” In summary, the Grand Jury feels that the majority of the teachers and staff working with ASB at the Jr. High and High Schools are dedicated and have the best interest of youth at heart. There is a great amount of energy and time put into student activity projects.
In summary, the Grand Jury found: • In all schools visited, the principals and activity directors attended FCMAT seminars on ASB management. • All the schools have the FCMAT guidelines. • All ASB organizations are on the same accounting system. • ASB can vote to split the proceeds of their fundraisers in any percentage they want. B-22 BUTTE COUNTY SCHOOLS : 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
• The Director of Fiscal Services and Assistant Superintendent of Educational Services feel that FCMAT gave them contradictory information about ASB and hired an attorney with ASB experience. • Ancient Artifacts program was to enrich the curricular study of the Roman Empire. • CUSD has made improvements in the ASB process and is currently operating on temporary guidelines.
Commendation The Grand Jury commends the Bidwell Junior High School Principal and ASB Activity Director for immediately beginning to change processes after attending their first FCMAT training session in 2000 where they discovered that they were not in compliance with guidelines.
Findings 1. Tracking money from fundraisers and other money collected for ASB activities is still handled in an inconsistent manner. 2. There are insufficient processes developed for consistent ASB money handling at CUSD schools. 3. The independent auditor hired by CUSD found ASB money is not handled safely. 4. A PTSO was acting as a bank for the computer/photography class. 5. Some schools have made clear efforts to establish workable and legal processes without clear direction from administration. 6. CUSD contends that the FCMAT and State of California guidelines for handling ASB funds lack clarity and consistency.
Recommendations 1. CUSD Administration should develop and implement a standardized paper trail for tracking ASB funds, for example triplicate forms. 2. CUSD Administration should continue to refine the overall ASB process and develop guidelines for the ASB Activity Directors, principals and the Parent Teacher Organizations or Associations at each school site. 3. CUSD should take all steps necessary to ensure compliance with Education Code 48937, which requires that CUSD be responsible for all funds raised. 4. In the absence of consistent State policy, CUSD should implement accounting standards and controls for ASB money handling practices.
Response required (Penal Code 933 & 933.05) CUSD Board Of Trustees Superintendent of CUSD Assistant Superintendent – Educational Services Director Fiscal Services
B-23 BUTTE COUNTY SCHOOLS : 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT LAW ENFORCEMENT IN BUTTE COUNTY
CHICO POLICE DEPARTMENT HEADQUARTERS
PARADISE POLICE DEPARTMENT HEADQUARTERS
LAW ENFORCEMENT IN BUTTE COUNTY C-2 TASERS AND TASER USE IN BUTTE COUNTY C-8 CHICO POLICE DEPARTMENT C-11 BUTTE COUNTY EMERGENCY OPERATIONS EXERCISE C-19 OFFICER INVOLVED SHOOTINGS/CRITICAL INCIDENTS PROTOCOL C-22
BUTTE COUNTY LAW ENFORCEMENT : 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
BUTTE COUNTY JUVENILE COURT
“This Is Juvenile Hall” a poem by a Table Mountain School student
Long sleepless nights, Waking to a flash of bright light. Half asleep in the three minute shower, The lotion here smells like ugly flowers. Get dressed and make your bed, In the next hour you will be fed. Brush your teeth and go to school, Don’t be foolish and break the rules. You study hard to get good grades, While all your outside memories fade. This is your new home, You feel so alone. This is your new life, Here you don’t eat with a fork or knife. This is juvenile hall.
Dava
BUTTE COUNTY LAW ENFORCEMENT : 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
LAW ENFORCEMENT IN BUTTE COUNTY
Reason for Visit/Review
The Grand Jury set out to conduct a review of Law Enforcement in Butte County. Our goal was to be able to report to the community that the 2005/2006 Grand Jury had made a careful examination of as many areas of Law Enforcement as could be reasonably accomplished.
Background
The Grand Jury is charged to review detention facilities in the County each year. The Grand Jury visited the County Jail multiple times and Juvenile Hall twice. We also visited every Butte County facility where a subject can be held in confinement. It should be noted that the Grand Jury was welcomed on each visit. To the best of our knowledge we were never denied access or information.
We made one or more unannounced visits to: • Oroville Police Department • Paradise Police Department • Butte County Jail • Butte County Juvenile Hall • Chico Police Department • Gridley-Biggs Police Department • Butte County Court holding cells • Butte County Mental Health Facility • California State University Chico Police Department • Butte County Sheriff’s Substation Chico
We made one or more arranged visits to: • Chico Police Department • Butte County Jail • Butte County Juvenile Hall • Butte County Sheriff’s Department • Department of Justice Crime Laboratory in Butte County • District Attorney’s Investigators, Oroville
Investigation/Review
California State Department of Justice During the Grand Jury’s review of the Butte County Shooting Protocol Team, the Grand Jury toured the Department of Justice Bureau of Forensics Services (DOJ). This facility handled, examined, and processed evidence in the four officer-involved shootings in the city of Chico as well as other incidents in Butte County and surrounding counties. The Criminalist Supervisor explained the function of the DOJ and the role that it plays as a
C-2 BUTTE COUNTY LAW ENFORCEMENT : 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
participant in the Butte County Shooting Protocol Team. The DOJ also provides drug identification test kits and training for local law enforcement agencies on how to use them in the field.
Juvenile Hall
Grand Jury members toured the Juvenile Hall both announced and unannounced. We found it to be a modern, clean, and well managed institution. For many of the Grand Jurors this was their first exposure to the Juvenile Justice system. The staff was clearly invested in providing education and behavior modification for all young offenders.
The facility, first opened in November 2003, has six wings, described as pods, each capable of housing up to 20 juveniles. Throughout 2005, three pods were occupied with an average occupancy of 53.67.
Grand Jury members learned that while the recidivism rate ranges from 25 to 30 percent, roughly 85 percent of first time probation intake juveniles would not be seen again. The average stay is 14 days for males and 11 days for females. A weekend work program is available for juveniles with minor violations.
Video conferencing equipment is available at Juvenile Hall for use when a preliminary hearing with an off-site Superior Court Judge is appropriate.
All juveniles receive health screening during the initial booking process. By policy, California Code of Regulations Title 17, they are screened for communicable diseases during the initial booking process, a health appraisal or during sick call. This includes Chlamydia and Gonorrhea. During 2005, there were 26 confirmed cases of communicable diseases requiring treatment/case management and reporting.
Four certificated teachers provide year around education in the Juvenile Hall Table Mountain School. Each teacher has one aide and there is one Resource Specialist for special placements and Individualized Education Plans (IEP). According to one of the teachers interviewed, Table Mountain School provides 310 minutes of instruction per day, exceeding the state minimum requirement of 240 minutes per day.
On display in one of the classrooms was an art exhibit demonstrating the remarkable talent of several of the students. Also of note was a 96-page book authored by the students of Table Mountain School titled “Unlocked Thoughts”, “An Anthology of Poetry and Art.” This book, made possible through a Butte County Office of Education LEA Medi-Cal mini-grant and the assistance of some awesome people, presented many outstanding artworks and poems created by students in 2005.
Each pod has a small library stocked with reading material and includes a reading, writing and conversation area. There is also a physical recreation area roughly half the size of a basketball court. Staff said that construction was underway to extend activities outdoors by including a gardening area. C-3 BUTTE COUNTY LAW ENFORCEMENT : 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
The Grand Jury spoke to the Juvenile Hall Superintendent and staff from the kitchen, school, and medical facilities. Each of those interviewed was eager to show and tell about their area of responsibility. They were courteous, helpful and promptly produced all documentation requested for review. We were impressed with the obvious interest each had in the welfare of the juveniles in their charge.
The Grand Jury repeatedly heard praise about Ron Reed, a citizen of Butte County, who has contributed significant time, labor, and building materials to accomplish needed projects in the area of juvenile justice, including upgrading the Juvenile Court room in the old Juvenile Hall building. Both the Superintendent and the Juvenile Judge commented on his generosity and interest in Juvenile offenders.
The Grand Jury found the Juvenile Hall Superintendent and Staff to be open and welcoming. They provided all information requested and were able to give us a clear picture of Juvenile Hall including a history of what had occurred during the last year. The information was readily available on request.
Butte County Jail
The Grand Jury toured the Butte County Jail on October 11, 2005 and made several subsequent unannounced visits. The jail houses both males and females. The newer portion of the facility was built in 1994 and houses the male population, while the women continue to be housed in the older portion built in 1963. Previous Grand Jury reports document the aging women’s facility and the conditions remain consistent with those reports according to our observations.
The medical facilities are a very important and integral part of Butte County Jail so the Grand Jury decided to focus their attention on this area. During the first unannounced visit, we found the main examination room and the dental office to be dirty, messy, and disorganized. Because of this, we scheduled an appointment with the managing nurse of the medical facilities and requested a tour of all medical areas in the jail.
There is one main clinic and two treatment areas in the jail. The main clinic includes one exam room, one dental room, three holding cells, a pharmacy, a quarantine room that can be used for communicable disease management and an office. There is a separate room where mental health screening and treatment is provided. All medical personnel are employed by California Forensic Medical Group, Inc. (CFMG) who has the medical contract with Butte County. The medical staff consists of eighteen licensed personnel and one physician’s assistant, three local medical doctors, including one psychiatrist, and one dentist. Medical attention (sick call) is available 48 hours per week and does not include holidays or Sundays.
Emergency medical attention is always available. Two nurses are available on site 24 hours a day. A doctor is in the clinic three times per week for four hours each day and on call 24 hours per day. The psychiatrist is in the clinic five hours each week. The C-4 BUTTE COUNTY LAW ENFORCEMENT : 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
dentist is available two days per week for a total of 10 to 12 hours. A Registered Nurse does an intake screening on all new inmates at the time of booking. Full physical examinations are conducted 10 to 14 days after booking, at six months and again at one year. All psychotropic medications ordered by a psychiatrist are continued until seen by the in-house psychiatrist. Any medications not in stock have to be purchased from a local pharmacy.
During the month of April 2006 there were: 28,747 medications administered 920 sick calls logged 41 physician calls 2 emergency room visits 19 hospital stay days 17 on site infirmary days 68 psychiatric contacts 158 mental health visits 239 TB screenings 20 on site x-rays 4 obstetric/gynecologic (ob/gyn) off site visits 2 orthopedic off site visits 18 on site six-month physicals performed
During some of our visits, the small dental room was disorganized. Due to the size of the room, dust or what appears to be airborne residue from the dental work, settles everywhere making it a challenge to keep supplies sterile. The dentist provides only emergency care and brings his own assistant. They also serve the jail in Solano County. Occasionally the dentist will pull a tooth or start a temporary root canal. Generally, he puts in temporary fillings and provides infection treatment. These temporary fillings are made from a new material and can last up to three years. The dentist sees 10 to 12 patients a day and all are given information about getting this temporary work replaced.
All off site health care provided to an inmate is billed to Butte County. There are times when this is very expensive. Recently, a patient who had undergone an organ transplant (before jail) developed a problem resulting in a one-week stay at the University of California, San Francisco Medical Facility, paid for by Butte County.
On subsequent visits we found the medical facility to be quite satisfactory. The medical care provided meets all minimum state regulations and specific professional requirements, according to the nurse manager. Detoxification is provided within the facility or by transfer to a licensed medical facility. Community standards of informed consent are followed. There is a policy for handling developmentally disabled inmates and the jail is mandated to report them to the Far Northern Regional Center. Patient’s charts are legible and clear in format, statistics are up to date, policies and procedures are current and inmate medical grievances are answered in a timely fashion.
C-5 BUTTE COUNTY LAW ENFORCEMENT : 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
The facility had recently undergone a ‘readiness survey’ conducted by the Institute of Medical Quality (IMQ), a subsidiary of the California Medical Association (CMA). A medical team, consisting of Medical Doctors (MDs) and/or Registered Nurses (RNs) and occasionally administrators, carries out the survey of jails throughout the state, as well as surveying private medical/surgical facilities within California utilizing specific protocols. The number of team members and days required to conduct the survey depends on the size of the facility. A ‘readiness survey’ was requested by the Butte County Facility and the jail passed with “flying colors.” In six months another team will be back to conduct a full survey at which time they may receive accreditation for up to three years. This survey is elective and meets criteria above and beyond the standards mandated by the annual California State Survey and the Board of Corrections Survey.
On a subsequent visit we asked to see a log documenting all major incidents that occurred in the County jail over the last year. A Sergeant and a Captain told us that the jail does not maintain any type of major incident history either weekly, monthly, or annually. Records are only kept in individual inmate files. There was no history log, or reference that documented fights, suicide attempts, inmate grievances, or internal affairs incidents. There was no historical log of major events that occurred in the jail and therefore no way to compile or provide the data we sought. The Grand Jury was unable to get a picture of what major events had occurred in the Butte County Jail during the past year.
While speaking with staff about correctional officers, we learned of a female officer staffing shortage. For a short period, they had mandated overtime for female correctional officers because of the lack of females available for hiring. At that time, there were only four female correctional officers, however the number has now more than doubled and as of May 30, 2006 there are nine.
In interviews and conversations, the Grand Jury repeatedly heard complaints that the Sheriff Deputies receive pay significantly lower than the Chico Police Department and many areas of law enforcement in the state. Historically, the Sheriff’s department has suffered significant loss of staff to other agencies because of low pay. Many County employees and the Board of Supervisors have received pay raises. According to two Sheriff’s union representatives, as of May 24, 2006, the Deputy Sheriff’s Association had not settled on a contract.
Criminal Justice System Assessment
Several members of the Grand Jury read the Criminal Justice System Assessment completed by the Institute for Law and Policy Planning. This report is referred to as the ILPP report. The Butte County Board of Supervisors authorized the Chief Administrative Officer to hire the Institute for Law and Policy Planning with the goal of conducting a comprehensive Criminal Justice System Assessment for Butte County. An Ad-hoc oversight Committee was initially formed to take bids and select the best company to conduct the review.
C-6 BUTTE COUNTY LAW ENFORCEMENT : 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
The report gave us insight into their perception of the strengths and weaknesses of law enforcement in Butte County and provided a global perspective of what is involved in policing the county. The Grand Jury asked both law enforcement managers and policy makers if the ILPP study had influenced their agency and we found most did not know about the report and were unaware of any influence it may have had on Butte County law enforcement.
Apparently there are certain department heads that, as a result of the ILPP report, are meeting to talk about common issues in Butte County Law Enforcement and to discuss what is working and what is not. If those meetings are occurring the information is not trickling down to department managers. We are unaware if any recommendations contained in the report, other than the Judicial Commission, have been implemented.
Commendations
1. To the Superintendent of Juvenile Hall and staff for running an excellent facility. 2. To Ron Reed for providing immeasurable volunteer hours for Butte County Juvenile Court and Hall improvements. 3. To Linda Wilms, R.N. and staff for their organizational skills and commitment to the County Jail and Juvenile Hall.
Findings 1. The County Jail Dental office does not appear to consistently maintain a clean, hygienic environment. 2. The County Jail does not maintain a history log that documents jail problems such as fights, suicide attempts, inmate grievances, or complaints of inmates against jail staff. Records are kept in individual inmate files. The County Jail could not demonstrate a method of tracking incidents. 3. The Women’s area of the County Jail continues to be outdated and crowded as documented in previous Grand Jury reports. 4. There are a large number of medical needs being met at the County Jail. 5. The recommendations of the ILPP report appear to have been forgotten. Many of the Law Enforcement Agencies within Butte County were unaware of the report or it’s findings in testimony to the Grand Jury.
Recommendations 1. Maintain hygienic conditions in the dental office of the County Jail. 2. Develop a comprehensive facility-wide record keeping system in the Butte County Jail so that major events (suicide attempts, fights, injuries, grievances, internal affairs complaints, lock downs, etc.) are logged and readily available for statistical analysis. 3. Bring the women’s portion of the County Jail up to par with the men’s.
Response Required (Penal Code 933 & 933.05) Butte County Sheriff
C-7 BUTTE COUNTY LAW ENFORCEMENT : 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
TASERS AND TASER USE IN BUTTE COUNTY
Reason for Investigation
The use of Tasers by law enforcement has increased in Butte County and the Grand Jury wanted to know if they are an effective and safe tool.
Background / Investigation
The Taser is an Electronic Immobilization Device, which uses a high voltage, low amperage electrical current to control an individual. The word ”Taser” is derived from a major manufacturer, Taser International, founded in 1993.
When a Taser is used, two probes are fired from the cartridge. The probes are attached to the Taser gun by 2 wires. The electrical current travels from the Taser along the wires to the probes. The probes attach to the person’s clothing or skin immobilizing that person for up to 5 seconds. A Taser can also be used without a cartridge attached. It can be activated and pushed against the person with the same results.
The use of the Taser is possible up to 21 feet away, through up to 2 inches of clothing and the charge is limited to 5 seconds per discharge. It causes severe muscle tenseness in the victim allowing an officer enough time to get in and handcuff the person. Each Taser hit delivers 50,000 volts. The person is incapacitated only while being Tased. There are computer chips in each Taser that record the number of hits and the duration of each.
Each department has a policy requiring medical clearance of an individual, who has been Tased, before booking them into jail.
The Grand Jury sent out questionnaires about the use of Tasers in 2004-2005 to the following agencies:
• Butte County District Attorney’s Office • Butte County Sheriff’s Office • Chico Police Department • California State University Chico Police Department • Gridley-Biggs Police Department • Oroville Police Department • Paradise Police Department
The information gathered from the returned questionnaires is presented in the following table:
C-8 BUTTE COUNTY LAW ENFORCEMENT : 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
TASER DATA (2004 AND 2005) SWORN TRAINED TASERS TASER REQUIRED HOSPITALIZATION OFFICERS * OFFICERS * AVAILABLE * DEPLOYMENTS TREATMENT OR DEATH
Butte County 2004 = 0 0 0 District 27 26 4 2005 = 0 0 0 Attorney’s Office
Butte County 2004 = 37 6 0 193 159 79 Sheriff’s Office 2005 = 28 3 0
Chico Police 93 2004 = 42 0 93 24 0 Department + 11 CSOs*** 2005 = 19 0 California State University Chico 2004 = 0 0 0 15 15 4 Police 2005 = 2 0 0 Department Gridley-Biggs 2004 ** Police 15 15 15 2005 = 4 1 0 Department Oroville Police 2004 = 1 0 0 26 12 10 Department 2005 = 8 0 0
Paradise Police 2004 = 3 0 0 25 25 10 Department 2005 = 2 0 0 * 2005 data ** Gridley-Biggs PD did not start using Tasers until 2005. *** CSOs (Community Service Officers) are not allowed to carry Tasers.
BUTTE COUNTY LAW ENFORCEMENT : 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
The Grand Jury’s assessment of the information in the table is as follows: • Every department has Tasers. • Every department has trained officers to use them. • The number of uses indicates the acceptance as an additional law enforcement tool. • Injuries to officers and/or individuals have been minimal. • There have been no deaths or hospitalizations attributed to the Taser.
The Chico Police Department has a large data base of statistics on their use of force which include take downs, control holds, baton, pepper spray and Tasers. The data shows the frequency of injuries to suspects and officers were substantially higher with the use of control holds, baton and pepper spray than with the use of Tasers.
A current study15 by Chico Police Department reveals the following:
From year 2003 (no Tasers) to 2004 (with Tasers): • Officer injuries declined by 50% • Suspect injuries declined by 16% • Use of Force cases increased 53%
In the years 2003 and 2004 combined: • 2% of suspects who were Tasered were injured. • 0% of officers who used the Taser were injured. • 79% of suspects who were batoned were injured. • 2% of officers who used batons were injured. • 53% of suspects who were physically taken to the ground were injured. • 40% of officers who took suspects to the ground were injured.
Findings: 1) All of the law enforcement departments surveyed appear to have adequate training on the use of Tasers. 2) Injuries to suspects and officers have been minimal with the use of Tasers. 3) No deaths were reported as a result of a Taser use. 4) Tasers have been an effective option to other types of force to reduce injuries to both peace officers and suspects.
Recommendations: None
Response Required (Penal Code 933 & 933.05) None
15 Executive summary: Report on the Use of Force incidents at Chico Police Department 2003-2004
BUTTE COUNTY LAW ENFORCEMENT : 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
CHICO POLICE DEPARTMENT
Reason For Review
The Chico Police Department (CPD) is the largest city police department in Butte County. According to Grand Jury records the CPD had been observed and visited several times over the last years but had not been reviewed in depth.
Four (4) incidents of the use of lethal force (officer involved shootings), resulting in two fatalities and two injuries, by the CPD took place in 2005. It was the consensus of the Grand Jury that this made a review timely. The Grand Jury wanted to know if we, as citizens, would consider it an appropriate use of force.
Background
Lethal Force The Grand Jury reviewed/read and studied the CPD files in each of the four incidents of Lethal Force . A representative cross section of officers, dispatch, and staff were interviewed under oath and the shooting incidents were discussed. The Grand Jury was interested in the effect the shootings had on the department.
The officers stated that firing their gun in a critical situation is probably the most traumatic experience in a law enforcement career. We found each officer believed every incident of lethal force by Chico Police Department in 2005 was a ‘clean shooting’, unavoidable and followed department policy, and procedure. They also believe that the incidents of lethal force have not had a negative effect on the department. The Grand Jury found nothing to indicate their assessments were in error.
Each incident of lethal force involved an offender with a history of criminal behavior, either within Chico or other areas of the State. Mental illness, substance abuse, and homelessness were additional factors. Each person had a history of being volatile and threatening in certain circumstances either at home or in the community. In each case, the police were called to a crisis situation that also included serious criminal behavior.
The Grand Jury did not find any evidence that the police have developed a pattern of reacting with unnecessary force. The Grand Jury did not see a mind set in the Department that encourages them to draw a weapon needlessly. Sentiment among the officers was that the use of force, as a last resort, is necessary only in the most life threatening and critical situations. The Officers believe that they are well trained to use authorized equipment, including their gun and Taser. They did not exhibit any semblance of ‘a John Wayne’ attitude. One of the CPD’s staff expressed it best when she said, “We’re not the cops from the 60’s” and explained “cops now a days have big hearts,” care about the community and act with integrity.
An area of concern, expressed by many of those interviewed, was the lack of dignity displayed at the crime scene in one incident of lethal force where an examination of the C-11 BUTTE COUNTY LAW ENFORCEMENT : 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
deceased was conducted in the open. Without the benefit of drapes or visual barriers, the victim was undressed, examined and photographed. This disturbed many of those present and they told us that it should not have occurred. They were uncertain which agency was responsible for providing the privacy for the medical examiner to perform his investigation. We discussed this with various CPD officers, Sheriff’s Department Officers and District Attorney Investigators. Each agency verbally assured us that privacy and dignity would be accorded in the future.
Interviews
Over 18% (27 plus) employees of the Chico Police Department were interviewed. Staff were placed under oath and then interviewed. The Grand Jury talked with employees from all areas of the police department including administration, communication, community service, volunteers, line staff, union representatives, and officers of all ranks.
Morale within the CPD was found to be excellent. Staff reported they work for an outstanding agency and are proud to be employees of the Chico Police Department, regardless of their particular position. Repeatedly staff commented they believe morale is continually improving and that it is better than it has been in years past. They report morale can fluctuate in their agency as it does anywhere but believe ‘we are a destination department’ and that their high morale is created by professionalism and being a “top notch police agency.” They note their staff turn over rate is very low. The staff expressed the common opinion that the greatest strengths of the CPD are its high standards in hiring, training and the professionalism of the officers. They believe they operate under good leadership and receive up-to-date equipment. This leads to what they regard as a high level of expertise. Also, across the board, they think they are well paid which makes their Department very attractive and competitive with other law enforcement agencies.
Most officers think their staffing level could be improved and that they have outgrown their building. For instance, they think they have inadequate space to write reports; limited accommodation for interviews and dispatch space is too small. They worry that they have moved from “proactive policing to reactive.” They believe being a strong presence in the community prevents crime.
Some officers commented that the flow of information has a direct influence on morale and that personnel matters, such as confidential internal investigations, can be unsettling during the process until they are resolved. This creates uncertainty with the staff until the resolution becomes known throughout the department.
Everyone interviewed said the CPD is treated well by the City Council, Mayor, and city agencies and they enjoy their backing and support. They are pleased with the relationship they have developed with California State University, Chico (CSUC) and believe their common policing strategies have enhanced Chico’s general reputation around the State. Those interviewed reported that the CPD, the City Council, and CSUC have shown their ability to work together when needed, as they have C-12 BUTTE COUNTY LAW ENFORCEMENT : 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
demonstrated in the management of Halloween and St. Patrick’s Day events. Officers said their department’s ability to form “community partnerships” is a great strength that enables them to do their job well. They are willing to work with businesses, agencies, schools, faith based organizations, volunteers and any stakeholder in community safety. One officer described it as “we do a good job at being liaisons” with community agencies.
They reported the public treats them with respect but has a long memory of any problems. The officers said they want to be involved in community policing which means being able to stop and talk with people, conduct vice stings, theft stings and look for parole and probation violations as needed. Officers describe themselves as positively involved in the community and wanting to protect it from all threats. They describe this as “proactive policing” or a “high visibility police stance” rather than waiting until a crime has occurred. The Officers state that any violent crime can be a shock to the public, which may lead to the question of whether the police are doing their job right. Chico’s annexation process has influenced and will continue to influence the department’s ability to police the city and most believe it should lead to an increase in staff commensurate with growth. The officers consistently reported they lack the staff to have a traffic unit and neither the police nor the public have liked that change in police priorities.
The Grand Jury reviewed internal affairs complaints from within the department and complaints from the community. The department scrutinizes each complaint equally. The Chief designates who will handle the complaint and gives the complaint to the Internal Affairs Officer, or a Captain or Lieutenant for investigation. We did have questions about whether progressive documentation/discipline was followed as incidents occurred. It appeared that “progressive documentation/discipline, training and administrative review” were not always followed. This resulted in an unusually long and painful review process for the department on at least one occasion.
Chico Police Officers Association
Officers expressed great respect for the work of the Chico Police Officers Association (CPOA) union representatives. They credit the union for having played a significant role in making CPD a “premier agency.” They are proud that CPOA has been able to communicate well with both CPD and city management. The CPOA is an integral part of the process of providing care for an officer who is involved in a critical incident. The CPOA may provide a representative, counseling, care of the family or contact an attorney when needed.
Criminal Justice System Assessment
A report written by the Institute for Law and Policy Planning (ILPP), titled Criminal Justice System Assessment addressed many aspects of law enforcement within Butte County. In April 2005 the final report was presented to the Butte County Board of Supervisors. The report addressed specific issues pertinent to CPD. C-13 BUTTE COUNTY LAW ENFORCEMENT : 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
Not one of the CPD managers interviewed was aware of the ILPP report nor did they have knowledge of the institute’s analysis. The ILPP report, referencing Chico PD, said, “Transporting misdemeanants to the County Jail generates disproportionately serious resource and coordination problems” (Page 7.2 Butte County Criminal Justice System Assessment). These misdemeanor arrests are often minor alcohol offenses or public order arrests, often on the part of students at CSUC. The report said ”Based on data reported to the ILPP by the CPD only one out of every five misdemeanor arrests was given a citation, which is a relatively low rate by comparison with many other California police departments.”
Regarding CPD the ILPP report said, “The Department faces a major inefficiency in the large number of transported college students arrested for various alcohol related matters. There is no adequate detoxification facility near the source of these arrests, which is the university. Both the City and County (overlapping groups of taxpayers) suffer from relatively fruitless transports, wasted bookings, and expensive alcohol dry- outs that consume scarce jail beds and result in crowding of more serious offenders and the dilution of scarce public safety resources. Based on the numbers there is a strong case for the County and the City of Chico to work with the University to develop an adequate local detoxification facility.”
A detoxification facility in the Chico area would minimize drunks being booked into the County Jail, eliminate the long drive to Oroville to book for that purpose, and offer the Chico State University a resource as they attempt to deal with alcohol abuse on campus. The County Law Enforcement leaders need to take this into consideration and work together to find a common way to manage people under the influence, short of being booked into the County Jail.
Dispatch
The Grand Jury toured both the Butte County Sheriff’s Office (BCSO) and CPD’s dispatch departments. The differences in the physical environments were significant. The BCSO dispatch facility is light, roomy, and airy and contains state of the art dispatch equipment. They also have their own kitchen facility and rest rooms. While CPD has up to date equipment it is all in a confined, dark windowless room.
The Grand Jury toured CPD dispatch on several occasions and some members spent several additional hours observing dispatch in action. Dispatchers must be able to multi- task, have outstanding memories, and maintain their composure in a crisis while making critical decisions. They are able to simultaneously direct officers and emergency personnel while continuing to follow a situation through to the final outcome. Dispatch was described by many at CPD as the most difficult job in law enforcement.
As we interviewed the CPD officers we were made aware that dispatch is a problematic area. Dispatcher’s work in a small room, without windows, crowded with essential computer equipment and dispatch staff. The working conditions are difficult because of C-14 BUTTE COUNTY LAW ENFORCEMENT : 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
the lack of light and space and any visible sense of the outdoors. It appears that the department has tried to make every improvement possible but until a new police station is built they will continue to work under tough conditions. Current attempts to correct the problems are described as “Band-Aid” solutions. However the dispatchers now have ergonomically correct workstations, which allow them to do their job either standing or sitting. The department has implemented training in team building and that has improved morale. Dispatchers usually work four (4) ten (10) hour shifts and often eat their meals at their workstation.
The CPD dispatchers service both the Chico Police Department and the Chico Fire Department. The dispatchers are also required to do data entry if they have down time. They stated this could sometimes be both disruptive and frustrating. Dispatchers have their own union and are satisfied with their pay.
In talking with them it became clear that they are very loyal to ‘their officers’ and do not wish to be housed in a different building as a solution to their cramped quarters. The Grand Jury report dated 2003/2004 (page 17) found crowded conditions, non- ergonomic workstations, excessive overtime hours, lack of staff and a high level of employee stress. We have found that the CPD has addressed many of these issues but the crowded dispatch conditions remain.
Community Service Officer
Community Service Officers (CSO), perform an important service at the CPD. They staff the jail, perform the finger printing and booking, monitor the detainees in their cells, and provide transportation to the county jail in Oroville. They handle ‘cold calls’ which means taking information from victims, after the fact of a crime, when there is no perceived threat to their security. They provide parking enforcement and one CSO is even trained as a hostage negotiator. The CSOs describe themselves as the law enforcement ‘jack of all trades’.
They would like to be provided with bulletproof vests. Sometimes they handcuff and use leg irons on arrestees before transportation but believe they have little, if any, of the protections provided to sworn peace officers performing the same tasks.
There is no upward mobility within the ranks of CSOs. They would like to establish two supervisor positions that would allow some chance of upward mobility or promotion during their career. One position would be a Jail CSO and the other a Field CSO.
CSOs also expressed pride in being members of the CPD. However, there are clear safety and labor issues in their work place that deserve department attention.
C-15 BUTTE COUNTY LAW ENFORCEMENT : 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
Volunteers in Police Services (VIPS)
CPD has an outstanding VIPS program. The VIPS provide the department with a tremendous source of skilled citizen support in many areas of law enforcement. They are trained by the department to handle tasks as diverse as setting up the perimeter in a disaster situation, maintaining the perimeter in lethal force incidents, working with the public during community gatherings or for search and rescue needs. The VIPS have been an integral part of major events such as policing on Halloween and St. Patrick’s Day. They are proud to be a part of the CPD and describe the agency as having ‘great integrity’.
VIPS are currently beginning the formation of an interagency volunteer group which will draw well trained volunteers from Butte County Stars and volunteers in other law enforcement agencies to provide interagency support should a county wide disaster or critical incident occur.
VIPS describe themselves as ‘the eyes & the ears’ of the community and report that the public loves them and sees them as ‘the good guys’. They hold fundraisers to purchase their equipment (radios, flashlights, helmets, etc.) and supply their own uniforms.
Chief’s Community Advisory Board
“They could be the ambassadors in the community, but they are not,” said one police officer.
“It is a chance to deal with policy and hear citizen’s opinions on police matters,” said another.
The Chief’s Community Advisory Board consists of members of the community who have direct access to the Chief of Police. The group gives input on matters that can directly influence the CPD. The goal is to establish a forum to discuss community concerns and a sounding board to evaluate and influence police matters. The Advisory Board is not designed to deal with individual citizen complaints but rather addresses broader community concerns. It is described as a good connection with the community, when it is operating.
The Advisory Board has not been meeting regularly and therefore the CPD has not had citizen input or an advisory perspective on community issues including the four incidents of lethal force. Staff described the Chiefs Community Advisory Board as no longer being an effective group to the detriment of the department and the community.
The CPD has a well-outlined General Order (330.05) for the establishment of the Chief’s Community Advisory Board. The Board is to consist of 10 members from various areas of the community and to meet on a consistent basis. Meetings are open to the community on non-confidential matters.
C-16 BUTTE COUNTY LAW ENFORCEMENT : 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
Special Events
Chico experienced a highly visible presence of law enforcement on Saint Patrick’s Day. Assisting CPD were the Alcohol Beverage Commission, Chico State University Police, Community Services Officers and Chico Volunteers in Police Services. Additionally, the Chico City Council enacted a Glass-Free Zone Ordinance, which lasted from 6:00 a.m. Friday through 6:00 a.m. Sunday. This Glass Ban restricted the possession of an open glass container of alcoholic beverage within certain boundaries of the city. Support was also provided by many of the local bar owners who postponed their opening until 10:00 a.m. or later on Friday. The holiday occurred during spring break so many students were out of town; consequently home parties were smaller and more subdued.
CPD addressed the activities that accompanied St. Patrick’s Day with a very successful proactive posture. Arrests were down from 69 in 2005 to 58 in 2006. Of those arrests 38 were charged with being drunk in public.
The Halloween event was similar to Saint Patrick’s Day except much larger in scope. It required a more detailed long-range plan, additional manpower from other agencies and the support of mounted police. Grand Jury members participated in both events, as observers, as have previous Grand Jury members. After years of work on event management the CPD predict problems on Halloween will continue to decline.
The Grand Jury members attended pre-event briefings, observed crowd control planning and coordination between allied agencies. They rode in patrol cars and walked downtown to observe police response to downtown activities. They also visited the dispatch center, witnessed the special booking procedures set up at the jail and spent time in the command post that was set up downtown specifically for this event. Another area visited was Enloe Hospital emergency room and they were briefed on Enloe’s readiness to deal with medical emergencies. Grand Jury members saw the DUI checkpoints and the enforcement of ‘no drive zones’.
The Grand Jury members were impressed with CPD’s first time use of new command, control and monitoring equipment in the temporary command post. Yet, we could see that CPD needs to continue to evaluate additional technology improvements (i.e. Global Positioning asset tracking and reporting, etc.) as a force multiplier.
It was the Grand Jury members’ observation that the Chico Police Department is meeting their event mission statements and stated objectives. In particular, they have made bad behavior at events less inviting and attractive, encouraged socially responsible behavior, reduced traffic problems, and the number of alcohol/drug related incidents and/or injuries.
Commendations 1. To the Chico Police Department for maintaining an agency with high morale and job satisfaction: -Well-trained and up to date staff C-17 BUTTE COUNTY LAW ENFORCEMENT : 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
-Good community relations -Progressive event management -Commitment to the community -Professionalism. 2. To the VIPS—they are outstanding. The Chico Police Department and the community benefit every day from their dedication and support. 3. Special thanks to the CPD administrative staff for getting us files, information and appointments…. cheerfully!
Findings 1. CPD has no written policy and procedure for handling a deceased person at a crime scene. 2. CPD appeared unaware of the ILPP evaluation of their department and its suggested improvements. 3. Community Service Officers described needs in employment advancement opportunities and improvements in safety procedures and equipment. 4. The Chico Police Department Chief’s Community Advisory Board has been essentially inactive. 5. CPD uses the Butte County Jail as a detoxification facility since there is no public entity operated facility located in the Chico area. 6. CPD has an inconsistent practice about documenting and placing disciplinary actions against an officer in the personnel file in support of progressive discipline. 7. CPD has corrected problems in dispatch mentioned in previous Grand Jury reports including installing ergonomic workstations, improving staffing, and morale problems and attempting to address dispatch needs. Too small of a facility continues to be a significant problem. 8. CPD needs to continue to evaluate additional technology improvements (i.e. Global Positioning, asset tracking and reporting, etc.) as a force multiplier.
Recommendations 1. Create a policy and procedure that protects the dignity of the deceased at the crime scene. 2. Review the ILPP report and evaluate its recommendations, as related to CPD, for implementation. 3. Meet with Community Service Officer’s and address their safety and labor concerns. 4. Bring the Chief’s Community Advisory Board to full and ongoing operation. 5. Address the issues of a detoxification facility serving the greater Chico area. 6. Become diligent about documenting and placing all disciplinary actions against an officer in their personnel file in support of progressive discipline. 7. Improve dispatch-working conditions as soon as possible. 8. Evaluate technology improvements as potential force multipliers.
Response Required (Penal Code 933 & 933.05) Chico Police Department Chico City Council C-18 BUTTE COUNTY LAW ENFORCEMENT : 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
BUTTE COUNTY EMERGENCY OPERATIONS EXERCISE
Reason for Review
The Grand Jury’s Law Enforcement Committee visited the County of Butte, Office of Emergency Services and learned of an Emergency Operations Center (EOC) functional exercise, scheduled to be conducted in January 2006, and obtained permission for the Grand Jury to attend the exercise as observers.
Background
The Office of Emergency Services (OES) is responsible for preparing and carrying out plans to protect persons and property within Butte County in the event of an emergency. This office also develops and conducts emergency exercises and prepares required Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) After-Action Reports.
Through coordination with various California state agencies, the Butte County OES obtained sponsorship (California Homeland Security and Exercise Evaluation Program) and funding (The California Governor’s Office of Homeland Security, Office of Emergency Services) to plan and conduct a Butte County Multi-agency Terrorism Response Drill.
During the planning phase an exercise plan titled Operation Silver Lining was designed to “assess EOC actions at a Mass Casualty Incident caused by a Terrorist Incident, in this case contamination of the water supply in one or more communities in Butte County”. The exercise was designed to involve nearly 200 participants and observers in all of the EOCs in Butte County including Butte County, Cities of Biggs, Chico, Gridley, Oroville, Town of Paradise and California State University Chico. It also included participation by the Butte County Department of Public Health Department Operations Center (DOC), Enloe Hospital, Feather River Hospital, Biggs-Gridley Memorial Hospital, Oroville Hospital, Cal Water – Chico, Paradise Irrigation District, Chico Unified School District and United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service – Plumas National Forest.
By design, EOCs are managed and staffed by a limited number of key personnel from local or county administration and departments. EOC positions may include EOC Director, EOC Manager, Planning/Intel, Fire Unit, Law Unit, Search and Rescue, Medical Health, Care and Shelter, Public Works, Documentation, Public Information and others. The department most closely associated with the nature of the emergency usually assumes the lead roll. In this exercise, which involved a widespread health crisis scenario, public health officials were given the opportunity to lead. Butte County EOC assumed the role of “lead incident command center” for the county and under the direction of the Butte County Chief Administrative Officer, coordinated all of the outlying EOCs.
C-19 BUTTE COUNTY LAW ENFORCEMENT : 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
Two auxiliary centers were formed to support the exercise. First, the Joint Information Center (JIC) was established to provide a communications link between EOCs, media and the public and second, the Simulation Control Center (SCC) was formed specifically to provide realistic role-playing inputs and responses to each EOC.
It is the responsibility of the JIC to coordinate the flow of information between the EOCs, the public and the media in the event of any major disaster that strikes an area covering multiple jurisdictions. Activating the JIC is not a small undertaking considering the many phone lines and call takers needed and the importance of having Public Information Officers from each jurisdiction present who are empowered to answer questions by both the public and media and make timely news announcements.
The SCC simulated the “outside world” for the EOCs; for example they acted as outside or commercial vendors when EOCs requested services, resources, facilities or supplies for agency, community or EOC consumption. They also set up and communicated simulated tasks and responses to each EOC. In an effort to simulate realism the SCC would sometimes respond to a request for goods with an “out of stock” reply or respond that due to higher then expected demand a requested service must be denied or rescheduled to a less favorable time.
Prior to the start of the exercise the scenario and details of the exercise were not disseminated outside of the exercise design team in an effort to maintain an element of the unknown, an important ingredient of emergency training.
Review
During the exercise, EOC staff was very helpful in providing Grand Jury members with insight into the function of each operational group and the support or input they provided to the overall exercise.
Operation Silver Lining, designed to be a two-day, nine-phase event, started with the first day devoted to the first two phases, the incident discovery and investigation phases. Following these two phases it was suspected that an unknown substance was being injected into the water system causing a higher than average incidence of patients arriving at hospital emergency rooms with gastrointestinal complaints. Also, a Veterinarian in Paradise reported that a large number of pets had been brought into the clinic and that many of the animals had died. Following a second cluster of incidents, the second day was designed to focus on EOC activations, public information notifications, identification of contaminant(s), fulfillment of communities logistical needs, decontamination and restoration of service and finally exercise conclusion and debriefing.
Grand Jury members observed the second day (January 26, 2006) of Operation Silver Lining by splitting into two groups of observers, one group to observe the exercise at the Butte County EOC in Oroville and the other to observe the EOC in Chico. Other guest
C-20 BUTTE COUNTY LAW ENFORCEMENT : 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
observers included representatives from Sutter County OES, Yuba County OES, California State OES and Del Oro Water Company.
The second day of the exercise started at 0900 with the activation of each EOC followed by a scenario briefing, operational, management and personnel briefings and a simulated (but convincing) TV news broadcast detailing what was known by the media at that time. Following the broadcast, some Grand Jury members continued to monitor EOC coordination and activities while others visited the JIC and the SCC. Throughout the exercise, the activity and audio level in the EOC room was quite high as the various departments held mini-meetings, talked on the telephone or radio or groups formed to review documents, charts or maps. Sometimes the audio level reached a point where discussions or briefings had to be moved out of the EOC area to a quieter location. There were simulated (or real) failures of telephones, phone lines and radios causing the participants to develop workaround solutions. Anticipating that the tempo of the exercise might need to be adjusted, each EOC Director or Facilitator/Evaluator was encouraged to call a “time-out” at any point to get the exercise back on track. As the exercise progressed to conclusion it was evident that the exercise design had been well planned, documented, and communicated to the exercise participants and that the exercise had been conducted in a serious and professional manner.
At the end of the exercise, evaluators at each EOC conducted a “Hotwash” or critique by listing and discussing areas of the exercise that went well and areas that could be improved. Following the EOCs Hotwash briefings, an “After Action” closing briefing by Butte County representatives was provided for the public, media and Grand Jury benefit. This closing briefing provided a review of the events and funding, a $5,000 grant, leading up to “Operation Silver Lining” and a review of the exercise objectives. Of note was a comment made by a co-author/coordinator of the exercise that this exercise was the first time that every Emergency Operations Center in Butte County had been simultaneously activated.
The Grand Jury observers came away with the impression that any serious shortcomings discovered during Operation Silver Lining would be addressed locally, by the California Governor’s Office of Homeland Security, Office of Emergency Services, or by FEMA.
Findings The Grand Jury found the taxpayer’s money to be well spent on the Emergency Operations Center exercise “Operation Silver Lining” and we were pleased to observe that preparedness is a high priority in Butte County.
Recommendations None
Response Required (Penal Code 933 & 933.05) None
C-21 BUTTE COUNTY LAW ENFORCEMENT : 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
OFFICER INVOLVED SHOOTINGS/CRITICAL INCIDENTS PROTOCOL
Reason for Investigation
One of the Grand Jury’s projects this year involved a review of the Chico Police Department. This review led to an examination of the four officer involved shootings by their department that had occurred within the previous twelve month period (2005). The term “Protocol Team” kept surfacing so we began an investigation into the concept.
Background
The title ”Officer Involved Shootings/Critical Incidents Protocol” refers to a concept that evolved in Contra Costa County. In 1996, it was adopted by and modified to meet the needs of Butte County and expanded to include all local county law enforcement agencies. According to all persons interviewed, it has proven to be one of the County’s “finest” policies.
The purpose of the policy is to establish and recommend uniform guidelines for the investigation of officer involved shootings. It has been officially adopted by the following agencies: • Butte County District Attorney • Butte County Sheriff’s Department (BCSD) • Chico Police Department (CPD) • Oroville Police Department • Paradise Police Department • Chico State University Police Department • Gridley-Biggs Police Department • California Highway Patrol (CHP) • Butte Interagency Narcotics Task Force (BINTF) • Butte County Probation Department • California Department of Justice – Chico Lab (DOJ) • California State Parks Department • California Department of Fish & Game
The above member agencies have all agreed to handle officer involved shootings and critical incidents in a consistent and uniform manner as specified in the Officer Involved Shooting/Critical Incidents Protocol policy. The DOJ’s lab is used to help with crime scene evidence collection and subsequent analysis.
A Protocol Team consists of one or more investigators from each member agency. It is understood that the protocol team’s investigation will be conducted in a thorough, fair, all encompassing and professional manner without conflicts of interest according to the Officer Involved Shooting/Critical Incidents Protocol procedure.
C-22 BUTTE COUNTY LAW ENFORCEMENT : 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
Investigation
The Grand Jury wanted to know just how this Protocol Team aided in the actual investigation of the four lethal shootings involving the CPD and one lethal shooting involving the BCSD. The Grand Jury interviewed: • CPD Officers • BCSD Deputies • Butte County District Attorney Investigators • Department of Justice personnel
The Grand Jury performed a careful examination of the incident investigation reports of the four shootings involving the Chico Police Department and one shooting involving the Butte County Sheriff’s Department We also carefully examined the Officer Involved Shootings/Critical Incidents Protocol Policy in an effort to understand the process that activates and guides the Protocol Team through its investigation to final conclusion.
When an officer involved shooting occurs, the Protocol Team is immediately activated by the venue agency. The venue agency is the agency within whose jurisdiction the incident actually occurred. Immediate notification of other member agencies is critical. The dispatch centers at CPD and/or Butte County Sheriff’s Department are called and they notify all Protocol Team member agencies of the incident location and the officer to contact. In the interim, the venue agency appoints a lead investigator. The venue agency can voluntarily relinquish any part or all of the investigation to any other member agency. This Protocol Team then takes charge of the criminal investigation.
Not all officer-involved shootings result in a fatality. When there is a fatality the Sheriff/Coroner is notified in a timely manner, however, body removal can be delayed for as long as necessary to allow for proper collection of evidence. The Butte County Sheriff/Coroner, through his privately contracted forensic pathologist, is also given the opportunity to observe the crime scene. Great attention and care must be given to maintain the dignity of the deceased. In one of the four CPD incidents the body of the deceased was examined by the forensic pathologist, in public view, without the benefit of tarps or visual barriers.
A benefit resulting from the Officer Involved Shootings/Critical Incidents Protocol Policy is a well-defined procedure designed to meet the needs of the officers involved in the incident. They are immediately sequestered and their family is notified. Designated members of the Protocol Team, which includes a District Attorney Investigator, individually interview the officers. All involved officers are given the opportunity to have legal counsel, as well as union representation, during this interview. Although the officers are not required to give a statement at this time, it has been found that they have such respect and confidence in the impartiality of the Protocol Team that they willingly consent to the interviews. This has resulted in markedly reducing the time it takes for the District Attorney to reach a conclusion in the criminal investigation, literally cutting the time from weeks to days. C-23 BUTTE COUNTY LAW ENFORCEMENT : 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
The Chico Police Department, Butte County Sheriff’s Department and the District Attorney Investigators all expressed respect and satisfaction with the Officer Involved Shootings/Critical Incidents Protocol as implemented.
Commendations
This was the Grand Jury’s first exposure to much of the information we received. We appreciated the time and effort expended by these agencies in educating us. The Grand Jury came away with heightened respect and admiration for the Protocol Team concept.
The Grand Jury recognizes the Chico Police Department, Butte County Sheriff’s Department and the District Attorney’s Office for the courteous and respectful manner with which we were treated at all times.
Findings
1. Human dignity was compromised at a crime scene when a deceased suspect was examined while visible to members of the public.
Recommendations 1. A policy on appropriate procedures for preserving the dignity of the deceased at the incident scene should be written and included in the Officer Involved Shootings/Critical Incidents Protocol Policy and Procedures. This should be forwarded to, and implemented by, all member agencies.
Response Required (Penal Code 933 & 933.05) Butte County District Attorney Butte County Sheriff’s Department Chico Police Department Oroville Police Department Paradise Police Department Gridley-Biggs Police Department Butte Interagency Narcotics Task Force Butte County Probation Department
C-24 BUTTE COUNTY LAW ENFORCEMENT : 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
CITIES, TOWNS, AND SPECIAL DISTRICTS
TOWN OF PARADISE TOWN OF PARADISE D-2 TOWN OF PARADISE DEVELOPMENT FEES D-11 CITY OF OROVILLE PERSONNEL ISSUES / HIRING PRACTICES D-13 OROVILLE FIRE DEPARTMENT D-22 PUBLIC WORKS, PARKS AND TREES DEPARTMENT D-33 BOLT’S ANTIQUE TOOL MUSEUM D-36 EL MEDIO FIRE DEPARTMENT EL MEDIO FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT D-38 FEATHER RIVER RECREATION AND PARKS DISTRICT FEATHER RIVER RECREATION AND PARKS DISTRICT D-44
THE BUTTE COUNTY AUDITOR-CONTROLLER: 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
DOWNTOWN OROVILLE, CIRCA 1955
EMPLOYEES OF THE EL MEDIO FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
THE BUTTE COUNTY AUDITOR-CONTROLLER: 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
TOWN OF PARADISE
Reason for Investigation
As part of its oversight mandate, the Butte County Grand Jury reviewed the Town of Paradise. There was no record of any Grand Jury review since the Town was incorporated.
Background
The Town of Paradise (Paradise / Town) is nestled in the foothills of the Sierra Nevada Mountains at about 2,000-ft. elevation. The Town covers 18 square miles with a service area of 26 square miles. The Paradise area includes the communities of Magalia, Paradise Pines, Lovelock, Stirling City and Inskip. The estimated population of the Paradise Ridge is 40,000.
The Maidu Indians originally inhabited the Paradise Ridge. The Gold Rush of the 1800’s brought miners in from all over the world. The largest gold nugget in California was discovered in the town of Magalia in 1859. The nugget weighed 54 pounds of which 49.5 ounces were pure gold. In the early mining days, Paradise consisted mainly of saloons and gambling halls. The Pair-O-Dice saloon was one of the most popular. Paradise was a stage stop from Oroville to places such as Quincy, Susanville and Nevada. Today, the Town celebrates its history with events such as, “Gold Nugget Days” which is held each April and starts with the crowning of the Gold Nugget Queen. The festivities include a parade, dance and the Donkey Derby. Many of the Town’s “actors” and “dignitaries,” (including the Paradise Town Manager,) perform in the play that is put on during the celebration. One such play was, “Perils of Pair-O-Dice.”
In 1916, agriculture became increasingly significant in the area with the formation of the Paradise Irrigation District and the construction of a dam to form the Magalia Reservoir. Apple orchards were planted and Paradise became known as the apple center of California. Since 1921, Noble Orchards has been producing apples on the Ridge. They have the last orchard in Paradise still in operation today. Paradise celebrates Johnny Appleseed Days every October. The people of Paradise get together and bake twelve hundred pies for the celebration.
The Town of Paradise, incorporated November 27, 1979, is Butte County’s newest incorporated city. The local citizens voted to incorporate because they were not satisfied with Butte County’s handling of land use matters. During the early years, following incorporation, there were distinct major factions within the community, each trying to establish differing views on local government.
E- 2 THE BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY: 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
Review
The Grand Jury interviewed the following individuals in connection with this review: • Paradise Town Mayor • Paradise Town Manager • Paradise Town Attorney • Finance Director / Treasurer • Community Development Director • Public Works Director • Fire Chief • Police Chief
The Grand Jury also reviewed numerous documents including: • General Plan • Redevelopment Agency (RDA) documents • Emergency Response Plan • Snow and Ice Control Plan • Citizen Planning Guide for Disaster Preparedness • Wild land Fire Evacuation Plan • Operating and Capital Budgets • Town of Paradise Development Fees • Paradise Community Park Plan • Downtown Revitalization Master Plan • Aerial Maps of the Town
Town Mayor
The Mayor is a member of the Town Council and is elected by the other members of the Council. The Mayor shares the responsibility of all Council members in establishing goals and objectives and setting policy for the Town of Paradise. In addition, the Mayor is the Chairperson at the meetings, represents the Town at public events and coordinates the governance of the Town with the Town Manager.
The current Mayor has lived in Paradise since 1964 and was newly elected as Mayor in early 2006, near the end of his first term, on the Town Council. He has been retired for 11 years and has experience in business, the electrical trade, and as a teacher and school administrator.
In addition to his mayoral duties, he serves on a number of Boards, some of which are the County Water Advisory Board, RDA and Gold Nugget Museum. During the last 4 years, he has participated actively for the Town of Paradise on the Lake Oroville Relicensing Committee.
The Mayor has a vision for Paradise, which includes extending the sphere of influence of the town to the golf course on the skyway; Clark Road to the Airport and Pentz Road to the freeway. He would like to see the “Gateway” area developed. He expressed
E- 3 THE BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY: 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
concern that the Educational Relief Act transferred a large amount of revenue from the Town to the State of California restricting the Town’s ability to improve. The Mayor would like to see “cluster” sewer systems used for growth and a “green” system so the water could be used for irrigation. He stated, “Paradise is trying to clean up what has been allowed and control what happens in the future.”
Town Manager
The Town Manager is responsible for the management and administration of the Town government. In addition, the Town Manager serves as the Town’s Personnel Officer, Purchasing Officer and Emergency Services Director. The Town Manager also serves as the Executive Director for the Paradise Redevelopment Agency.
The Town of Paradise has employed the current Town Manager for the past 10 years. He has a Bachelor’s degree in Political Science and graduate work towards a Master’s degree in Public Policy and Administration. He also belongs to the League of California Cities.
He oversees 89 full time employees, 25 part time employees and 55 volunteers. The volunteers are involved in the Police and Fire Departments. He expressed his appreciation to the volunteers for the time and dedication they give to the Town.
The Town Manager’s main responsibilities are carrying out the direction of the Town Council, acting as a Council advisor, formulation of policy and keeping connected to the community. He described his philosophy as follows: “A goal is striking a balance between regulatory compliance you have to have and not being overly regulatory.”
He explained that Paradise is a “bedroom community” with a poor tax base. A major goal of his is working on building up a tax base, using RDA funds and promoting new shopping centers and businesses, which would generate much needed sales tax revenues. Some RDA projects for 2006 are Downtown Park, Clark and Skyway light intersection, Wagstaff and Skyway signal light and Pearson Road streetscape.
RDA funds can be used for Public Safety but not for a Town Hall. He sees the RDA as a major accomplishment for the Town. He describes a strength of the Town as being, “opportunist” - seizing any opportunity that comes its way to help the Town, i.e. working with Paradise Irrigation District and the Paradise Park and Recreation District to help with snow removal.
The Town of Paradise hopes to increase tourism by promoting the Performing Arts Center and special events. Increased tourism into the Town will add additional revenue income via lodging and sales tax. The Town wants to explore the idea of a business registration fee and the creation of a database to track the history of local businesses. The database would include the name of the business, type of business, product it sells or service it performs and the date it opened or closed, if applicable.
E- 4 THE BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY: 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
When asked for a list of challenges, the Town Manager submitted the following:
• For Paradise to have a greater say with the County with respect to the quality and type of development taking place outside of its Town limits, but within its legally recognized sphere of influence.
• Working with the Mello-Roos Community Facilities District formation requirements regarding large-scale residential and commercial developments in the Town’s sphere of influence.
• To maintain and preserve the small town quality of Paradise, while at the same time fostering a stronger and more diverse local economy through Downtown revitalization, redevelopment, commercial / retail and “living wage” type business development.
• Improve the Town’s tax base and municipal services.
• Provide cost-of-living increases for Town employees, who have gone without an increase for the last 2 – 4 years.
• Continue the Town’s key role in the facilitation and support for Paradise Youth Sports & Family Center Project.
• Develop a new community-based Town civic center that would include a new public safety building for police and fire, emergency operations center and administration building that might be shared by the Town with other public agencies and non-profit organizations.
• Continue efforts to get youth in the community engaged in projects that benefit them and the community.
Town Attorney
The Town Attorney has been under contract for over 12 years. He has been in private practice or working with governmental agencies for over 31 years. He feels one of his greatest accomplishments since working for the Town is participating in the initiation of the RDA. In his opinion, the RDA is achieving the desired results in stimulating economic growth. He is employed half time by the Town of Paradise and half time by the City of Oroville. He spends 2 days in Paradise and 2 days in Oroville with the remaining day as a “float” day. The Town uses an outside attorney to provide personnel services when needed.
The Town Attorney is responsible for serving as legal counsel to the Paradise Town Council and Town staff. His responsibilities include providing legal advice on the formulation of Town ordinances, policies, contracts and agreements. The Town Attorney also oversees, as well as provides, the Town’s legal defense with respect to E- 5 THE BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY: 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
pending litigation, and enforcement of Town ordinances. The Town Attorney also serves as the Paradise Redevelopment Agency legal counsel.
Finance Director / Treasurer
The Finance Department is a small operation, with a Director, 1 full time and 2 part-time employees. The Finance Director oversees the entire operation and is personally involved in many of the activities. A Financial Services Analyst is responsible for the general ledger. A part-time person handles accounts payable and another part time person handles accounts receivable and makes bank deposits. The Finance Department’s personnel also work-part time for the Redevelopment Agency.
The current Director has been in the position for 5 years. He has a Bachelor’s degree in finance and 20 years experience in municipal government.
The Town of Paradise will be going to a new accounting system in July 2006. He expressed the desire to have more staff so there could be a better separation of duties. He feels the strengths of his department are the loyal employees who work more hours than they should at lower pay than comparable positions elsewhere in the County.
The Town of Paradise budget fund summary is informative, but suggests the Town knows the projected and estimated line items within one part in a million. Estimated numbers prepared months in advance could not have this accuracy.
The Community Development Department accepts all payments for permits and development fees, which can amount to thousands of dollars each day. A Planning Clerk, at the end of each day, reconciles the funds collected and then transfers the monies to the Finance Department. By the time the money reaches the Finance Department, the payment no longer carries information on the reason for payment, the source and the possibility of a refund. Collection of these funds by a Finance Department Central Cashier would insure better tracking of these funds and transactions.
The Finance Department oversees the Police and Fire Department’s budgets. The budgets have large expenditures for medical insurance of retired personnel, who are included in, ”Personnel Services” in the Town’s budget. The Town has agreed in negotiations to pay medical insurance for the life of its pensioners. These amounts, therefore, are not an administrative expense for the department, but are a part of a very large, unfunded, long-term liability for the entire Town.
Community Development Director
The Community Development Director was first employed by the Town of Paradise in 1986 as a Town planner and later became Director in 1994. He supervises planning, building, transit, solid waste and code enforcement. He oversees Building Inspectors,
E- 6 THE BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY: 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
Planner, Animal Control Officers and Code Enforcement Officer; he shares an office supervisor and central receptionist with Public Works.
He indicated staff vacancies impact how services are provided. However, there isn’t enough money in the budget to fill the vacant positions. Building services is fully funded by fees and not by general fund monies. His main responsibility is sustaining services to the Town and updating the Master Fee Schedule, which includes 70-80 separate fees. The 15 Year General Plan is due for update in 2009, which will be a major project.
We heard in testimony the Town has a problem keeping planning documents current. The bicycle plan needs updating; therefore, it is no longer eligible for grant monies. Other problems and concerns he identified include a lack of funds to create more implementation of the General Plan; work on improving sewage issues and codes and the need to improve and update municipal codes.
He feels that the strength of his department is the longevity of the staff. They know the population they serve, work well as a team and know the history of the properties and developments within the town. He anticipates the eventual retirement of staff will turn that strength into a weakness.
Projects in Progress include: • Working with the Paradise Fire Chief on urban wildland interface with the goal being to direct development in relationship to topography. • Revitalizing the downtown area using RDA funds.
Public Works Director
The Town of Paradise employed the current Director 8 years ago. Prior to that, he was employed as an assistant engineer in another city. He also worked for the Town of Paradise from 1991 – 1993 as an engineer technician. He has a Bachelor Degree in Engineering and is a licensed civil engineer.
The Director of Public Works supervises 14 employees from engineering, onsite sanitation and street maintenance. The engineer division is responsible for private development, encroachment permits, subdivision maps, traffic signals and program maintenance for 100 miles of roadway. The Director of Public Works administers contracts for new capital improvements, grading permits, erosion control, and water run off / storm water quality.
Onsite sanitation encompasses 11,400 septic tanks in Paradise. The tanks require routine monitoring, which includes testing ground and surface water as well as ground water wells. In 1992 a waste management zone was formed and a fee of $14.40 per parcel was passed to fund an onsite maintenance district. Of that fee, 50% goes towards operating the maintenance program.
E- 7 THE BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY: 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
Maintenance keeps the streets drivable and crack sealing is an ongoing need. The red clay soil and the shallow Pine tree roots, pine needles and oak leaves cause major clogs and drainage problems in the Town.
The Director indicated the biggest problem is a lack of adequate funds for Town infrastructure maintenance and improvements. If funds were available, Public Works could be more proactive with street maintenance. He reports the shortfall is a half million dollars per year for street maintenance.
The Town does not have a street sweeping program because equipment is too expensive to purchase and maintain, therefore the Town can only sweep the Skyway once in the spring and once in the fall.
The Director considers the Snow Plan to be his greatest accomplishment to date. Other areas of improvement that have taken place since his employment are, the Wildfire Evacuation Plan and the Emergency Evacuation Plan. These plans include the training and necessary equipment to implement them. He feels the employees are the greatest strength of the Department and that the challenge is keeping staff with limited salary increases in a period of increasing costs and benefits.
Fire Chief
The Fire Chief began his career in 1971 at the State of California Division of Forestry (CDF). The Fire Chief has worked at the Fire Department since 1974 and worked his way through the department until he became Chief in 1995. He retired a year ago, but came back on contract until a replacement can be found.
The Fire Chief has 2 Battalion Chiefs, 20 firefighters, 1 full-time Fire Marshal and 1 full- time clerical position. He has 30 volunteers who include 25 firefighters and 5 support staff. He has 2 firefighter positions and a half-time clerical position vacant. The Chief stated he has a lot of talent that works for less money than other departments in the area. In the past 3 years he has lost people to retirement and to the City of Chico Fire Department, where they get better pay. He would like to see some incentive pay for his firefighters to live in Paradise. He would also like to increase the minimum daily staff level. He currently staffs 3 fire engines 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. They have on the average 4,000 calls a year with 250 false alarms. Most calls are requests for medical aid.
The Fire Chief stated that his equipment is in “pretty good shape,” but is slightly behind the replacement schedule. He needs to replace breathing apparatus, the 36-year-old ladder truck and the thermal-imaging camera. The department needs to update its computers and mobile data terminals.
When asked what he considers his greatest accomplishments, he stated a positive attitude in the department and a good climate to work in. He chairs the Butte County Fire Safe Council and is involved in the Butte Interagency Rescue Team (BIRG). He
E- 8 THE BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY: 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
developed the Town evacuation plan, was a co-author of the Butte County Emergency Operations Exercise “Operation Silver Lining” and wrote a grant for an AM radio broadcast, “Every 15 Minutes”.
Police Chief
The current Police Chief has been on the job since July 2003. He has a Master’s degree and over 30 years with the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department; retiring as a Sheriff’s Captain.
He has 45 employees, some of whom are responsible for the Town’s dispatch system and animal control. The police officers have been without a contract for over two years and are still negotiating with the Town. Budget cuts have affected staffing levels at both patrol and administrative levels. Recent retirements have impacted the Police Department’s efficiency.
The Police Department spends about 30,000 hours per year responding to calls. The largest category is disturbing the peace complaints. Narcotics-related, (primarily oxycontin and “meth”) investigations are a major demand of time and resources. The Police also respond to large numbers of property crime calls. They get requests to check on older or incapacitated citizens within the community. Juvenile gangs are increasing in the community, but are still a relatively minor problem.
The Police Department made 350-400 arrests in 2005, mainly for misdemeanors, but also have more serious felony cases. Officers made 200 warrant arrests and responded to 857 false alarms in 2005, each one requiring the presence of two officers.
The Police Department is in need of more modern equipment, including communication equipment, as well as additional officers.
Conclusion
It is obvious from the review of the two budgets and from interviews with department heads a major problem the Town has is its dependence on property tax for revenue. The Town of Paradise has limited sales tax revenue due to fewer businesses and the lack of large retail stores. The Educational Relief Act Fund-transfers from local agencies to the State of California adversely affected the Town. In addition to restricted funds for staffing, maintenance and improvements to the Town’s infrastructure, employees’ salaries have lagged compared to nearby communities.
Commendation
There are a significant number of employees who have worked for the Town for many years. These employees receive some of the lowest pay for city or county jobs, yet they continue their employment with the Town of Paradise. The Town just had several employees retire after decades of service to the Town. The employees are to be
E- 9 THE BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY: 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
commended for their dedication to the citizens of the Town of Paradise. Their goal is to try and “get the job done” given significant constraints.
Finding
1. There is a lack of being able to track or identify transactions / payments received from other departments that collect fees / funds. 2. The Town of Paradise appears to be overly dependant on property tax for revenue. 3. The Town of Paradise receives limited sales tax revenue. 4. The town has restricted funds for staffing, maintenance, and improvements to infrastructure. 5. Town employees salaries have lagged compared to nearby communities. 6. There is no central cashier position to track or identify transactions/payments received from other departments that collect fees/funds.
Recommendation
1. The Town of Paradise should consider creating a Central Cashier position for the Finance Department that would collect and process all fees and monies for the Town of Paradise. 2. Additional emphasis should be placed on economic development to reduce dependence on property tax for revenue. 3. The Town of Paradise should make an effort to pay its employees wages that are more competitive with nearby communities.
Response Required (Penal Code § 933 & 933.05) Paradise Town Council Paradise Town Manager
E-10 THE BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY: 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
TOWN OF PARADISE DEVELOPMENT FEES
Reason for Investigation
The Grand Jury responded to a letter from a Paradise resident. It was about the extent, size, and use of permit / development / impact fees in the Town of Paradise.
Background
The Town of Paradise has a system of fees and charges for services, similar to that of most cities in California. Permit fees cover changes in the use of, or building on, most single lots. These fees pay the cost for the Town to verify the work, check that it was done properly, and record the action. Similar fees are charged on development of larger acreage and installation of roads and utilities. All developments are assessed impact fees. Impact fees cover the cost of expanding the Town’s infrastructure so that services to existing structures are not reduced.
A few of the permit fees for large developments are based upon a percentage of the contract cost or the engineer’s estimated cost. If the cost of the permitted services exceeds the permit fee, the developer will be charged the difference. If the cost is less than the permit fee, no refund is made at present. (In one rare instance, a developer formally requested a refund from the Paradise Town Council on the basis of, California Government Code § 66013 and 66014. The refund was granted.)
Permit and development fees cover the full cost to the Town for project related work. Impact fees, on the other hand, are usually accumulated over a number of projects to raise enough money for a major investment for infrastructure such as roads or drainage. The fees can only be used for a function related directly or indirectly to the project. Fees are not alternatives to a voter-approved tax.
Investigation
The Grand Jury interviewed / reviewed: • 2 local contractors from the Town of Paradise • The Town Engineer • The Town Finance Director • The Town Community Development Director • The Town Assistant Community Development Director • Environmental Technician • Planning Process Handbook • Application Checklist • Master Fee Schedule
The master fee schedule is reviewed by the Paradise Town Council periodically and brought up to date to reflect the cost of wages and materials. The fees appear
E-11 THE BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY: 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
reasonable and there is no indication the Town is “making money” from development. Reportedly, the fees are lower than those in many other towns.
The Town of Paradise uses a system of fees and charges for services to cover its direct costs due to changes on a property or a development. The Town’s master fee schedule is based upon the historic average cost of providing each of the services. Most are fixed charges, but some vary as to the size of the project and are known as variable fees. In the latter case, work done by the Town depends to some extent upon how well designed and engineered the project is. If the Town does not spend the entire variable fee, it is obliged to refund the excess. The smaller fees for permits are not subject to refunds because the cost of time keeping and book keeping would be exorbitant.
Findings 1. The Town does not have a sufficient procedure for tracking development projects to compare the fees with the actual work performed. A refund, therefore, is not automatically made to the developer of a project. It is necessary for the developer / applicant to petition the Town Council for a refund.
Recommendations 1. The Town of Paradise should develop a method for “flagging” development projects having a variable fee. A review of the project hours and expenses for variable items should be done after a project is completed. Then a billing for excess costs, or a refund, should be automatically made to the project applicant.
Response Required (Penal Code 933 & 933.05) Town of Paradise City Manager
E-12 THE BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY: 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
City Of Oroville Personnel Issues / Hiring Practices
Reason for Investigation
The Grand Jury as a part of its oversight mandate, reviewed the City of Oroville and specifically its personnel actions and hiring practices as a result of letters received by the Grand Jury from concerned citizens of the City of Oroville.
Investigation
The Grand Jury interviewed: • Oroville City Mayor • Oroville City Council • Oroville City Attorney • Oroville City Administrator • Oroville City Human Resource Analyst • Other Oroville City employees • City of Oroville residents
The Grand Jury heard and reviewed hours of direct testimony and numerous documents associated with the issues of concern. During the course of this investigation, the Grand Jury interviewed every member of the Oroville City Council to gain information regarding the issues of concern within the City. The Grand Jury was disturbed by the uncooperative responses and combative attitudes of some members of the City Council.
Background
Nepotism:
The nepotism clause, 4.8e from City of Oroville Personnel Rules and Regulations, last amended by City of Oroville Resolution No. 5896, dated September, 2002 states:
• “The Personnel Officer shall not appoint or assign any employee to a position in which an immediate family member directly or indirectly supervises the employee and no relative shall conduct or be involved in a related member’s performance evaluation, appointment, discipline, suspension, promotion, termination, sign a personnel action form or any other activities related to employment with the City.”
• “The Personnel Officer shall not appoint a member of the City Administrator’s immediate family to any position within the City of Oroville.”
• [Note: Sharon Atteberry, the City Administrator, testified that she is also the Personnel Officer.] E-13 THE BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY: 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
• “For the purpose of this policy, “Direct Supervision” shall mean any situation in which the employee would be in a position to affect the terms and conditions of another’s employment, including, but not limited to, making decisions on work assignments, compensation, grievances, advancements or performance evaluations.”
• “For the purpose of this policy, “Immediate Family Member” shall mean: Spouse, natural, step or legal child or parent, brother, sister, grandparent, grandchild, mother-in-law or father-in-law.”
• “However, under no circumstances will an employee directly or indirectly supervise or be supervised by an immediate family member.” (Exhibit 1)
The City of Oroville has a tradition of family members working at the Fire and Police Departments and throughout the city offices within its jurisdiction. It was not unusual for a father and son, uncle and nephew or two brothers to be working as a fireman or police officer at the same time.
Family members are still being hired for positions in other departments within the City. Sharon Atteberry, the City Administrator has a son and now a niece working for the City of Oroville. The City Administrator’s son may have been, “grand-fathered in.” His initial employment may have occurred before she was appointed City Administrator at a time when she held the position of Oroville City Clerk. However, her son’s newest position was created since she was appointed City Administrator. While her son may not be located in the same building or under her direct supervision, as City Administrator and in her capacity as Personnel Officer, she indirectly oversees every employee and is responsible for input as to hiring, firing and disciplinary action.
On the City of Oroville phone list, the City Administrator and her niece are listed under, “Administration.” The City Administrator’s office and her niece’s workstation are both located within City Hall. The City Administrator may not directly supervise her niece, but the fact that they both work under “Administration” and work in the same, small office building leaves a perception of possible favoritism and violation of the nepotism clause, (4.8e).
Job Descriptions / Job Requirements
The City also has a history of changing job descriptions due to constant reorganization as noted on the May 2, 2006 City Council Meeting Agenda. There were 17 changes to job descriptions on the consent agenda. This also required the positions to have changes in supervisors. (Exhibit 2)
The current City Administrator’s job description requires, “...graduation from an accredited college or university with a Bachelor’s degree in Business or Public Administration, or a closely related field; a Master’s degree in the same fields of study is
E-14 THE BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY: 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
desirable.” The current City Administrator does not have an AA or a Bachelor’s degree. The Human Resource Analyst II is required to have a Bachelor’s degree and testified she does have such a degree. (Exhibit 3)
The Fire Chief’s job description requires, “…an Associate of Arts degree from an accredited college or university with a major in fire science or related field. A Bachelor’s degree or Master’s degree with major course work in fire science or administration is desirable.” “…Six years of increasingly responsible professional experience in fire prevention, suppression, including at least three years in a responsible middle management position.” The current Fire Chief has a 2 year Automotive AA Degree from Butte College.
The new Deputy Fire Chief position requires, “… an Associate of Arts degree from an accredited college or university with a major in fire science or related field. A Bachelor’s degree, Master’s degree or Executive Fire Officer Program with major course work in fire science or administration is desirable.” “…Six years of increasingly responsible professional experience in fire prevention and suppression, including at least three years of experience in a responsible middle-management position.” The person hired for this position beginning July 1, 2006 has a Bachelor’s degree. (Exhibit 4)
The 1999–2000 Butte County Grand Jury Final Report on the City of Oroville recommendations states, “…Employment requirements not be arbitrarily changed and re-changed to meet the qualifications of those seeking to fill the vacancies. Personnel and MOU policies be followed consistently.” (Exhibit 5)
The Oroville City Employees Association (OCEA) has sent several letters to the Mayor and City Council Members and the City Administrator with concerns regarding personnel actions. A State Mediation / Conciliation Service representative has met with the City and OCEA on two (2) occasions regarding their concerns. There have been additional concerns from the OCEA and the International Fire Fighters Association (IAFF, LOCAL 2404) regarding the, “meet and confer” process when changing job descriptions and working conditions. This has been noted in several correspondences with the City Administration and in City Council minutes. (Exhibit 6)
Some positions have been eliminated, demoting staff members to a lesser position with a substantial decrease in pay. Upon elimination of this position, a new position / job description was created. Employees have to rely on OCEA and other means to protect their “bumping” rights regarding re-employment for a position they were demoted from when a similar position comes available. This right to bump is set forth in Rule 13, Section 13.5 of the City of Oroville Personnel Rules and Regulations. (Exhibit 7)
Probationary Employees
Rule 5. (Probationary Period) of the City of Oroville Personnel Rules and Regulations sets the rules for an employee’s probationary period. The Fire Department has an 18- month probationary period for its new hires, whereas other fire departments in the
E-15 THE BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY: 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
county have a 12-month period. Promotional appointments in the City of Oroville shall serve a 6-month probationary period. With the approval of the Personnel Officer, an employee’s probationary period may be extended for a period of time not to exceed 6 months.
It is common for the firefighters to take 24 to 30 months to complete probation. This is due in part to the training program that needs to be updated. We heard in testimony that an OFD probationary employee is rarely terminated while on probation. The Grand Jury also heard testimony from other fire departments, such as Chico Fire Department, that they terminate, on an average, at least one firefighter while on probation from every new class that starts training. Chico Fire Department has a 12-month probationary period.
Oroville Fire Department has a history of keeping firefighters employed in the department, even if they are not suited for the job. They have a history of promoting people to positions they are not qualified for. We have reviewed disciplinary actions against long time employees of the fire department that show continual disciplinary problems going back to the beginning of their careers, including demotion from positions they had been promoted to. The Fire Department appears to resist terminating employees who are not suited to be firefighters or demote unqualified firefighters.
Problem Solving Committee
The Firefighters, as part of their recently negotiated Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), Resolution No. 6596, passed by the Oroville City Council on December 6, 2005, (Exhibit 8), added a Problem Solving Committee (PSC), (Exhibit 9), to the MOU.
MOU Section 32. Problem Solving Committee …During the term of this agreement the City shall maintain a Problem Solving Committee providing access for at least all members of the Oroville Fire Department. The Problem Solving Committee shall have as its charge the responsibility of identifying the source and character of the problem and to recommend solution strategies to the Department, to the City Administrator and to the City Council. Grievance Procedures of the Agreement during the term of the Agreement shall require submission of the allegation to the Problem Solving Committee prior to the processing of the allegation as a grievance. Submission of the problem or grievance allegation to the Problem Solving Committee shall constitute an automatic waiver of the Grievance Procedure timelines for thirty (30) days (Exhibit 10).
There are no guidelines in this section or any other section within the MOU for who is a part of the PSC.
In a recent vote of “No Confidence” (Exhibit 11) by the Firefighter’s union against the Fire Chief, this addition to the MOU was used against them. As stated above, part of the grievance process is to first go through the PSC. IAFF, LOCAL 2404 (Union) did not receive a response to their letter of, “No Confidence” from the City Administrator
E-16 THE BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY: 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
because it was her opinion the Union had violated the requirement to FIRST go through the PSC. However, there was no PSC, which the City was to form, in place to go through.
The Grand Jury heard testimony from the City Administrator that no response was given to the Union by her, because the Union failed to comply with the PSC requirement. The Grand Jury repeatedly questioned the City Administrator and City Council members as to how the Union was supposed to comply with this request when no such committee existed. The repeated answer from the City Administrator and the City Council was, “the IAFF, LOCAL 2404 first had to go through the PSC.” The City Administrator finally conceded the City of Oroville needed to put this committee in place.
There are no guidelines in MOU Section 32. Problem Solving Committee, or any other sections within the MOU, which provides for the composition or membership of the PSC. According to testimony from the paid IAFF representative, the Union wanted this committee to be comprised of 5 or 6 people who could remain neutral. The Union gave the City Administrator the names of consulting firms that could facilitate these meetings.
The City Administrator proposed the committee be comprised of the Fire Chief, City Administrator, Human Resource Analyst and a representative from the Fire Department. The Grand Jury pointed out that, in this situation, since the letter of No Confidence was against the Fire Chief, it didn’t appear to be a “neutral” committee. The City Administrator stated she could go out for bid on a contract proposal for services, but that process would take time. The Grand Jury agreed the process would take time, but is a necessary action for the City to take. However, in the meantime, since the PSC doesn’t exist, a meeting between the City and the Firefighter’s union needs to occur. As of the time the Grand Jury concluded the investigation in mid-May, it was unknown if any meetings had taken place.
City Council / City Manager Type of Government
The City Council of any city is charged with setting policy and giving direction. The Oroville City Council tends to micro-manage each of the City departments. This may be due in part to the fact they have a weak, council-dependent City Administrator type of government versus a strong, City Manager type of government like Chico and Paradise. The City Council has hire / fire authority over all the department heads, whereas they would have limited hire / fire under a City Manager type of government. City Managers are responsible for the day-to-day operation of the City and for implementing City Council policy and direction. They are responsible for hiring, firing, budgeting and seeing the job gets done.
The City Administrator does not have a lot of authority to make decisions. She must confer with the City Council on even the smallest matter. In testimony heard by the Grand Jury, some City Council members stated they only relied on information received from the City Administrator or the Department Head. Further testimony heard by the
E-17 THE BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY: 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
Grand Jury from some City Council members also indicated they felt they did not need to discuss issues with any other staff members.
Testimony from members of the City Council revealed the City Administrator had the, “trust of the Council” and stated that, “maybe she was in over her head.” Members of the City Council stated in sworn testimony the reason they hired Sharon Atteberry, even though she did not fit the qualifications, was because she had been with the City of Oroville for so long and knew how the City functioned. Some members of the City Council admitted that in the future they should hire more qualified people for the top positions of the City as well as each department.
Litigation / Progressive Discipline
There are a number of employees out on work-related, medically-verified, stress leave. Some of these employees have Worker’s Compensation claims and some are drawing disability. There are several employees in various stages of arbitration and lawsuits against the City of Oroville. Some of these are pending, “back to work accommodations” and “fit to return to duty” medical clearances. The City of Oroville keeps sending these employees time and time again to the same medical consultant until the desired result is obtained. These employees have to retain their own medical consultant to assess their physical / mental condition at an additional expense to the City and to the employee.
The City of Oroville is spending money on outside legal counsel and medical consultants to fight / resolve these and other personnel issues. Between the months of January 2005 through September 2005, the City incurred $50,137.62 in expenses in outside professional services regarding personnel actions. This amount does not cover prior years expenditures or from October 2005 to the present. The Grand Jury heard in testimony from City employees and the Oroville City Attorney of on-going expenses that the City is incurring regarding unresolved employee issues.
The City has no well-defined and / or enforced Progressive Discipline Policy. Disciplinary actions are not being taken at the time of occurrence. In reviewing records, it appears logs or paperwork is being created after the fact. Disciplinary actions that are taken are not in compliance with the personnel rules, up to and including, immediate termination. In viewing personnel records, there is also the appearance of minor disciplinary write-ups for employees just because they aren’t liked or administration may want to terminate them.
The City of Oroville has been inconsistent in following disciplinary procedures as laid out in the MOU and Personnel Rules and Regulations and Policies and Procedures Manual. This has led to several lengthy and costly pending personnel decisions.
There is a step in the grievance process called a Skelly hearing. This process resulted from a California Supreme Court decision Skelly v. State Personnel Board (1975) 15 Cal.3d 194. The Court determined that public employees have certain due process
E-18 THE BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY: 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
protections on the job. In the landmark case, the Court ruled that public employees are entitled to a “pre-disciplinary hearing.” This means the employee must be given written notice of proposed disciplinary action.
This notice must include: • A statement of the nature of the proposed discipline • The effective date of the proposed discipline • The reasons for the discipline • The specific policy or rule violated • A statement advising the employee of the right to respond orally or in writing.
The main purpose of the Skelly rule is to allow employees an opportunity to respond to the charges and to request a reduction or elimination of the discipline. The City of Oroville on at least 1 occasion has not taken the decision of the Skelly hearing officer.
Stressful Work Environment
The City of Oroville has in place the: • Unlawful Workplace Harassment Policy and Complaint Procedure approved by the City Council on 02/21/06. (Exhibit 12) • Workplace Violence Prevention Policy, approved by the City Council on 02/21/06, (Exhibit 13) which states in part...”Violence” includes any conduct which in the view of the City of Oroville is sufficiently severe, offensive, or intimidating to alter the employment conditions or to create a hostile, abusive, or intimidating work environment for one or more City employees.
Despite these policies, the Grand Jury heard testimony that Department heads have used name-calling, yelling, derogatory references, fear, intimidation and increased workloads to create a stressful work environment as ways to terminate an employee. We heard in testimony that supervisors and department heads have made remarks to employees such as, “she doesn’t need a job anyway”, “break an employee”, “cause them to crack”, and “my resident paranoid schizophrenic.”
Golden Handshake
We learned in testimony that the City of Oroville has several employees close to retirement who are neither qualified for the high level, responsible positions they currently hold or have a history of being a difficult, disgruntled, disruptive employee.
Other city, county, state and federal entities have offered “Golden Handshakes” to employees in times of economic shortfall and also as an opportunity for early retirement.
Findings 1. The current City Administrator, in apparent violation of the city’s nepotism clause, has a son employed by the City of Oroville for whom she is indirectly responsible for and can directly affect his employment. While a niece also works for the City E-19 THE BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY: 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
of Oroville, such a relationship is not specifically prohibited by the nepotism clause. 2. In reviewing prior Butte County Grand Jury Final Reports, letters from City employee unions and State mediators, and City Council meeting minutes, document instances where job descriptions, duties and other job requirements were repeatedly changed and approved by the City Council without consulting the unions, thus possibly violating the, “Meet and Confer” process. 3. The current Oroville City Administrator and Fire Chief do not meet the minimum educational requirements specified in their job descriptions. 4. There is evidence of eliminating staffed positions to create new ones. 5. Employees have to use their union representatives, or obtain outside legal counsel, to protect their right to, “bump” an employee in a position they were removed from and qualify for as specified in Rule 13, Section 13.5 of the City of Oroville Personnel Rules and Regulations. 6. The City does not have a Problem Solving Committee in place as required by the Oroville Fire Department MOU. 7. The City of Oroville has a strong City Council / weak City Administrator type of government. 8. Many members of the City Council appear to be unfamiliar with the routine duties and functions of city departments. 9. The City of Oroville has incurred excessive expenses, including outside counsel fees, for “fighting and defending” wrongful termination lawsuits, arbitration hearings and medically fit to return to work accommodation hearings. 10. Progressive discipline does not appear to be defined or enforced by responsible persons in City Management. 11. On at least 1 occasion, the City of Oroville did not take the recommendation of the Skelly hearing officer when used as part of the grievance process. 12. There is evidence of a stressful work environment in several departments within the City. 13. The City is not effectively using the probationary period to terminate employees who are demonstrating poor performance due to lack of skills, attitude, work ethic, or compatibility with the position employed in. 14. There are employees in key positions close to retirement who are antagonistic and disruptive to the workplace or are unqualified for the positions they hold.
Recommendations 1. The City of Oroville needs to adhere to the City policy regarding nepotism. 2. The nepotism clause should be expanded to include aunt, uncle, niece, nephew, brother-in-law, sister-in-law and cousin. 3. The City Council, City Administration and Human Resource department should refrain from changing job descriptions, requirements, duties and qualifications without engaging in the, “meet and confer” process. 4. Hire qualified persons for key positions within the City, such as City Administrator and Fire Chief who meet the job requirements.
E-20 THE BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY: 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
5. The City of Oroville should curtail the common practice of eliminating a position or changing the job title, description, education requirements and qualifications to fit a position to a person. 6. Bumping rights should be applied without the need of union intervention or the need for outside counsel. 7. Establish and staff the Problem Solving Committee led by an independent, neutral third party. 8. Consider proposing an amendment to the City Charter, subject to a vote of the people, to change from a City Administrator type government to a City Manager type of government. 9. The City should make every effort to accommodate an employee once the determination of; “fit to return to work” has been made by both the city and employee’s medical consultants. 10. Use in-house counsel and/or Personnel staff more effectively to prevent the need to resort to outside counsel 11. Rotate professional medical consultants to evaluate personnel suitability to “return to work issues.” 12. Subject to observing the, “Meet and Confer” requirement with the unions consider revisions to the MOU and Personnel Policy and Procedure Manuals to clarify the progressive discipline process. 13. The City should institute comprehensive training for employees and managers in progressive discipline, unlawful workplace harassment, and workplace violence preventions, to avoid unnecessary litigation and related expenses. This training should include the new “City of Oroville Unlawful Workplace Harassment Policy and Complaint Procedure” and “Workplace Violence Prevention Policy” adopted by the City Council on 2/21/2006. 14. Probationary employees should be closely monitored and evaluated to avoid later employment issues.
Response Required (Penal Code § 933 & 933.05)
Oroville City Council Oroville City Attorney Oroville City Administrator
E-21 THE BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY: 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
Oroville Fire Department Letter of “No Confidence”
Reason for Investigation
In March 2006, the Grand Jury was alerted to problems in the Oroville Fire Department after the International Association of Firefighters, Local 2404 (IAFF), sent a letter of “No Confidence” to the Oroville City Administrator and the Oroville Mercury-Register regarding the Chief of the Oroville Fire Department. (Exhibit 1) As a part of its oversight mandate, the Grand Jury began an immediate investigation of the Oroville Fire Department (OFD).
Background
Oroville Fire Department is reported to be the second oldest fire department in the State of California. Sacramento City Fire Department is the oldest. Oroville Fire Department started out as a volunteer fire department as did most fire departments in the State of California.
The City of Oroville has adopted the following annual budgets for the Fire Department: • 2005–06 - $1,965,628. 2006–07 - $2,006,293.
The Oroville Fire Department has received the following grants: • FY 05-06 - $64,151. – Indian Gaming Supplemental Benefit Fund FY 05-06 - $31,081. – Federal Grant for Vehicle Exhaust Removal System FY 06-07 - $64,151. - Indian Gaming Supplemental Benefit Fund
In the past years, the department has received $62,000. in annual reimbursements for out of county services such as wild land fires. This year because of extremely short activity, they expect to receive $28,000.
The following statistics show the total number of fire calls or calls for assistance the Oroville Fire Department responded to: • 2004 – 3,691 2005 – 3,639 January 2006 – 337 February 2006 – 291
Records show fire fighting is just a small part of the community services rendered by the Department. The majority of the calls are for medical aid. Responding to car accidents, toxic spills, requests for assistance and rescues of various sorts occupy most of the time out of the station. Actual fire suppression is among the lowest number of calls per year.
Today, the new trend in thinking is towards Fire Science and Emergency Services.
E-22 THE BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY: 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
Investigation
The Grand Jury interviewed the following persons and reviewed the following documentation:
• 18 current members of OFD, of which we interviewed: • Chief Pittman three times, plus numerous e-mails and phone calls • The Training Battalion Chief two times • Three staff members more than once 2 retired members of OFD 1 former member of OFD, who was fired, but may be reinstated 3 former members of OFD, currently employed by other departments 1 former volunteer of OFD • Paid labor representative for the International Association of Firefighters, Local 2404 (IAFF) • Oroville City Mayor Oroville City Council, in its entirety Oroville City Attorney Oroville City Administrator Oroville City Human Resource Analyst • Officers and staff from: Butte County CDF Chico Fire Department Paradise Fire Department El Medio Fire Department • Discussed fire engine maintenance with Oroville Public Works Department • The Grand Jury reviewed engine maintenance records, personnel records, pass down notes, Policy and Procedures Manual, training materials, Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), information from Butte College and countless other documents related to the fire department.
Problems within the Fire Department
The Grand Jury received complaints identifying the following problems within the Oroville Fire Department through direct testimony and documentation: • Severe lack of communication between the Chiefs and the firefighters • Numerous complaints by the firefighters regarding the issues as stated in the Letter of “No Confidence” against the Fire Chief. • Pending arbitration and possible law suits • Failure of City management to properly use progressive discipline • Failure of management to provide proper training to probationers • Failure of the Fire Chief to meet his council-mandated, contractual training requirements within the mandated time period. • Failure of management to provide training for advancement E-23 THE BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY: 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
• Failure of management to lead by example rather than by order • Replacement of City pride by a strict adherence to the union contract • Fear by the firemen of arbitrary orders • The disappearance of volunteer support within the Fire Department.
Letter of No Confidence and Morale
The Grand Jury, in investigating the allegations made by the firefighters in the Letter of No Confidence, polled every member of International Association of Firefighters, Local 2404. The Grand Jury found a majority vote agreeing to the letter of, “No Confidence.” Even those that voted “no” stated there were major problems within the department. According to testimony, those that voted NO, voted against the “letter”, not the issues stated in the letter. The Grand Jury spoke to all members of the fire department, regardless of rank or position. In testimony, the firefighters regardless of rank, stated communication and training were the two biggest problems in the department. In testimony, the firefighters also stated morale is extremely low and there is a definite division within the department between the firefighters and the “white shirts” (Chiefs). On September 7, 2004 the City Administrator sent a memo to the fire department regarding, “Respectful and Courteous Treatment of ALL Fire Personnel.” (Exhibit 1a) The memo discussed “professional conduct and behavior, speaking to each other without yelling or raising the voice, sarcasm, profanity, threats and/or a disrespectful tone, all communication would be in a calm and professional manner”. The memo went on to state that violation of this directive would lead to discipline up to and including termination.
In the letter of “No Confidence” submitted by the firefighters of IAFF, Local 2404, the main issues cited against Fire Chief Pittman were:
• Fire Chief has created a hostile work environment • Misused public resources • Neglected the safety and training of the men and women of the OFD • Lack of communication between the Chief and the firefighters
Further statements made in the letter were:
“All these reasons have led the men and women of the OFD to feel decreased morale, uneasiness and intimidation from Fire Chief Pittman.”
“Numerous meetings have taken place to try and improve the working relationship between the firefighters and Chief Pittman, but the work environment has not improved.”
“High turnover rate is due in part to a lack of training, incompetence and overall dysfunction of the fire department as a whole.” E-24 THE BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY: 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
“Lack of leadership and management.”
“Chief Pittman raises his voice, is disrespectful, is unapproachable, uses profanity and has told members, ‘Go find another job, if they do not like what they hear.’ ”
“Not sharing of information with the firefighters that directly affects them, such as information regarding an Automatic Aid Agreement that is to begin on July 1, 2006.”
“Training program lacks efficiency and has no bearing on day to day operations. Not one of the recently hired firefighters has completed probation in the 18-month time period.”
“Chief Pittman lacks the basic skills, morals, knowledge and leadership ability to lead this department in such a way to keep its members safe, treat them with professional respect and to properly protect the public’s best interest and their property.”
Fire Chief
“Pittman’s Principles” appeared in a newspaper article about the Oroville Fire Department and on Chief Pittman’s web site, (Included in entirety Exhibit 3). “Pittman’s Principle’s” are: Firefighter Safety There is no substitute for a well-rested, experienced and trained mind that will make good choices. Accountability Consider all your activities are worthy of recognition. The goal is to make up as little time as possible with record keeping, but provide quality reporting. The standard of incident and training reports completed before the relief of shift duties is required. Customer Service Consider all customers as if they were members of your family and provide the level of service you would expect. Training Daily shift training is essential to response readiness, fire ground efficiency and successful operations.
The Fire Chief has been a trusted leader in, “fighting a major fire.” Firefighters we interviewed who worked with Chief Pittman said they, “would follow him into a fire any time.” They also said, “he was the best Captain they ever had.” They also said when he became Battalion Chief, he “started going down hill.” “He was in over his head.”
E-25 THE BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY: 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
And as Fire Chief he demonstrates a lack in leadership, administrative and communication skills required of the position.
Fire Chief Pittman had several promotions / demotions in a relatively short period of time. This is shown in part by the fact that before being promoted to Fire Chief by the City Council, the following promotional progression occurred: • Effective 12-27-98 – Fire Captain to Temp Assign Battalion Chief, signed 12-18-98. (Exhibit 4) • Effective 8-6-99 – Temporary Battalion Chief, signed 8-6-99. (Exhibit 5) An oral Board and recruitment testing for the promotional position of Battalion Chief was held on 8-5-99. It was the consensus of the Oral Board panel that, “No promotion be made at this time.” • Effective 1-1-00 – Battalion Chief to Interim Fire Chief, signed 12-28-99 (Exhibit 6) • Effective 1-18-00 – Fire Captain to Battalion Chief, signed 12-28-99 (Exhibit 7) • Effective 1-18-00 – (Interim Batt. Chief) Fire Captain to Batt. Chief, signed 1-26-00 (Exhibit 8) • Effective 7-1-00 – Became Fire Chief (Exhibit 9)
There is an inconsistency in effective dates, dates signed and job positions throughout this period. It is significant that he remained a Temporary Battalion Chief effective 8-6- 99, because the Oral Board panel recommended “No promotion at this time.”
The Grand Jury heard in testimony that when the prior Fire Chief vacated his position, there were 2 Battalion Chiefs employed at the time. One Battalion Chief was Pittman and the other Battalion Chief did not want the job as Fire Chief. The Grand Jury was unable to verify any outside recruitment for the position of Fire Chief.
In addition, the Oroville City Council changed the education requirements when he was promoted to Fire Chief to fit his Associate in Science degree in Auto Mechanics from Butte College. (Exhibit 10)
His initial contract, (Exhibit 9) which began in July 2000, stipulated he was to complete the Executive Fire Officer Program Curriculum, which required him to take 1 course every year for the next 4 years. (Exhibit 11) This Grand Jury can only verify the completion of 1 of the required 4 classes in the last 6 years. This verification was from a copy of the certificate Chief Pittman provided to the Grand Jury. This course was completed in February 2001.
The Grand Jury has heard in testimony from the City Administrator and members of the City Council that they have been aware of:
• Communication problems between the Chief and the firefighters • A problem of low morale in the Oroville Fire Department • A weakness in managerial skills • Lack of team building with the firefighters and the City Administration E-26 THE BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY: 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
Deputy Fire Chief
A new Deputy Chief position has been added to the fire department. The City Council interviewed and hired someone that meets the qualifications for the position. (Exhibit 2) He has a Bachelor’s degree, teacher’s credentials and has administrative and training experience. He is on the Fire Department schedule to begin work on July 1st, as the “Duty Officer” for that day.
His duties are in part…”plan, organize, supervise and administer assigned departmental activities, operations and programs; to serve as a shift supervisor over assigned personnel; to direct fire service personnel and equipment while engaged in fighting fires; to participate in fire suppression activities and operations and to perform related duties and responsibilities as required.”
The Grand Jury heard in direct testimony from members of the Oroville City Council that this position was created in part to help take care of the problems in the Fire Department and to, “make up where Chief Pittman lacks.”
Communication
The main complaint from members of the Fire Department is lack of communication. In testimony the Grand Jury learned communication in the Oroville Fire Department flows only one way. Communication only travels down the Chain of Command, not up the Chain of Command. There is very little sharing of information or discussion of existing problems between the Chief and the firefighters. The lack of communication has led to rumors, failure to perform as expected, frightened employees and a lack of interest in doing more than the minimum. The Chief sits across the table from the firefighters when negotiations regarding the Firefighter Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) are taking place. In testimony the Grand Jury heard that when the Chief sits across the table from the firefighters during negotiations, they feel he’s against them, not supporting them. The Fire Chief and the Battalion Chiefs rarely go, “across the hall” and sit down with the line staff and talk. The firefighters have asked the Chiefs to have lunch or dinner with them and they have not acted on that offer. Sharing an occasional meal is common practice in most fire departments as a way to improve communication and morale. These are known as, “kitchen table discussions.”
In testimony the Grand Jury heard from the firefighters that communication with the Chief was, “condescending and intimidating.” In testimony the Grand Jury heard the Fire Chief refer to a member of his department as, “my resident paranoid schizophrenic.” The Chief communicates by memo and “writing up” the staff for insignificant incidents.
E-27 THE BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY: 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
Training and Probationary Employees
In testimony, an Oroville Firefighter stated, “Training is the heart of the fire service and our department is on life support.” The Oroville Fire Department utilizes the IFSTA (International Fire Service Training Association) program, which contains elements that do not pertain to fire fighting conditions found in Oroville. The Training Officer is the primary person responsible for training. Testimony revealed that when approached with questions concerning elements contained in the study material, the Battalion Chief in charge of training could not locate the information requested. There was a period of time when the actual tests in the IFSTA program could not be located. Testimony was given that some of the firefighters had great difficulty locating study materials. On another occasion, upon submitting answers to test questions to the Training Officer, some firefighters were graded from the list of answers they themselves had prepared in a practice drill.
The program contains material that covers equipment no longer owned by the department as well as instances Oroville will never encounter such as sub-zero weather and skyscrapers. The Grand Jury reviewed the training programs of other fire departments in the County. These fire departments have developed their own training requirements, curriculums and academies. They offer various types of training and invite other fire departments in the County to participate.
According to the City of Oroville Personnel Rules and Regulations, the probation period for new hires in the Fire Department is 18 months. (Exhibit 12) Other fire departments in the County, such as Chico Fire Department have a 12-month probationary period for new hires. Even with this longer probation period, it is common for the firefighters to take 24 to 30 months to complete probation. Problems with the current training program/curriculum are the main cause for the firefighters having to extend their probationary period beyond the required 18 months.
Discipline and Evaluations
Discipline within the Fire Department is inconsistent. Employees are considered guilty until proven otherwise. Minor offenses, such as being late in signing a register or asking questions about the department’s plans are treated with the same severity as refusing to help in a training assignment. In reviewing documents, the Grand Jury found evidence of employees being “written up” without first being asked questions about what actually happened. Testimony also indicated that complaints from other local businesses was taken over the word of the employee. The Grand Jury did find instances where a firefighter with years of experience and a former employee had problems with other medical responders. This behavior may contribute to others in the department being thought guilty before proven innocent. In reviewing documents, the Grand Jury found disciplinary measures being taken, or created, which covered actions that occurred in the distant past.
E-28 THE BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY: 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
The Grand Jury recently saw a list from the Human Resource Analyst requiring job performance evaluations on almost every person in the fire department. The Grand Jury heard testimony and reviewed personnel records that showed evaluations were not being done in a timely manner.
There is a place on the evaluation form for the Chief to make comments in addition to the employee ratings and comments of the supervisor. Testimony revealed that if the Chief didn’t agree with the supervisor’s overall evaluation and comments made of an employee, the Chief has instructed the supervisor to change their evaluation.
Equipment and Maintenance
The Fire Chief has decided almost everything about new equipment, such as a fire engine, or new furnishings for the fire station. The firefighters have little input into the type or design of the equipment they want, or need, despite the fact they use it. In testimony and review of documentation, the Grand Jury found where firefighters have been given memos and letters of reprimand for researching and making suggestions on the purchase of new equipment.
The Fire Chief has said that maintenance of the fire engines is the number one priority for the firefighters. Testimony reveals that when a problem with a fire engine is found or equipment needs to be replaced or repaired, it is noted on the pass down log. This is a report on what happened on the previous shift. This log is then “passed down” to the next shift. The new fire engine and aerial ladder truck are so technologically advanced that the firefighters or the mechanics at Public Works cannot maintain them. They must be sent out to specialists a hundred miles away. Even fairly routine maintenance on the newest engine must be done elsewhere. The down time for these engines is significant. The backup fire engine cannot readily climb a hill for lack of power. A backlog of mechanical work at Public Works causes long delays in being able to repair the other fire engines.
Prioritizing
Typically, firefighter’s usual duties include emergency service to the community, maintenance of the equipment and training assignments. However, the Fire Chief assigns tasks outside of the firefighters usual duties, which ignores these important obligations. We heard in testimony that last year, painting the curbs red around the City of Oroville, was given top priority over the maintenance of equipment and completion of training assignments. The pass down logs from the fire department showed the firefighters were out painting nearly every day from October 4, 2005 through December 23, 2005.
In testimony, the Grand Jury was told by members of the City Council, “don’t let them fool you, the firefighters have a lot of excess time on their hands.” Members of the fire department, as well as members of other fire departments, in the County also told us that Oroville Fire Department “completes more emergency runs than any other fire
E-29 THE BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY: 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
department in the County.” Some of the training assignments that the firefighters must participate in are crucial for completing probation and passing examinations. Painting curbs takes time away from studying, training and maintenance of the equipment.
Volunteers
A once active volunteer program has declined to be near zero. The Grand Jury heard in testimony a need to promote interest from the citizens of Oroville to participate in the volunteer program. In testimony, one of the firefighter’s expressed that he would like to take a more active role in the recruitment and training of new volunteers.
Butte Interagency Rescue Group (BIRG)
The Butte Inter-agency Rescue Group (BIRG) is a group of firefighters from fire departments in the County who are trained in rescue operations such as confined space, over-the-edge and swift-water rescues, etc. BIRG provides training to the firefighters so they can gain expertise and qualify for participation on a team responsible for each type of rescue. Members are made up from Chico FD, Paradise FD, and Butte County CDF.
The commander of BIRG removed Oroville Fire Department from being a part of BIRG due to lack of participation from the Fire Chief in the Management Team, and the firefighters lack of participation and continued training to maintain these specialized skills.
In testimony, BIRG team leaders stated they must have confidence in the members of the team that they know how to do their job competently and safely in order to participate.
Conclusion
Oroville Fire Department appears to be in a constant state of upheaval. Although it is one of the busiest fire stations in California, the global issue is that the citizens of Oroville are not getting the quality of services that they deserve and are paying for. They run more calls out of this one station than most departments in the nation, except larger metropolitan areas. This provides the unique opportunity for more experience in a shorter period of time than most other fire departments can offer.
Testimony revealed the lack of support and leadership from the Fire Chief and Battalion Chiefs has caused the department to not function as a team.
The basics are there: skilled firefighters, the desire to serve their community and the necessary equipment; all that is lacking is the right leader to put the Oroville Fire Department back on the right path towards working together as a well functioning team.
E-30 THE BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY: 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
Findings
1. The Fire Chief, Battalion Chiefs and Fire Captains appear to have insufficient training in effective leadership techniques.
2. The Fire Chief has not completed the Executive Fire Officer Program Curriculum entitled, “Leadership Development for a New Century” of the National Fire Academy as required by the City Council in his initial contract and subsequent renewals.
3. The Battalion Chief, responsible for training, has not effectively trained new firefighters so they can pass probation within the 18 month specified time period as stated in the City of Oroville Personnel Polices and Procedures manual.
4. The current Battalion Chief assigned, as the Training Officer is unfamiliar with the International Fire Service Training Association (IFSTA) material, therefore is unable to properly train and answer the probationer’s questions regarding this manual.
5. Oroville has been removed from membership in the Butte Interagency Rescue Group (BIRG) for non-attendance and failure to participate in the required trainings.
6. Discipline within the Fire Department is inconsistent.
7. There is a lack of communication between the Fire Chief and his staff.
8. The Oroville City Council has not held the Fire Chief to the letter of his contract resulting in shared responsibility for the service that the Fire Department gives to the citizens of Oroville.
Recommendations
1. Hire qualified persons for administrative and supervisory positions and adhere to the position requirements regarding experience, education and other stated required qualifications.
2. Management and supervisors within the department should be required to have leadership and management training.
3. Failure to successfully complete advanced training assignments in a timely manner should not be condoned.
E-31 THE BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY: 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
4. Oroville Fire Department should have a training officer capable of assisting the firefighters through the 18-month probationary period in an appropriate and timely manner.
5. Oroville Fire Department should identify those firefighters who want to participate in BIRG and allow time for training and pay for required expenses.
6. Discipline should be appropriate to the offense. It should be prompt and be proven after a thorough review with the offender and other involved parties.
7. Progressive Discipline needs to be addressed in the Firefighters MOU and Oroville Fire Department needs to become educated with the Progressive Discipline process.
8. The Training Officer needs to be knowledgeable regarding the training material and be able to pass all of the examinations required of probationary employees. The Training Officer should work on developing a new training program/modify the IFSTA program to reflect the training needed for this area. (i.e. remove glacial and skyscraper training etc.)
9. Require the Deputy Fire Chief to answer directly to the City Council. This will make that position more effective while working under the present Fire Chief.
10. Efforts should be made to improve communication between the Fire Chief and his staff. A process should be established to facilitate communication.
11. The Oroville City Council should review all Department Head contracts before renewing them to make sure that all prior requirements have been met.
Response Required (Penal Code § 933 & 933.05)
Oroville City Council Oroville City Administrator Oroville Fire Chief
E-32 THE BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY: 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
CITY OF OROVILLE PUBLIC WORKS, PARKS AND TREES DEPARTMENT
Reason for Investigation
The Grand Jury, as a part of its oversight mandate, reviewed the Public Works, Parks and Trees Department (Public Works) in the City of Oroville.
Background
On December 6, 2005, the City created a new position of Operations Manager (OM) for Public Works. This was done in part because the administrative workload for the two divisions has grown significantly. There was a need for a full-time administrative person to assist with advanced planning, project review, department coordination, and employee supervision. The entire department has fewer workers now than it had two years ago, with the same budget.
Meanwhile the City has grown, the public facilities have aged and the need for services has escalated. The Department maintains 111 vehicles in its fleet and supports about 50 other major pieces of equipment. The parks and street maintenance crews maintain two parks, the city airport, sidewalks, curbs, gutters, storm drains, sewers, and planted areas. The crews are also responsible for approximately 90 miles of public streets.
The City Council eliminated the position of Manager of Parks and Trees and combined that force with Public Works and Maintenance. An experienced manager / contractor was hired for the new position of Operations Manager. The new Operations Manager, with more than 35 years of leadership and management, came on board to do a job. In talking with staff, we learned he has raised morale and productivity. He cleaned up the public yard and has set achievable goals. When major projects require it, he combines the parks and maintenance crews to get the job done more efficiently. The new Operations Manager feels that health and safety for city residents is the priority.
Investigation
The Grand Jury interviewed the staff and Operations Manager of Public Works. The Grand Jury also reviewed departmental documents and visited work sites.
The combined crews are smaller than they were historically. The street side of the department does not have enough workers to set up a complete road crew without outside help. The OM stated there is a number of streetlights and electrical poles in the City that need to be replaced. The hollow core, wooden posts have rotted at the base and could possibly be unsafe. Despite messages to City management, Public Works has been unsuccessful in obtaining help to repair these poles.
The automotive maintenance team, which once had three mechanics, now has only two. They are responsible for the repair and maintenance needs of the fire department,
E-33 THE BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY: 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
police department, administrative departments and specialized equipment for flood control and city maintenance. These total about 160 pieces of equipment. We were told that due to a shortage of mechanics, outsourcing lube and tire service would alleviate much of the backlog of work.
The City spends $30,000 per year on maintaining two street sweepers. It takes 20% of the time of both mechanics to keep them operable. As a result of the high maintenance, they are down one third of the year. The sweepers are ten to fifteen years old.
The present Fire Chief, a trained mechanic, used to help maintain the fire equipment before he was promoted. He is no longer available to perform that work. Last year this department spent 295 hours of mechanics time and $5,777 worth of parts in maintaining the fire engines, for a total cost to the City of $14,950. These numbers do not include the costs for maintenance when the engine must be sent out of town.
The Fire Department has been responsible for painting and maintaining the City’s fire hydrants. Other street curb markings have been the responsibility of Public Works. Last year, Fire Department personnel painted the red curbs around the fire hydrants because of the crew shortage within Public Works. However, this caused scheduling problems within the Fire Department.
Painting the curbs within the City is necessary for the safety of its citizens. The City could make this project available to civic minded volunteer groups working under the direction of Public Works. These groups could refresh the paint when needed and allow the Fire Department to perform other safety-enhancing responsibilities
With the decrease in staff and increasing demand for service and preventative maintenance within the City, the OM does not have the time to do the increasing amount of record keeping required for the department to function properly.
E-34 THE BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY: 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
Findings 1. The shortage of staff in the public works crew has reduced its ability to provide major maintenance to streets. 2. There aren’t enough workers within the department to replace rotted and damaged street light and electrical poles. 3. Testimony revealed that sweepers should be replaced after four to five years of use. 4. One fire engine is routinely sent to Sacramento for maintenance; the new engine must be sent to the Bay Area and another fire engine has difficulty climbing hills. Considerable effort is required to keep these fire engines operational. 5. The amount of paperwork required for the department to function has multiplied through the years. There appears to be a need for an Administrative Assistant to assume these responsibilities. 6. Staff suggested that lube and tire services should be performed under contract.
Recommendations
1. The City should take steps to fill the vacant positions that currently exist in the department. In addition to the vacant positions, the Public Works needs one additional worker on the street crew and one additional worker on the parks crew. 2. The City should consider leasing operable street sweepers as an alternative to maintaining the old ones. 3. In order to have operable and reliable fire engines, the City should consider hiring an additional mechanic to handle the needs of the Fire Department. 4. The Grand Jury suggests a cost benefit analysis be performed for an outside contract for tire and lube service. 5. The City should give a very high priority to replacing rotting utility poles. This could prevent potential injury to the public and expensive lawsuits. 6. Hire a competent Administrative Assistant for the Public Works department.
Response Required (Penal Code § 933 & 933.05) Oroville City Council Oroville City Administrator Director of Community Development & Public Works
E-35 THE BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY: 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
BOLT’S ANTIQUE TOOL MUSEUM
Reason For Visit
The Grand Jury, as part of its mandate, visited the Oroville Public Works Yard to inspect the facility and interview the Operations Manager (OM).
Background
While giving the Grand Jury an overview of the Public Works yard, the OM mentioned he and his entire park and maintenance crews were currently working on a project by the levee. The improvements were being made to a small building the city owns that used to be the old Teen Center in the 1960’s. The work included improvements to the small building and surrounding area, which encompassed a large driveway, parking area, curbs, and sidewalks. The OM was especially proud of the quality and amount of work the crew had completed in just a little over eight days. He hoped the Grand Jury would go and view the project.
The completion of the work was to coincide with the opening of the City’s newest museum in May 2006. The City of Oroville now owns five museums representing the rich culture and diverse history of the area. The Oroville City Administrator explained the project was funded from several sources including existing park funds, RDA and grant moneys slated for park improvement. The fees collected at the museum go into the City’s General Fund.
The Grand Jury was impressed by the work being completed, but even more with the treasure found at the site. Bolt’s Antique Tool Museum is located at 1650 Broderick Street, Oroville. Through the efforts of the Oroville Chamber of Commerce, Carl “Bud” Bolt presented his personal tool collection to the City of Oroville for public viewing. We were privileged to be the recipients of a fascinating, personal tour from Bud Bolt. The origin of this expansive collection began in his home over 50 years ago. He began buying and collecting tools from all over the world. The current location houses over 5,000 tools, ranging in age, size, variety, and purpose. These implements encompass both hand-made, as well as mechanically created tools. Each tool board has been designed with its own unique, artistic interpretation. The displays, created with attention to detail, share the rich historical evolution of the tool with visitors.
Commendation As Oroville continues to grow, the city is focusing on bringing in tourism and cultural venues to the area. It is refreshing to see this unique museum become a part of the City of Oroville. ♦ Schools and civic organizations should utilize this museum and Mr. Bolt’s expertise to provide education to all interested persons regarding the history and evolution of tools and their use by humans.
E-36 THE BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY: 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
♦ Anyone who is fascinated by things that are antique and unique should take a few hours and visit this museum.
Responses Required (Penal Code §933 933.05) None
E-37 THE BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY: 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
EL MEDIO FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
Reason for Investigation
The Grand Jury, as a part of its oversight mandate, reviewed the El Medio Fire Protection District to gather information on the workings of a fire department.
Background
The El Medio Fire Protection District, (El Medio), encompassing 7 square miles of unincorporated land south of the city limits of Oroville, was formed in the 1950’s by merging two existing fire districts that had been serving the area since 1925. A volunteer fire department was in service as early as 1921. In 1960, a group of women petitioned the Board of Fire Commissioners to change the name from Southside Fire District to the El Medio Fire District and El Medio Fire Department. El Medio, a Spanish word, meaning center or the middle in English
El Medio is part of the rich history of the volunteer fire department. When our forefathers realized the need for some form of organization to fight fires, the volunteer fire department was born. Volunteer fire departments came to a neighbor’s aid when the bell rang out a warning of a fire threatening the town. Bucket brigades and horse drawn hose carts were the tools used to stop the heat and flames of a fire from destroying shops and homes.
From that first day in the 1920’s, when an untrained group from the community first got together and decided to form a fire department, El Medio has had to use volunteers and antiquated equipment to fight fires within the district. The department has been upgrading and acquiring new equipment and improving the training of volunteers and paid employees. The volunteers give up their personal time to maintain the station and do training. The paid employees work for a little more than minimum wage and yet continue to work there. The volunteers drop everything when called and respond to a fire or need of medical aid. The camaraderie is strong and the pride in the El Medio Fire Protection District is evident in everything they do.
The El Medio Firemen’s Association hosted community dances in the early 1940’s. The “El Medio Sirens” helped with the annual Mother’s Day Ham Dinner that was started in 1950 to aid needy families at Christmas. The department still continues to sponsor this event every year. In the 1960’s they purchased clothing for families in the district that were in need and raised donations to help families whose homes had burned down. They also sponsored community events such as Little League, Cub Scouts, the annual kid’s Christmas Party and the El Medio softball team.
In 1927 a piece of land was purchased and in 1952 enough money had been raised to start construction on a new fire hall. In 1953, the El Medio Association donated money to buy and install a hose tower. This tower was used to store and hang the fire hose so it could dry.
E-38 THE BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY: 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
The El Medio fire station located at 3515 Myers Street has been at its present location since 1980.
Staff
El Medio currently has 1 paid Fire Chief and 6 additional paid staff of varying ranks. The Fire Chief, who has been with the department for 29 years, started as a volunteer and became Chief in 1993. He is authorized to have 30 volunteers but currently has 19. The volunteers all receive a $40 stipend per month. The paid firefighters receive an annual salary of approximately $20,000 per year.
The firefighters stated, “The Chief is our leader.” When the Grand Jury asked the Chief what background and training that he had which qualified him to be Fire Chief, he answered, “29 years of experience, but I listen, take suggestions and discuss things with the firefighters.” “I’m compassionate, but I can be very tough.” When the Grand Jury asked him what the main responsibility of the Fire Chief was, he replied, “Keeping my firefighters safe.”
All of the firefighters have been trained to the Emergency Technician level, Hazmat First Responder Operational, Rescue Tech 1 level and certified as a Firefighter 1 by the State of California Fire Marshall’s Office. In order to qualify, a Firefighter 1 must have some type of Fire Academy. Some have attended the Fire Academy at Butte College, Yuba College or elsewhere. The firefighters have also been trained in over-the-edge, high and low angle rescue and Safety Officer classes. They also attend training held by Oroville Fire Department and Butte County, CDF. El Medio currently has 4 people certified as Paramedics.
El Medio’s firefighters have been highly trained, including completing college level courses. The firefighters attend training whenever possible and if there isn’t money in the budget, they will pay for it themselves. The firefighters are motivated to improve their skills and knowledge to better serve the community.
Per the Chief, “It’s the volunteers, who are the backbone of the department and have kept it going all these years.” El Medio’s volunteers staff the station, drive the engines and respond to calls. Retired volunteers, some of who gave 25 – 30 years of service to the department, still stop by the station to interact with the present staff. The Chief has, “some green rookies” that just came on board to start their careers in fire service. The Grand Jury heard testimony from firefighters throughout the County that El Medio has been the training ground for many career firefighters.
The majority of calls that any fire department responds to are for medical assistance. The department also responds to other types of calls such as, fire suppression, false alarms, Hazardous Materials (Hazmat) and community service. El Medio responded to 1,600 calls for assistance in 2003, 1,178 calls in 2004 and 975 calls in 2005. El Medio noted a decline in the number of calls responded to between 2003 and 2005. Lack of
E-39 THE BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY: 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
funding caused a reduction in the size of the department, which forced them to cut back on services.
Community Service
The El Medio Fire District has a representative who sits on the South Oroville Improvement Committee. The Fire Chief and the firefighters host tours for school kids, the Grand Jury and anyone else who wants to learn about the fire station. The firefighters will go to local homes for the physically and mentally challenged to talk about fire safety and show the fire equipment. El Medio performs safety programs at all 3 schools. They use a small trailer that looks like a house, to teach the kids what to do in case of a fire. El Medio also provides safety programs for local churches, Cub Scout, Boy Scout, and Girl Scout troops.
In the past, El Medio’s firefighters have responded to calls for help in other communities and states when a disaster has occurred. Recently when Hurricane Katrina hit the southern United States, some of the firefighters volunteered time away from their families to go to Louisiana and help out the flood victims.
Budget
The 2002 – 2003 Butte County Grand Jury Final Report noted that El Medio had a budget deficit of about $11,000, resulting in reduction of staff and services. At the November 2002 election, Measure I was put on the ballot to increase the District’s per parcel assessment rate from $60 to $120 per parcel. That increase would have funded the deficit and enabled El Medio to increase its budget, upgrade equipment and add additional full time paid staff. The measure failed by 26 votes.
The Board of Directors approved the fiscal year 05–06 budget for $398,000, which includes $270,00 for salaries including benefits. The preliminary budget for fiscal year 06-07 is projected at $440,000. Funding for the department comes from several sources. The district receives approximately $150,000 from assessment fees and $100,000 from property taxes, for an approximate total of $250,000. It receives $25.00 per vacant lot; $25.00 per unimproved acreage up to the first 5 acres and $1.00 for every additional acre. The balance of the money comes from grants, donations, fund raisers and fees charged for false alarms and costs incurred for intentionally set fires.
The district receives donations from local sororities, churches and fund-raisers, such as bake sales. El Medio uses their 1986 water tender named, “Slow But Sure” to fill swimming pools for a fee. All this money is used to repair or purchase equipment.
Currently the Butte County Planning Department is in process of resolving the issue of collecting impact fees on new construction or the possible formation of Community Facilities Districts (CFD). This would increase funding to the district when new construction starts on a few proposed, large subdivisions.
E-40 THE BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY: 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
Grants
El Medio has been very proactive in applying for and receiving grants. New equipment such as “Jaws of Life,” turn-outs, self-contained breathing apparatus and wild land fire fighting gear were purchased from grant money received from the State of California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS), the Assistance to Firefighter Safety Grant (AFG) and from Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
In 2004 the district received a grant from the Local Indian Gaming Grant Committee for $52,000 for new equipment and in 2005 it received $134,000 for staffing. Again this year, El Medio applied for and was awarded $288,075 for additional full-time firefighters. In 2005 it was awarded $109,000 from the AFG which was spent entirely on safety equipment and in 2006, received $74,000 for an Air and Light Trailer to be used for nighttime incidents to enhance Firefighter safety. The $30,000 OTS grant was used to purchase a set of extrication equipment.
Equipment
El Medio’s equipment combines both old and new. In 1980, the district obtained the areas first “Jaws of Life,” a large, heavy tool still used today when needed. However, it has been replaced by a new, smaller, lighter, and easier to use “Jaws of Life.”
The fleet of district vehicles consists of: • 1962 American La France Type II fire engine • 1977 Ford Type III (wild land) fire engine • 1986 water tender named, “Slow But Sure” • 1996 Type II fire engine • 2006 command vehicle • 2007 Type II fire engine, (being built)
In 2005, the district spent $35,000 in repairs to the fleet. This prompted the decision to replace the 1996 fire engine with a new one. Currently, the 1996 Type II fire engine is considered the, “first out” engine. This engine will be replaced by a brand new $300,000 lease / purchase Type II fire engine in 11 months. The 1996 Type II engine will then become the, “second out” engine. The Chief said the firefighters, “used the equipment, not him” so he had the staff get together, decide on what they needed and “build” the new fire engine. The Chief actually had to add a few items because the firefighters didn’t want, “to ask for too much.” The Chief plans to sell / auction-off the other old engines or donate them to a needy Fire Department in Mexico.
The district is fortunate to have a local mechanic who can perform maintenance and repair the equipment. He is called when a problem arises and is usually available to fix the problems immediately. This saves money on having to send the engine out for every repair.
Auto Aid Agreement E-41 THE BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY: 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
El Medio used to be a member of the Oroville Automatic Aid Agreement. Budget deficits caused reduction in staff and services forcing it to withdraw from this agreement. The district plans to enter into a new Automatic Aid Agreement with Oroville Fire Department and Butte County, California Division of Forestry (CDF), starting on July 1, 2006. Under this agreement, all three agencies participating in the Agreement will be dispatched simultaneously. The closest engine to the incident will respond, regardless of jurisdiction. This will decrease response time and increase service to those in need. Presently, El Medio responds only when called-out, even though it may be the closest fire engine to the scene.
Weed Abatement
A May 2004 report prepared by Emergency Services Consulting Inc. for the Butte County LAFCO, criticized El Medio’s weed abatement program, specifically with respect to its handling of an abandoned olive orchard. The neglected orchard is one of many owned by a man who lives out of the area. The district takes the position that it is working with the owner to gate the property and clean it up. The Fire Chief feels their weed abatement program is, “very aggressive and effective.”
The report also criticized the district for not having a Prevention Officer. The Fire Chief and his staff have been performing these duties, but as of July 1, 2006, the district will have a full time Prevention Officer assigned to health and safety, weeds and garbage.
Commendation
The members of the Grand Jury who toured the station and talked with the firefighters were impressed at their skills and knowledge. Every piece of equipment was demonstrated and the functions of the apparatus were described so that even a lay person could understand. The firefighters were professional, neatly dressed, and enthusiastic about demonstrating to the Grand Jury, the skills and abilities needed to be a firefighter.
Conclusion
The 2002 – 2003 Butte County Grand Jury Final Report expressed concerns for public safety due to a budget deficit causing reduction in staff and services. In reviewing El Medio Fire Protection District, the current Grand Jury found the district has made many improvements towards providing service to the community, thereby alleviating concerns for public safety.
It does not have a new, state-of-the-art fire station, but the station currently serves the needs of the district. The district has increased its full-time paid staff thereby increasing services to the community. It has upgraded and maintained its present equipment and purchased new equipment, as funds became available. They have addressed their weed abatement program and hired a Prevention Officer. The record keeping system E-42 THE BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY: 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
and manuals may need to be updated, but this does not prevent the district from functioning efficiently. They are mostly a volunteer fire department; however this does not imply their training and qualifications are below standard. Some of the firefighter’s medical training exceeds that of other similar public safety agencies. They participate in advanced training and are constantly improving their skills. There is always room for improvement, but the El Medio firefighters are clearly qualified to serve the needs of the District and beyond.
Findings None
Recommendations None
Response Required (Penal Code § 933 & 933.05) None
E-43 THE BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY: 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
FEATHER RIVER RECREATION AND PARKS DISTRICT
Reason for Investigation
On April 1, 2006, the Grand Jury became aware of what appeared to be significant problems within the Feather River Recreation and Park District (FRRPD) when the “Oroville Mercury-Register” newspaper reported the sudden resignation of two of the District’s Board members. This occurred at a special meeting of the District on March 30, 2006. At the same meeting, the FRRPD’s attorney asked that the Board hire a new attorney to replace him. As a part of it’s oversight mandate, the Grand Jury began an in depth investigation of the FRRPD.
Background
The FRRPD is the largest geographical, Special District in Butte County, encompassing 735 square miles and covering most of Supervisorial District 1. The FRRPD serves more than 50,000 people in southeast Butte County. The FRRPD is charged with providing both recreational opportunities and park facilities for the residents of Oroville, Bangor, Palermo, Thermalito, Honcut, Forbestown and Berry Creek.
The FRRPD has traditionally received income from a variety of sources including: • Property taxes • Benefit assessment tax • New development impact fees • Recreation and facility usage fees • Community donations • Bond funds
Additionally, the FRRPD has received very large sums of money from the state, in the form of Proposition 12 and Proposition 40 funds. The FRRPD is now sharing in grants from the State Department of Water Resources (DWR), to address deficiencies caused by the building of Oroville Dam in the FRRPD. These DWR grants will, in time, amount to millions of dollars and may be matched by water contractors throughout the State, such as the Metropolitan Water District and Kern County Water Agency.
A five member Board, elected for staggered four-year terms, governs the FRRPD. The Board appoints a General Manager. The Board members have a fiduciary responsibility to the public. That is to say, the Board members have been entrusted by the public to protect the FRRPD from any acts that might force it into dissolution or bankruptcy. Each Board member serves on several internal two-member committees.
These committees are: • Park and Recreation • Finance • Personnel • Capital Development E-44 THE BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY: 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
For a number of years, some people in Oroville tried to promote a skateboard park. Interested parties included those who wanted to remove the skateboarders from downtown Oroville and those who had a genuine interest in the sport. Testimony from Board member, Mr. Thompson, stated that numerous people in the community pushed for a skateboard park and raised money for a design. The City and the FRRPD made a joint study and developed plans in the late 1990’s, but the location and the problem of insuring the activity put the plans on hold. The plans were revised when the Piatzek Property adjacent to Bedrock Park, on the Feather River, was designated as a potential site. State park bond monies (Proposition 12 and 40) became available and the FRRPD decided to take another look at the proposed project.
A volunteer committee, led by the FRRPD Board member Mr. Thompson, with support from Oroville City Council member Mr. Robert Sharkey, volunteered to raise money for the initial plans for a skate and bike park. The FRRPD contracted with landscape architects for the design of a complete package. This package was to cost not more than $35,300. About $12,000 of this was raised in donations and the FRRPD authorized payment of the remaining balance on December 8, 2004.
Investigation
The Grand Jury interviewed the following individuals: • Three elected Board members remaining after March 31, 2006: John Allen, Monique Gurr, and L. Vene Thompson • Two elected Board members who resigned on March 30, 2006 • A former attorney for the FRRPD • The General Manager for the FRRPD until his retirement November 30, 2005 (MGR1) • The Interim General Manager for the FRRPD from December 1, 2005 to March 8, 2006 (MGR2) • Robert Sharkey – The FRRPD Park Maintenance Superintendent for 10 years and park “Project Manager” and additionally after March 30, 2006, Interim General Manager and Board secretary as well as recently resigned member of the Oroville City Council • Licensed General Contractor and Owner of Altman General Engineering (ALT), responsible for building Bedrock Skate and Bike Park • A Partner/Owner of Land Image Landscape Architects (LIL), responsible for the design of Bedrock Skate and Bike Park • Gordon Andoe, Oroville City Mayor • William Connelly, Butte County Supervisor, District 1 • A CPA and licensed forensic auditor (CPA) • David Houser, Butte County Auditor / Controller • Butte County’s Internal Auditor, (AUD) • Dick Puelicher, Butte County Treasurer • Michael Ramsey, Butte County District Attorney
E-45 THE BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY: 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
• Six present or former employees of the FRRPD
Mr. Thompson and Mr. Sharkey were each issued a subpoena by the Superior Court to appear before the Grand Jury. Mr. Thompson, however, was later ordered to appear and show cause by the Superior Court because he did not comply with the subpoena, failing to appear to produce documents. The Superior Court ordered him to appear the next day before the Grand Jury and provide documentation.
The Grand Jury reviewed numerous contracts and purchase orders, read volumes of descriptive material and reviewed accounting and audit materials. The Grand Jury read the FRRPD Board of Director’s Handbook and used the Internet to review California Code covering a number of areas. The Grand Jury also reviewed documentation received from True Ride, a company that provides skateboard ramps, Tri Counties Bank and Bank of the West.
Mr. Sharkey told the Grand Jury that the FRRPD was trying to be, “transparent” and provide needed information. One day, however, four members of the Grand Jury had to wait for an hour in his conference room to get a simple, one-page phone directory for the District’s staff and Board. Toward the end of the hour, Mr. Sharkey told the Grand Jury it was time for his staff to go home but, since the Grand Jury members did not move, Mr. Sharkey finally had a copy made of the requested directory.
On other occasions, the Court issued subpoenas at the request of the Grand Jury as well as a Court order requiring the FRRPD to turn over copies of audiotapes of Board meetings, Board minutes and budget documents. Some tapes were missing but were explained as a mechanical malfunction in the Boardroom following MGR2’s departure. Many of the Board minutes supplied for the first part of 2006 were unsigned.
Board Philosophy and Inadequacies
Several times Mr. Thompson has expressed a philosophy that would have projects begin before funding is available. In spring 2006, this philosophy seemed to be accepted by a majority of the Board. Two examples of this are shown below: • “After many years of discussing the possibilities of building a skate and bike park for the youth of Oroville, I believe it is time to do so. - - - -The amount of funds needed to go to bid for construction is estimated to be $350,000. - - - - I have heard it many times, that the District is not capable of completing this project or will never build this park. It has been over 10 years and it is finally time to show this community that we can do it!” — Memo, Mr. Thompson to MGR1 on 12/01/04. (Exhibit 1) • •“MGR1 stated that he was playing ‘devil’s advocate’ and asked what will happen if the money does not come through. ------Chairman Thompson answered by stating that he appreciated MGR1 playing ‘devil’s advocate,’ but felt that he needed to take faith and live on faith once in a while. He stated that he had been in many situations where bills were coming due and the money came through. He stated that sometimes in life, one has to take
E-46 THE BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY: 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
the step, have faith that it will be there, and not worry about the peripheral things, but just move forward, rather than trying to hold things back. He stated that once that is done, the money would be there.” — The FRRPD Board minutes of 5/11/05. (Exhibit 2)
Bedrock Skate and Bike Park
The investigation focused on the Skate and Bike Park because this was a project for which the FRRPD spent money it did not have.
The contract with LIL for the design and development of Bedrock Skate and Bike Park included 7,500 square feet of concrete bowl complex and 12,000 square feet of open area for future modular ramps. It included a spectator viewing area, screening and irrigation for all landscape areas, signs, fencing and a parking area. (Exhibit 3)
The cost projected by LIL for this first phase was $350,000. On December 8, 2004, the Board allocated $344,000 of Proposition 40 money for the construction of the Park and approved going out to bid for the project. (Exhibit 4) LIL completed the engineering drawings (via a subcontract with an engineering firm) and sent the plans out for bid. On April 7, 2005, LIL gave the District an estimated cost, including additional alternatives and work done by the District, of $595,000.
On June 8, 2005, the Board found that bids had not been received for the first phase of the project. The Oroville City Attorney (not the District’s own attorney) advised the Board that they could act as their own contractor if they approved it by a 4/5 vote. The Board voted 5/5 to do so. (Exhibit 5)
The Board apparently did not recognize that Public Contract Code § 20815.1 (a) which says: “All contracts for new construction estimated to cost in excess of twenty five thousand dollars ($25,000) shall be let to the lowest responsible bidder after competitive bidding.” Public Contract Code § 20815.3 (b) says: “In its discretion, the Board of Directors may do any of the following: (3) by a four-fifths vote, elect to construct the building, structure, or improvement by force account.” (Exhibit 6) “Force account” has been defined (by the courts) as: “work done where the owner acts as his or her own contractor and hires out the work of the various artisans involved on a rate per hour or other basis of measurement. It is an accounting principle that distinguishes the costs of a public agency employing a labor force to perform work as opposed to contracting with an outside business to perform the same service.” (Exhibit 7)
The FRRPD asked LIL how they could get the work done. LIL replied it would submit the original plans to some of the known builders of skate parks and ask for open bids. This was done, and ALT proposed doing the bare essential, Phase I work, for $212,365. This excluded other contracted work arranged by the FRRPD with a local firm for earth moving, trenching, providing soil, etc. The FRRPD staff did some limited site preparation work. On September 5, 2005, a contract was agreed upon between the FRRPD and ALT for the initial Phase I — Mr. Thompson and Mr. Sharkey signed for the
E-47 THE BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY: 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
District although the Board minutes do not show that it ever approved the contract. (Exhibit 8) Thus, the FRRPD may have violated the Public Contract Code; it allowed the work to be done by general contractors without open competitive bids. It departed from the Board agreed-upon concept of “force account” which would have the work done by the FRRPD’s own work crew.
On November 8, 2005, Mr. Sharkey signed a “change order” to Phase I to change the color of the concrete in the park’s bowls. This increased the cost by $13,700.00. Again, there is no record of Board approval for this expenditure. (Exhibit 9)
On January 9, 2006, ALT agreed to amend Phase I, at an additional cost of $185,510, to include entry columns, retaining walls for the raised spectator area, a handrail for the handicapped, footings for a shade structure, drinking fountains and a decorative fence on one side. The original plan did not have a shade structure because shading was to be provided by trees. Mr. Thompson and Mr. Sharkey signed the Phase I amended contract. (Exhibit 10) Neither audiotapes of the Board meetings nor approved, printed minutes for those meetings reveal any motion to approve the amended Phase I contract with ALT.
A Consent Calendar item on the agenda for the FRRPD Board meeting on January 11, 2006 (item 9H) to approve allocation of remaining available funds from Bond act 2000 and 2002 to Bedrock Skate and Bike Park. There is no indication in the consent calendar of how this allocation was to be utilized. (Exhibit 11) The Grand Jury heard conflicting testimony from the Board members regarding any specific purpose for this allocation.
On February 20, 2006, the FRRPD Board voted to begin Phase II of the Bedrock Skate and Bike Park. A contract was signed, without going to bid, with ALT in the amount of $232,493 for Phase II of the project. (Exhibit 12) This contract included an entry sign and bench, remaining cement flat work, a bike rack, landscape and irrigation, a shade structure, 9 trees and sod. To reduce the cost, park maintenance crews of the FRRPD agreed to install a commercial driveway, handicap parking markings, and a 6-inch curb. The shade structure was not a part of LIL’s original design, because trees were in the plan. Trees, however, would not provide immediate shade. Mr. Sharkey, therefore, asked LIL to include a shade structure for Phase II. LIL provided the plan, specifications and the name of a vendor for the added shade structure within Phase II at no additional charge. (Exhibit 13)
The Grand Jury learned, through testimony, that the FRRPD provided ALT with the specifications for the shade structure and the name of the company that made it. The testimony revealed that without going to bid, ALT paid about $52,400 for the shade structure and passed the cost on to the FRRPD in Phase II. The Grand Jury questioned why there was no competitive bid process for the shade structure.
In summary, the FRRPD may have violated the Public Contract Code requirements by failing to go to bid on contracts totaling more than a half million dollars, as described
E-48 THE BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY: 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
above. A licensed forensic auditor, CPA, reported that the only available money to pay for the Park was $424,000 from State Proposition 40. The balance would have to come from previously allocated accounts in the District or some other unknown source. (Exhibit 14)
The Grand Jury ultimately determined that only a few people use the Park. Testimony was received that only 25 to 40 skaters per day use the park. At the time of the Grand Jury’s own visit, after public school was out, only 15 bikers and 5 skaters were observed. The Grand Jury questioned spending over $900,000 for the entertainment of so few. The above attendance numbers don’t compare with the large attendance main- line sports, such as softball and soccer, would generate.
Skate and Bike Ramps
The purchase of the skate and bike ramps has been difficult to track. We were able to establish the following facts concerning the purchase of the skate and bike ramps:
• No one claimed responsibility for ordering the ramps • An unsigned Purchase Order was found • On February 15, 2006, a letter from MGR2 to ALT indicates that Mr. Sharkey stated that ALT had ordered the ramps through True Ride • In talking to ALT it was stated he had no involvement in the ramps because it was not part of his contract • Mr. Sharkey told the Grand Jury in sworn testimony that MGR2 had initiated the purchase of the ramps • In sworn testimony from MGR2, the Grand Jury was told that she hadn’t ordered the ramps, but ALT had, per Mr. Sharkey • This Grand Jury obtained from True Ride a Purchase Order dated, February 10, 2006 signed by Bob Sharkey (Exhibit 15) • At no time has Mr. Sharkey admitted he ordered the ramps or signed a Purchase Order.
A purchase order was issued under Mr. Sharkey’s signature on February 10, 2006, to True Ride for $168,669. This covered the purchase, shipping and installation of the ramps in the Park. There is no indication of Board approval or any bid process.
On March 10, 2006, a memorandum from office staff reported the ramps would be delivered on March 14, 2006. The direct questioning by the Board quoted below demonstrates an appearance that Mr. Sharkey mislead them about the status of the ramps: • Item 10 C of the March 8, 2006 minutes states: “The Board still has not seen the contract for the ramps. - - (Mr. Sharkey) was asked if the ramps would be ready for the grand opening on April 7, 2006?(sic) Mr. Sharkey replied yes. Direction was given by the Board to Mr. Sharkey to do what he could to put a hold on the ramps. Mr. Sharkey stated he would call the contractor and get back with the Board.” (Exhibit 16) E-49 THE BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY: 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
• Item 8 A of the March 22, 2006 minutes states: “Discussion was made about trying to hold off on the ramps. Mr. Sharkey stated again that he was given direction to order them but would call to see if they could hold them.” (Exhibit 17) • On April 6, 2006, the Board voted to approve the purchase of the ramps (minutes - item 6-C). (Exhibit 18)
Insurance for Skate and Bike Park
Over the years it has been difficult to build a joint FRRPD / City skateboard park due to the difficulty of getting adequate liability insurance. On March 8, 2006, after the skate and bike park was nearing completion, the FRRPD Board recognized the need for insurance and initiated a review. At the Board meeting (Items D and E), the Board discussed the liability exposure issues regarding the Park. It was concluded that “Capri’s (joint powers insurance) approval is needed and they may have their own requirements. Mr. Sharkey was instructed to contact Capri and get a time line for inspection.” Further “discussion noted that the insurance carrier may have their own rules and Mr. Sharkey stated there would be rules made by Capri.” (Exhibit 16)
Testimony from Capri revealed two rules required of skateboard parks: • An inspection by Capri • Full compliance with California Health and Safety Code § 115800 on the opening of the Skate and Bike Park.
The California Health and Safety Code, section 115800, governs the operation of unsupervised skateboard parks. (Exhibit 19) It reads: § 115800. (a) No operator of a skateboard park shall permit any person to ride a skateboard therein, unless that person is wearing a helmet, elbow pads and kneepads. (b) With respect to any facility, owned or operated by a local public agency, that is designed and maintained for the purpose of recreational skateboard use and that is not supervised on a regular basis, the requirements of subdivision (a) may be satisfied by compliance with the following: (1) Adoption by the local public agency of an ordinance requiring any person riding a skateboard at the facility to wear a helmet, elbow pads, and knee pads. (2) The posting of signs at the facility affording reasonable notice that any person riding a skateboard in the facility must wear a helmet, elbow pads, and knee pads and that any person failing to do so will be subject to citation under the ordinance required by paragraph (1). (c) “Local public agency” for purposes of this section includes, but is not limited to, a city, county, or city and county. (d) This section shall become operative on January 1, 2008.
E-50 THE BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY: 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
The joint powers insurance held by the FRRPD requires that this section of the Health and Safety Code be observed when the park is opened despite the fact that the code section is not applicable until January 1, 2008.
Personnel and Office Matters
Morale in the FRRPD office has significantly declined since the beginning of 2006. This has not been helped by the turnover in Managers. Mr. Sharkey is now the second Interim General Manager since December 2005. The rapid promotion of Mr. Sharkey from Park Supervisor to General Manager has caused consternation to the office staff. In interviews with office staff, comments were made about Mr. Sharkey such as: “cross him and you’re out” and “convincing conniver.” About half of the staff that was in the office when Mr. Sharkey was promoted have either been let go or have resigned. The Grand Jury has heard in testimony that some office staff feel that Mr. Sharkey has used fear, intimidation, increased workloads and derogatory references to create a stressful work environment as ways to terminate an employee or cause them to resign.
In testimony, the Grand Jury was told that Mr. Sharkey told an employee that she “was cursing the District and was going to cause it to be cursed forever.” She was stunned and took offense when he further stated, “I don’t believe someone like you who calls herself a Christian would behave this way.”
Mr. Sharkey has justified many changes and actions he’s undertaken in the office by saying, “The Board directed me” or “I only do what the Board tells me to do.” Testimony from the FRRPD Board members, however, showed that the Board had not always directed Mr. Sharkey to do so.
After moving to the front office, Mr. Sharkey removed all of the staff office doors. This has made personnel training and some phone conversations difficult. It has eliminated some security for sensitive documents. As employees told the Grand Jury, “what next?”
Testimony was received from a number of people that the FRRPD office area is in disarray. There is no up-to-date Personnel Policy and Procedure Manual. Files are scattered and critical information requested by the Grand Jury could not be found. Minutes and audiotapes of Board meetings, which are required to be kept permanently, cannot be found. Similarly, contracts and legal papers are scattered. In the past, Mr. Sharkey kept contracts and other documents in the maintenance office rather than the front office where they would be available to the general manager (MGR1) and Board members. Personnel records are not always under lock and key. Older materials have been boxed and stored in the attic, with no record or label of the box contents. Money has been kept in a locked file cabinet.
A Performance Audit has never been held by the FRRPD. Such an audit would ensure that its office practices are correct and that all government codes are being met. The audit would determine if standard operating procedures exist and are being followed. It would verify that money and monetary records are handled, accounted for and secured
E-51 THE BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY: 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
in appropriate manners. It would reveal whether or not important documents, such as contracts, are signed for and secure. It would determine whether copies of critical documents and computer files are stored off site for contingency purposes and whether such storage is secure and current.
The Board of the FRRPD has not seemed knowledgeable about the use of Grant Funds. The movement of money from one project to another gives the appearance of these bond / proposition (12 & 40) monies being spent more than once.
An apparent conflict of interest appeared to exist when Mr. Sharkey was on the Oroville City Council and was asked to vote on joint projects with the FRRPD, at the same time he worked for the FRRPD as Project Manager. The FRRPD had asked the City to share in some costs for projects that would be supervised by Mr. Sharkey. Having an employee serving as an elected official on another public agency, or even as an appointed commissioner for another agency can give the appearance of conflicts of interest.
The Board Chairman is an ex officio member of each of the internal committees. If he / she or any other member of the 5 member Board would attend a meeting that 2 other Board members were present, they would be in violation of the Brown Act, since there would be a majority of the Board in attendance. The Grand Jury was told that on one occasion three members showed up for a meeting with Mr. Puelicher, but a Brown Act violation was avoided by the Chairman’s recognition of the situation.
Creative Financing
In the spring of 2006, financial pressures began to become acute for the FRRPD, as a result of spending over $900,000 for a Skate and Bike Park originally estimated to cost $344,000. In response to this, it appears as if Mr. Sharkey and the FRRPD Board of Directors resorted to creative financing to maintain an acceptable cash balance.
Each year, the County requires the FRRPD to have its books “balanced” by the last Monday in April. For at least the last 5 years, the FRRPD has had, “dry periods” and has been unable to pay all of its bills. As a result, the County Treasurer has had to cover the FRRPD for various amounts during the period from July 1 through the last Monday in April. In the past, the County Auditor / Controller’s office has written to the FRRPD advising the District of the need to manage its finances. (Exhibit 20) This request somehow did not reach the FRRPD Board. Members of the Board stated they were unaware that it had been the practice for the FRRPD to have its checks covered by the County during “dry periods.” In testimony, it was learned that some the FRRPD personnel thought the County was actually, “giving the money” to the FRRPD without requiring reimbursement. (Exhibit 21)
The FRRPD had been attempting to raise money for a number of years through the sale of the FRRPD real estate. The FRRPD attempted to sell a large piece of land on Nelson Avenue for over $1,000,000.00, but the sale fell through when the intended
E-52 THE BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY: 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
major occupant withdrew its support. A 2-acre parcel is now in escrow, with a selling price of $50,000.
On April 6, 2006, the Board approved borrowing $1,000,000 from Tri Counties Bank to be used for the bills already incurred. (Exhibit 18) It chose Tri Counties Bank because it had previously made a relatively small loan from that bank. Tri Counties Bank, however, after thoroughly reviewing the situation, declined to make the loan. Government requirements and regulations for loans to public agencies made the legality of such a loan questionable.
As the last Monday in April approached, the situation was becoming critical for the FRRPD. ALT submitted a bill to the FRRPD for payment for work completed on the Skate and Bike Park for $224,000. The Grand Jury was told that the FRRPD could not pay the bill and meet payroll as well. Mr. Sharkey asked ALT to provide financing for the balance owed. Mr. Sharkey took a ”promissory note” to ALT, made out for $224,000.00, with interest at 8% and a due date of 12 months and then asked ALT to sign the note. Testimony revealed that ALT needed the money, but needed even less to go to court and take possession of the park in lieu of payment. ALT agreed to sign the note in early April 2006. The legality of this transaction is questionable in regards to putting a lien on public property, as provided for in the promissory note. The note said the, “Loan Documents shall be construed under the laws of the State of Florida.” (Exhibit 22)
With the ALT debt covered, the FRRPD turned its attention to raising more money elsewhere to cover its debt. On April 12, 2006, the Board approved making a loan not to exceed $1,000,000 from Bank of the West. This loan would be for $500,000 in cash and $500,000 as a line of credit. On May 26, 2006, Bank of the West granted the loan to the FRRPD, which used its impact fee income as collateral. The loan is amortized over a 10-year period. The Bank apparently was unaware of or did not take seriously the Government Code, cited below, which requires repayment from the funds received during the fiscal year in which the loan is executed. (Exhibit 23)
Government Code Section 53852 and 53854 govern how the FRRPD can make loans using their “Impact Fees” as collateral:
§ 53852. “On or after the first day of any fiscal year a local agency may borrow money pursuant to this article, the indebtedness to be represented by a note or notes issued to the lender pursuant to this article. The money borrowed may be used and expended by the local agency for any purpose for which the local agency is authorized to use and expend moneys, including but not limited to current expenses, capital expenditures, investment and reinvestment and the discharge of any obligation or indebtedness of the local agency.” (Exhibit 24)
§ 53854. “Any note issued under this article may be negotiable, may be payable to order or to bearer and may be in any denomination. Such note shall be payable not later than the last day of the fiscal year in which it is issued; provided
E-53 THE BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY: 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
that such note may be made payable during the fiscal year succeeding the fiscal year in which issued, but in no event later than 15 months after the date of issue, when such note is payable only from revenue received or accrued during the fiscal year in which issued. Such note may bear interest not to exceed 10 percent per annum, payable as provided therein. Such interest may be represented by coupons attached to said note.” (Exhibit 25)
The FRRPD has been involved along with other Butte County entities in discussions with the State of California regarding the relicensing of Oroville Dam. At the conclusion of these negotiations, the Department of Water Resources (DWR) agreed to make funds available to these entities to cover, in part, the expenses they have borne for the state having the Dam in place. The portion, which will be awarded to the FRRPD to provide recreation and park facilities on the Feather River, will amount to millions of dollars. The DWR has already been making grants to the FRRPD for the construction of River Bend Park. Testimony revealed that the FRRPD’s Board is counting on some of these monies to cover its present indebtedness.
At the end of this review, the Grand Jury had many questions about the business practices of the District. As we were finishing this report, we received a communication from a former District employee, who had contacted Butte County Administration to notify someone that the Grand Jury had not interviewed her. In her message to us, she stated, “I hope that the grand jury has had the opportunity to examine the public Board minutes during the period from June 2003 through December 2005.
As the District Secretary, I endeavored to accurately report the public meetings that Feather River Recreation and Park District had. My board minutes were detailed and were prepared as summary minutes. Both myself and Scott Lawrence (then District Manager) were involved in the preparation of the minutes. The minutes were taken in written form and cassette recordings of the public meetings were made. Cassette tapes of the Board meetings were kept within the locked safe closet. I recall at one of the District Board meetings, I personally received positive comments from City Manager Sharon Atteberry regarding my ability to take those minutes, and she stated to me that she enjoyed reading them.
I'm not sure that the grand jury has been given an opportunity to review the minutes. I believe there may be considerable information provided on matters you are currently investigating with regard to the District.
Chairman Vene Thompson disliked my summary minutes. The former District Board (comprised of Sonny Brandt (Chair), Amelia Jennings, Veron (sic) Carter, Vene Thompson, and Gerald Phillips) had requested that the minutes be reduced in size, but to my knowledge had not requested action minutes during my tenure. It is my opinion that there was an effort by Vene Thompson and the current District Board to limit its exposure to the public by limiting the amount of information I provided in the minutes.
E-54 THE BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY: 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
So much so, that in the last set of minutes in November and December 2005, very little information was provided. You can see this by cross-checking the agenda items with the minutes, where no information was provided in the minutes on what led up to the actions taken by the Board, only that an action was taken. The department reports (toward the end of the minutes) were reduced to "Mr. Lawrence gave a report. Ms. Sousa gave a report. "After Mr. Lawrence was no longer with the District, the District Board hired Interim District Manager Ruthie Heuton. I worked for her through the end of December, and the first week in January before leaving the District for another job. During my time with her, she had made a statement to me that she intended to talk to the Board about discontinuing the public tape recordings of the Board minutes. She questioned why the Board minutes were published on the District's website at www.frrpd.com and commented that the mailings to those in the community who had requested agendas, minutes, or both, would also be discontinued. Beyond this, Ms. Heuton had commented that she intended to talk to the Board about other matters in closed session beyond those items that are allowed to be discussed in closed session because it was better for her to talk to the Board while they were all together. She felt it was easier than speaking to them on an individual basis and would avoid any awkward discussion during the public session of the meetings.
I believe that there is an effort underway by the current District Board to force the resignations of existing employees in an effort to "clean house." After Scott Lawrence resigned, the following administrative employees resigned: Roberta Sue (district secretary); Ron Jones (recreation coordinator); Paddy Sciortino (accounting supervisor); Judy White (payroll technician), Heather Mello-Kamra (recreation supervisor),and there may be others that I am not aware of.
I hope this information has been both helpful and useful in the ongoing investigation of Feather River Recreation and Park District and the District Board, itself.
I believe the Board's questionable actions have had a significant impact on the financial stability of the District, their "steamroller" treatment of employees has brought about numerous resignations, and their excessive indulgence in the day-to-day operations has put the District at risk--creating a disservice to the Oroville community.”
Findings
1. The Board of Directors of the Feather River Recreation and Parks District (FRRPD) appears to have violated its fiduciary responsibilities by mishandling public funds. 2. The Project Manager, Mr. Sharkey, appears to have acted independently on a number of occasions, avoiding or ignoring legal and/or policy restrictions for expenditure of monies that may have been set by the Board. A copy of a purchase order exists, signed by Mr. Sharkey, for $168,000. Mr. Sharkey told the Grand Jury, in testimony, that his maximum authorization is $1,000 but the Grand Jury has been unable to find any Board action authorizing any specific level of expenditure. Mr. Sharkey purchased the ramps for the Skate and Bike
E-55 THE BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY: 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
Park without the knowledge or approval of the Board until after they had been delivered. 3. The FRRPD does not have an updated Personnel Policy and Procedure manual. 4. The FRRPD, by contracting with outside firms, may have ignored the legal definition of “force account” contracting and the legal requirements of Public Contract Code Section 20815.3. 5. A review of the official minutes for the FRRPD shows no discussion or vote to approve the Phase I contract. No amendment to the contract for Phase 1 of Skate Bike Park is reflected in the minutes of the Board of the FRRPD. It was not discussed or approved in written or audio records of the meetings. 6. The FRRPD spent more than $900,000 to complete the Skate and Bike Park, but the only revenue allocated for this was $424,500. The FRRPD decided to borrow money from outside sources to make up the deficit. 7. It appears that the Board of the FRRPD has not been knowledgeable about the allocation or usage of Proposition 12 and Proposition 40 monies (Grant Funds). 8. Testimony indicates that only a relatively small number of the FRRPD residents benefit from the more than $900,000 Skate and Bike Park. 9. The turnover of employees in the FRRPD office suggests a pattern of stressful work environment. 10. There is no organized filing system. Important documents are scattered between the main office and the maintenance office and stored documents are in boxes in the attic and unlabeled. Personnel and financial documents are not always secured. 11. Divided loyalties appeared to exist when Mr. Sharkey was on the Oroville City Council and voted on joint park projects with the FRRPD while working as Project Manager for the skate and bike park. 12. The FRRPD should ensure that the conditions of its joint-powers liability insurance for the Skate and Bike Park have been met. The City of Oroville, per State Code Section 115800 as required by the insurance carrier, should pass an ordinance requiring users of the Skate and Bike Park to wear helmets, knee and elbow pads. 13. The current Capri Joint Powers insurance policy prohibits the FRRPD staff from supervising activities at the skate and bike park.
Recommendations
1. The General Manager should have a working knowledge of financial and administrative issues. The General Manager of the FRRPD should be the only employee reporting to the Board. His / her authorization to sign for any purchase in excess of $1,000 would require Board approval. 2. The Board needs to further develop comprehensive and clear Personnel Policy and Procedure Manual. 3. The Board needs to develop a comprehensive Purchasing policy to include the required levels of signature authority. 4. The FRRPD should have its own attorney present at any discussions of financial impact or contractual obligation.
E-56 THE BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY: 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
5. Follow the California State laws regarding “Force Accounting” 6. All contracts and expenditures in excess of $1,000 should be approved by the Board and recorded in detail in the Board’s minutes. 7. The FRRPD should not borrow money for projects in excess of its ability to repay the loan within its fiscal year. For example, notes signed before July 1, 2006, must be repaid with moneys received in the fiscal year 2005-06. (California Government Code Sections 53852, 53854.) Projects with inadequate funding should not be undertaken. 8. The General Manager should regularly update the Board on the allocation of Grant monies and how they are being spent. 9. In making plans for new recreation facilities, the Board should attempt to provide services that will meet the needs of children, adults and seniors in the FRRPD. 10. The General Manager should ensure that a harmonious work environment exists in the FRRPD office. 11. The Board should contract for a Performance Audit. 12. No employee of the FRRPD should be an elected official for any other public agency where divided loyalties may exist because of joint participation in mutual projects. 13. The City of Oroville needs to pass an ordinance consistent with the Joint Powers Insurance requirement to comply with the California Health and Safety Code § 115800 requiring users of the Skate and Bike park to wear helmets, knee and elbow pads. • As required by its liability insurance, the FRRPD should ensure that none of its staff give directives regarding safety procedures and requirements to users of the Skate and Bike Park.
Responses Required (Penal Code § 933 & 933.05) Feather River Recreation and Park District Board of Directors Oroville City Council Butte County Treasurer Butte County Auditor / Controller
E-57 THE BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY: 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
2005/06 Butte County Grand Jury Final Report The Butte County Auditor-Controller
The Butte County Solar Project
PART I--THE OFFICE AND STAFF E-2 ADDENDUM: BUTTE COUNTY HUMAN RESOURCES E-17 PART II--AUDITING THE AUDITOR AND HIS AUDITORS E-24
THE BUTTE COUNTY AUDITOR-CONTROLLER: 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
The Butte County Auditor-Controller – Part 1 The Office and Staff
Reason for Investigation
The Butte County Grand Jury initially chose to investigate the Auditor-Controller’s office in order to understand the role that the Auditor-Controller’s office has in the purchase of large capital investments such as the recent solar panel project. Background
The responsibility of the Butte County Auditor-Controller is to provide each County department with an annual budget based on yearly property tax revenues and to record and maintain departmental adherence to spending of funds. Additional services that are provided include bi-annual billing of property tax statements and payroll services for County employees. The Auditor-Controller’s department is responsible for setting taxation rates based on the provisions of the Jarvis-Gann amendment and utilizing the marketplace value of the property set by the Butte County Assessor’s office. This responsibility formerly resided with the Butte County Board of Supervisors.
According to the organizational chart dated 12/1/2005, the Auditor-Controller’s organization is budgeted for 36 positions distributed throughout five departments of which 17% (6 of 36) are vacant. The five departments within the Auditor-Controller’s office are: • General Accounting / Cost Section • Staff Support and Special Projects • Accounts Payable and General Ledger • Administrative Services (Payroll) • Property Taxes In order to obtain a balanced perspective of the Auditor-Controller’s department, the Grand Jury interviewed 22 employees, some as many as three times. We also interviewed financial analysts from several of the largest County departments, in addition to the former Assistant Auditor-Controller of Butte County, the County Administrator and several of his deputies.
Butte County Auditor-Controller
The qualifications for the position of Auditor-Controller as stated in the Codification of General Ordinances of Butte County California, Section 2-140 are: No person shall hereafter be elected or appointed to the office of county auditor of the County of Butte unless: (a) [S]He possesses a valid certificate issued by the California State Board of Accountancy under the provisions of chapter 1, division 3 of the Business and Professions Code showing him/her to be, and permit him/her to practice as, a certified public accountant or as a public accountant; or
E- 2 THE BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY: 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
(b) [S]He possesses a baccalaureate degree from an accredited university, college, or other four-year institution, with a major in accounting or its equivalent, as described in subdivision (a) of section 5081.1 of the Business and Professions Code; (c) [S]He possesses a certificate issued by the Institute of Internal Auditors showing the person to be a designated professional internal auditor, with a minimum of sixteen (16) college semester units, or their equivalent, in accounting or finance; or (d) [S]He has served as county auditor, chief deputy county auditor, or chief assistant auditor for a continuous period of not less than three (3) years. This section shall not apply to any person duly elected or appointed as a county auditor and actually serving as such officer on the effective date of this section; and such person shall be deemed to be eligible to hold, and to be re-elected to, said office, notwithstanding the provisions of this article. (Ord. No. 2728, 1-10-89; Ord. No. 3382, 1- 13-98)
The Auditor-Controller is not a high profile position within the County and most taxpayers only become aware of him after receiving a property tax statement in November and March of each year. The current Butte County Auditor-Controller, David Houser, has held the position since 1991 and ran unopposed in the June 2006 election.
The Grand Jury first met with the Auditor-Controller on September 12, 2005 to get an overview of his department and to obtain perspective of the fiscal health of the County. He told us that the current county annual budget is $311 million of which only about 12 percent comes from property tax revenues. A much larger portion of the annual budget is derived from Department of Motor Vehicles taxes. He did state however that with the aggressive building growth going on in the County that property tax revenues increased by 10 percent in the last year. However, his concern was that the additional growth in revenues has not led to an increase in any new programs for the County, but has simply allowed the County to stay even.
The Grand Jury was interested in Mr. Houser’s qualification for his position. He stated that he had received a Masters Degree in Business Administration from the University of Eastern Kentucky. He is not a Certified Public Accountant.
Mr. Houser believes that he is doing the best possible job with the amount of resources available to him. The Grand Jury was curious to find out how the Auditor-Controller received performance evaluations. His response was “I am reviewed only by the citizens of Butte County.” The Auditor-Controller is a position that typically offers a candidate the benefit of running without opposition or scrutiny from the voting public or the media.
At the time of our first interview with Mr. Houser the Grand Jury asked if he had intentions of seeking a fifth term in office to which he responded that he was undecided. We discovered in testimony from employees during the same week that Mr. Houser had indeed decided to run and had already announced it to the department.
As previously stated, the Grand Jury interviewed 22 employees from the Auditor- Controllers department, in addition to employees and former employees from E- 3 THE BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY: 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
departments throughout the County. In each interview, we asked the employees and former employees to provide feedback on the Auditor-Controller. We began to see a pattern of what we considered less than exemplary conduct by any department head whether in government or the civil sector.
In most of our interviews, we heard testimony that the current Auditor-Controller only makes “cameo” appearances in the office during a typical month. Testimony revealed that Mr. Houser may be found in the office one to two days a week, but typically on the days when he is not in the office no one including the Senior Administrative Assistant who performs the tasks of an office manager, will know where he is or how to contact him should the need arise. Mr. Houser testified that he has a cell phone, and “email seems to work”. Although in later testimony, many witnesses said that once Mr. Houser had announced his plans for re-election he was in the office more often than before. When Mr. Houser was asked in a subsequent interview about how often he was in the office, he testified under oath that he was probably in the office “less” recently because of his requirement to attend legislative meetings in Sacramento. One long time former employee testified, “David Houser cared more about his job and the County in his first term”. The annual salary for the Auditor-Controller is $116,969.
The Auditor-Controller’s office has a higher than average turnover rate in comparison to other departments in the County. Since August 2002, the office has experienced a 54% turnover consisting of 10% resignations, 10% promotions out of the department, 10% retirements, 2% reassignment, and 22% lateral transfers from the department. According to many of the long time employees working in the Auditor-Controller’s office, the office typically has been understaffed and this high level of personnel turnover comes at a great cost to the taxpayers of Butte County.
David Houser has been described by most witnesses as a man who does not communicate with his employees unless he needs a piece of information or if the employee has done something wrong. He has been described by the former Assistant Auditor-Controller and a Deputy Administrator, as well as several other employees, as condescending to his staff and consistently putting down their abilities. Employees report that on several occasions, Mr. Houser has screamed at employees in full view of the entire office. One employee testified Mr. Houser will “slam the door in your face” when he is angered. Many of the female employees that testified indicated that Mr. Houser treats women disrespectfully. A former long time female County employee testified that Mr. Houser shunned her and refused to speak to her for taking time off of work for stress related issues until she agreed to withdraw her Worker’s Compensation claim. Another employee testified, under oath, to having a heart attack on the job. Upon her return to work, this employee testified, “Mr. Houser instructed me to provide a note from my doctor saying that I would not have another heart attack on County premises.” The Grand Jury did not receive a written copy of this instruction.
The Grand Jury asked employees of the Auditor-Controller’s office to describe the environment of the office. We did not interview a single employee who did not say that the morale in the office was terrible and many dreaded the idea of returning to the office
E- 4 THE BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY: 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
each day. One employee testified, “I would just like to come to work and not have to fight all of the time,” and the former Assistant Auditor-Controller testified, “It amazed me that the employees even came to work every day having to deal with that environment”. When asked what could be done to change this, one employee stated, “Just treat everybody the same.”
Retaliation against employees who speak up is not uncommon, so employees have learned to keep their mouths shut. One employee testified that retaliation from the Cost Section Supervisor (CS) is very typical especially if you make her mad. While the County strongly discourages any form of retaliation, the Auditor-Controllers office operates autonomously, applying County policies on an uneven basis with regards to their employees. Testimony from a Human Resources (HR) analyst was, “Not talking to an employee is a form of retaliation”. According to testimony however, HR took no action in the shunning of the former employee previously discussed. We learned later that HR has little or no authority with regard to elected officials.
The Auditor-Controller’s department policies are inconsistent and vary from one employee to the next depending on where the employee stands in favor with Mr. Houser. Employees were asked to provide the Grand Jury with a policy manual for the department and it could not be produced. Many employees of the department spoke of the department policies, yet none had ever seen a copy of the policies and procedures manual to use as a reference. As one HR employee testified and reaffirmed in other testimony, “An elected official attitude exists at all times in the Auditor-Controllers office.” One Deputy Administrator stated it another way, “It is David Houser’s way or the highway.” Finally, one former employee that worked in the office for over fifteen years testified, “I am personally ashamed of David Houser as a County official. He does what he does, because he can.” The arrogance of the Auditor-Controller’s “You can’t touch me” attitude has spread to some of his management staff who believe they are exempt from County policy.
The Grand Jury asked each witness we interviewed to describe the management style of the Auditor-Controller. One Deputy Administrator testified, “The Auditor-Controller does not need to be a CPA, but does need to be a strong manager. Unfortunately, we have neither.” Numerous employees testified that it is difficult to get things done in the department due to a lack of leadership. When asked for their evaluation of the Auditor- Controller’s office, both the County Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) and the former Assistant Auditor-Controller responded similarly by stating, that the Auditor-Controllers office is an area of grave concern and that there is questionable competence at all levels of the department. The former Assistant went on to testify, “There is little to no supervision or direction within the Auditor-Controller’s department. David Houser likes and nurtures a chaotic and argumentative style.” One long time employee testified that people in the Auditor-Controller’s department have stopped believing that anything is going to change the conditions in the department.
The Auditor-Controller’s Staff
E- 5 THE BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY: 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
Organizationally, the responsibility for running the office in the absence of the Auditor- Controller falls to the Assistant Auditor-Controller. The current Assistant has been with the County for a little more than 18 months and previously had no experience with governmental accounting practices. The result is an inability to answer specific questions from employees or other County departments without consultation with either Mr. Houser or the CS Supervisor. Testimony from one County financial analyst, and confirmed in other subsequent testimony, suggests that the Assistant will not do anything unless he talks to one of these individuals. Since David Houser is reported to be difficult to reach this responsibility falls to the CS Supervisor. One Deputy Administrator testified that the Assistant Auditor-Controller does not have the ability to lead and another County official testified that the Assistant is constrained in his ability to make things happen in the Auditor-Controller’s department. One manager testified that the Assistant “needed to get a backbone”, and another employee said that after eighteen months in his position the Assistant Auditor-Controller “needs to learn his job”.
The Grand Jury learned later in our investigation that the Assistant has been known to play mean spirited practical jokes on employees. It was reported that the Assistant Auditor-Controller in conjunction with the newly hired Finance Officer decided that it would be fun to completely envelop an employee’s car with tape, so much so that the employee was unable to enter the vehicle without great difficulty. The note, which was attached to the driver’s window, is provided below:
“YOU ARE PARKED ILEGALLY!! IN ORDER TO NOT HAVE FURTHER HUMILIATION PLACED UP YOURSELF (OR YOUR CAR), PLEASE DO LIKE EVERYONE ELSE AND………………………………. LEARN TO PARK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (sic)
The employee who was subject to this treatment had worked late into the evening and when approaching the car was not amused but rather felt intimidated, harassed and quite fearful. The following morning, the employee approached the Assistant Auditor- Controller to ask about his knowledge of the previous night’s events. At first the Assistant feigned no knowledge of the “joke”. The employee went on to inform him of the inappropriateness of a manager observing such action without intervening. The Assistant Auditor-Controller failed to understand the seriousness of the event and began to laugh while the employee continued. At this point, the employee asked the Assistant how he would feel if a similar “joke” had been played on his wife while she worked late, especially if there were disgruntled former employees, as was the case here, with access to the parking lot. He stated to the employee, “She would probably laugh it off and she certainly wouldn’t be working that late anyway.” It was only when this employee told the Assistant that the matter was to be turned over to an investigator that the Assistant Auditor-Controller admitted that both he and the Finance Officer were responsible for the “joke” and that he had written the note. (The employee believes that due to the grammatical errors in the note it was more likely written by the CS Supervisor and not either the Assistant Auditor-Controller or the Finance Officer.)
E- 6 THE BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY: 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
During our investigation we interviewed the auditing firm responsible for the annual review of the County books. During testimony from the Senior Auditor (SA) of the firm, the Grand Jury learned that one of the first questions posed by both the Auditor- Controller and the Assistant Auditor-Controller was why there weren’t any men on the team. The SA further went on to testify that during her many months of work at the County, the Assistant Auditor-Controller was “constantly trying to push my buttons.” When asked to compare the current Assistant Auditor-Controller with the previous Assistant, the SA testified, “With the previous Assistant we were able to get things done quite readily. The current Assistant can’t put the pieces together.” According to the Butte County Website, prior to the recent increases to County salaries, the salary for the position of Assistant Auditor-Controller ranges from $73,424 to $98,410 annually.
The CS Supervisor who in her own testimony “performs many of the responsibilities of the Assistant Auditor-Controller” is described in multiple testimony as “extremely bright”, but very “abrasive” with staff. She frequently displays anger toward employees of all departments. Testimony from the former Assistant Auditor-Controller indicates that David Houser has witnessed the CS Supervisor verbally berating employees and condones it by not intervening on the employee’s behalf. A former employee of the department testified “several of the department supervisors have reported the CS Supervisor’s behavior to management, but nothing ever gets done. This has been detrimental to the morale in the office and is not conducive to a healthy environment”. Testimony from several employees said that the CS Supervisor is extremely insubordinate to both the Assistant Auditor-Controller as well as the Auditor-Controller. She is known to use extremely vulgar language in both conversation and email when referring to Deputy Administrators in the CAO’s office and other County employees. This supervisor, in her spare time, is a member of the Sheriff’s Posse. In testimony, we heard that she likes to make it known to other employees that she has a concealed weapons permit and regularly wears a Sheriff’s Posse jacket into the office. It should be noted however, that the Grand Jury contacted an investigator with the Butte County District Attorney’s office who checked with the Butte County Sheriff’s department and could find no such permit.
The Grand Jury heard testimony from one former employee of the CS Supervisor stating that she had needed to go to the hospital to spend time with her dying mother. She said the CS Supervisor followed her to the hospital to make sure that her “mother was really dying.”
Several employees testified that that the CS Supervisor has come into the office with the odor of alcohol on her on several occasions. One witness testified that the CS Supervisor attended a meeting with David Houser, the Assistant Auditor-Controller, and a Deputy Administrator where the Supervisor appeared to be inebriated and was slurring her words. An employee testified that they went to HR the following day with their concern but was told by HR “You should have told us about that yesterday.” Both the Auditor-Controller and Assistant Auditor-Controller confirmed in later testimony that they had observed this behavior and had suspected the CS Supervisor was possibly under the influence of something, but neither had confronted her.
E- 7 THE BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY: 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
Several of Mr. Houser’s employees testified to the Grand Jury that the CS Supervisor had been the subject of a sexual harassment complaint and subsequent investigation by the County. An analyst in the HR Department who was described by the Director of HR as an “expert on medical issues” conducted the investigation. According to testimony from the Assistant Auditor-Controller, he had a discussion with the analyst approximately two weeks after the alleged incident. In his discussion, the Assistant was made aware of the complaint and told by the analyst, “I don’t think that there is much to it, but I will do an investigation”. Based on the results of the HR investigation it was determined that the evidence was not conclusive enough to take any action. However, the HR Analyst testified that he believed that harassment had occurred, but was unable to substantiate it through an eyewitness. There was a person, who stated in sworn testimony to the Grand Jury, that he/she was an eyewitness to the harassment but did not come forward because he/she was concerned about retaliation. In documents received by the Grand Jury, Mr. Houser stated that he “did not believe the allegation and was more concerned that the CS Supervisor was going to be upset”. These documents do not state the Assistant Auditor-Controller’s position as to the veracity of the claim but do reveal that he too was concerned that the CS Supervisor was going to be “upset”.
In testimony from the former Assistant Auditor-Controller, the Grand Jury learned that the CS Supervisor was the intended recipient of a series of emails from a former Deputy Administrator that were not only derogatory but also possibly threatening to a former Assistant Auditor-Controller. The former Assistant, through an error by the sender, unintentionally received a copy of this email. This exchange turned out to be the “final straw” for the former Assistant who immediately tendered her resignation. In her resignation letter to David Houser (See Exhibit 1) the former Assistant listed several things that she saw as needed to improve the department, including the need to deal with the CS Supervisor regarding her attitude and ethics. This former Assistant was described by many in their testimony as “the Best Thing to Ever Happen to Butte County”. While the Grand Jury believes that appropriate action was taken with the former Deputy Administrator no investigation was conducted with respect to the CS Supervisor.
Testimony from employees both inside and outside of the department describes the environment as a very hostile working environment and identifies the source of hostility as David Houser and the CS Supervisor. The Grand Jury began to be concerned for the safety of the employees of the Auditor-Controllers office. As a result of the previous testimony, the Grand Jury requested a meeting with the District Attorney, the Director of Human Resources and County Counsel. We discussed our concerns and requested guidance on how to proceed. It was decided that HR would initiate an external investigation of the Auditor-Controller’s department under the direction of County Counsel. This investigation will be discussed in the section titled Independent Investigation of the Auditor’s Department.
E- 8 THE BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY: 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
Employees within the Auditor-Controller’s department have stated a fear of violent backlash from their superiors. The County maintains that retaliation will not be tolerated but the Grand Jury is concerned about potential retaliation to County employees as a result of this report. One concerned employee went to the HR department to consult with them on an issue he/she was having with the CS Supervisor. When he/she returned the CS Supervisor told him that he/she would not be paid for his/her time and required the employee to deduct thirty minutes from his/her timecard. When another employee went to HR on another issue regarding the CS Supervisor, Mr. Houser told her that she was wrong for going to HR and that she was to have her issue dealt with internally, within the Auditor-Controller’s office. Testimony revealed that while the Auditor-Controller’s department does not have a written policy about keeping personnel matters in house, employees are admonished to not go outside with their issues. When asked if this was part of the policies & procedures manual, one witness testified, “David Houser is not foolish enough to put that into writing”. A former long time employee was reprimanded by Mr. Houser for going to HR after observing a loud and physical altercation between the CS Supervisor and another employee. In order to keep everything “in-house” one employee testified that if a disciplinary action is to be taken with an employee, Mr. Houser typically will wait until Friday afternoon at 4:45 p.m. so that a union representative cannot be called to participate.
After listening to a great deal of testimony about the work environment in the Auditor- Controller’s office, the Grand Jury wanted to know the County’s position regarding harassment in the workplace. The Director of HR, who when asked, provides guidance to management on disciplinary actions, stated that the County takes harassment issues very seriously. Management employees are required by state law to attend sexual harassment training. In fact the CS Supervisor attended the AB1825 training on August 30, 2005 (mandatory sexual harassment training for supervisors). According to one HR employee, the CS Supervisor did not participate in the training in that she sat with her arms crossed, looked out the window and did not engage in the group scenarios.
Doing Business with the Auditor-Controller’s Office
One of many concerns that the Grand Jury heard in early testimony was the Chief Administrative Officer’s (CAO) office was attempting to bypass the Auditor-Controller’s office when going through the contracts approvals process. Much of the testimony related to the County’s recent purchase of solar power. The Grand Jury wanted more information so we interviewed financial analysts from several of the County’s larger departments, including the CAO’s office. The specific details of these interviews will be covered in Part 2 of this report.
The Grand Jury interviewed a Deputy Administrator in the CAO’s office to discuss his experiences with the Auditor-Controller’s department. This Deputy Administrator has served in the role as CAO and Assistant CAO in other similarly sized counties as well as an Assistant Auditor in another county and has worked in Butte County for the past four years. We were interested in his perspective of the Auditor-Controller’s office.
E- 9 THE BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY: 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
The County fiscal year runs from July 1 through June 30 and while there is no mandatory date for release of final budgets to the County departments, it is typical for final budgets to be distributed in the September timeframe. However, as of our interview date on January 6, 2006, departments in the County still had not received final budgets for FY2006. In his testimony, the Deputy Administrator expressed his frustration with the County budget process and the length of time that it takes to get a final budget. As a result of these delays County business is delayed and financial losses to the County are incurred. The Deputy Administrator further testified that trying to set up a meeting to discuss these frustrations is extremely difficult as Mr. Houser is seldom in the office.
One of the issues that we heard in early testimony was that the CAO’s office was intentionally attempting to bypass the Auditor-Controller’s office in the review of contracts being entered into by the County. The Grand Jury asked the Deputy Administrator if this information was true. He testified that the CAO’s office is not required to obtain approval for contracts executed by the County. County ordinance states a contract will be forwarded to both the Auditor-Controller’s office and County Counsel for review and would consider the input from both departments prior to executing the contract. However, he went on to testify that there have been times when the contract reviews took so much time in the Auditor-Controller’s office that the contract was processed anyway.
The Deputy Administrator testified to spending much more time with the Auditor- Controller’s department than in any other county where he has worked previously and having to provide leadership in the department because the Auditor-Controller does not. The financial managers of several of the largest departments in the County all confirmed this testimony. While not providing specific figures, one County Program Manager stated that the conflicts in the Auditor-Controller’s department have an actual cost to the County. A finance manager from one county department testified that more than 25% of their time is spent resolving issues and problems with the Auditor- Controller’s office. A former Assistant Auditor-Controller testified, “The Auditor- Controller’s Department is truly a hurdle to other departments.”
The Grand Jury learned that many contracts sent to the Auditor-Controller’s office for review are being delayed by many weeks and have caused the County to lose certain financing opportunities. Testimony from the Assistant Chief Administrative Officer (ACAO) suggests that the CS Supervisor and some of her staff are viewed as obstacles in this process. If they don’t agree with the contract, nothing will happen with it. The ACAO went on further to state that the CAO’s office is trying to stop the Auditor- Controller’s department from trying to set policy on contracts, as policy setting is not their role. She said, “The Auditor-Controller’s office should only be validating the source of money availability and not setting policy”. When asked the question David Houser testified, “We do not set fiscal policy, but simply support existing set policy”. One County financial manager outside of the Auditor-Controllers department testified that the Auditor-Controller’s Department will not work with you and they micro-manage everything submitted to them. She said, “Why can’t we manage our own budgets and
E-10 THE BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY: 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
have the Auditor-Controller just audit. It’s frustrating working here in the County. It doesn’t feel like we are a team.”
Errors are very common in the Auditor-Controller’s office. Many believe that this is attributed to high turnover, lack of training and poor morale. One County financial analyst stated, “People down there just don’t care.” In fiscal year 2000-2001 the District Attorney’s office accounted for $100,000 worth of errors in the Auditor-Controller’s office and while not providing specific detail stated that the number is much larger now. Many of the errors relate to grants that the County is seeking for which they do not get paid unless the errors are corrected. The problem has become so great that many of the large departments in the County must keep a separate set of books in order to maintain a real and accurate sense of their own budgets. Employees testified when asking the Auditor-Controller’s office to explain procedures which did not exist in writing, they are told to “mind their own business.” Employees in other departments appear to receive minimal information in response to their inquiries regarding the Auditor-Controller’s procedures. The fact that departments have to maintain a separate set of books greatly concerns the Grand Jury as this provides a breeding ground for potential fraud issues.
Much of the problem according to witnesses is the lack of effective management and the lack of training. Training is mostly non-existent in the Auditor-Controller’s department; no one is cross-trained so others can’t do an employee’s job when vacation or sick leave is used. Many of the employees in the Auditor-Controller’s office have been with the County for many years and earn many weeks vacation annually. The Assistant Auditor-Controller testified that most training in the Auditor-Controller’s office is “OJT” (On the Job Training).
Testimony from a County financial manager outside of the Auditor-Controller’s department stated that the Assistant Auditor-Controller is very ineffective. Most communication is via email since “nobody in the office answers his or her phone.” The Assistant will simply forward the message to the CS Supervisor or the Auditor-Controller and respond to the caller that one of them will call back. “The Assistant has been here long enough that he should be able to deal with these issues himself,” stated one department finance manager. When asked about the relationship between their own department and the Auditor-Controller’s office one financial manager stated, “It is good given current expectations. Should the expectations be higher? Yes.”
Timekeeping in the County
In 2004, Butte County began an implementation of the KRONOS time keeping system (Time Keeping System). The purpose of the system was to allow the County to track the time of employees while accurately billing specific project for time worked. The system was intended for at least daily input of the actual hours worked, while eliminating the frequent need to revise payroll records. When used as designed, the timekeeping system allows the employee to record arrival in the office and departure for the day, and other features detailed in part 2 of this report. The County is now in the final stages of this implementation and has begun to see some of the rewards of the system.
E-11 THE BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY: 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
One of the forces behind the implementation of the system was the Auditor-Controller’s office. The Grand Jury found it puzzling why some Auditor-Controller office employees were not using the system in a method for which it was designed and why there was not an accurate reporting of actual hours worked.
In order to substantiate the previous testimony, the Grand Jury obtained the payroll time sheets for each employee of the Auditor-Controller’s office for a three-year period. Some of the records reviewed, reflected time keeping from the previous manual system. What we found was a pattern of inconsistency for some employees.
In the Cost Section Department, the Supervisor and some of her staff do not input their time until the last day of the pay period or later. According to testimony and confirmed by the data, the CS Supervisor arrives into the office late but charges the County for the time that she is not there. Timecards for employees are submitted to the Assistant Auditor-Controller for approval prior to being sent to the office manager for validation and then forwarded to payroll. In testimony by the former office manager about a previous pay period, time on the submitted timecard was inconsistent with the manual monitoring done by the office manager. This information was presented to the Assistant Auditor-Controller. Despite being informed of the inaccuracies of the data, rather than investigate and correct the discrepant time record, the Assistant Auditor-Controller told the office manager, “Sign it. I signed it so you sign it.”
The Grand Jury found discrepancies on the reporting of vacation and sick leave. One employee had taken time off under the terms of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). This employee was described by the CS Supervisor in her testimony as “a problem employee”. This employee according to testimony was not allowed to take vacation time even though she had the time on the books because she did not provide adequate notice and therefore was not paid for a subsequent holiday. However, the CS Supervisor was allowed to call in and take a vacation date despite the fact that she had no sick leave or vacation time on the books and was paid for the holiday. The Assistant Auditor-Controller approved this time off. Soon after the Grand Jury interview with the Assistant, testimony from payroll employees indicate that there was a mad scramble by the CS Supervisor and the Assistant to correct the inconsistencies on the CS Supervisor’s previously submitted time cards.
Testimony from several employees state that this “problem employee” is required to obtain a note from a medical doctor each time that she calls in to use sick leave. However, no such requirement has been made for the CS Supervisor or another of her employees despite both employees having similar absentee and tardiness records. Testimony from other employees indicates that this employee has been not invited to department meetings due to “trust issues.” According to testimony, this employee is sternly admonished by the CS Supervisor and docked the time when she arrives into the office late. However when another employee in the department is tardy they are not corrected at all and are allowed to work overtime to make up the time.
E-12 THE BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY: 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
In another example of the disparity in the rules, testimony revealed the CS Supervisor was allowed to submit and use Voluntary Furlough after she had called in sick on a number of occasions and had utilized all of her remaining sick and vacation time. Use of Voluntary Furlough requires following a procedure established by the County. However, in this instance the CS Supervisor was allowed to bypass this policy. The use of Voluntary Furlough does not provide compensation but allows the employee to continue accruing benefits and leave accruals versus non-compensated time that does not. Upon asking why procedure had not been followed, David Houser responded that he was not aware that there was a proper procedure until after the occurrence. This testimony is in conflict with other testimony indicating that Mr. Houser was informed in a presentation by the payroll department over a year ago and in a memo to David Houser dated December 4, 2005 that the Grand Jury received discussing this exact issue with Mr. Houser.
In testimony from two different employees, the Grand Jury learned that each had called in at the last moment requesting vacation leave. The Assistant Auditor-Controller approved both requests. However, learning of this information the CS Supervisor reversed the decision of her manager and both employees were not compensated for their time off for not following proper procedure.
Independent Investigation of the Auditor-Controller’s Department
As the Grand Jury was becoming increasingly concerned about the work environment of the Auditor-Controllers office we concluded that we needed to seek outside counsel and guidance. We requested a meeting with County attorneys and presented our findings to date.
Our concerns were based on the testimony of many witnesses from both inside and outside of the Auditor-Controller’s office. In our meeting, we made the County aware of our concerns of the alleged activities within the Auditor-Controller’s office. Specifically our concerns related to the following issues: • Potential hostile work environment • Allegations of workplace violence • Retaliation against employees • Inconsistent time tracking • Failure of the department to investigate employee harassment and/or violence • Employees under the influence of intoxicants
On February 8, 2006 the Grand Jury met with the Butte County District Attorney, Butte County Counsel and the Director of HR. At the conclusion of this meeting, the County through the Director of HR authorized to fund an outside investigator at a cost to taxpayers of approximately $17,000. The investigation would be conducted under the direction of County Counsel in order to protect the confidentiality of the investigation.
The County elected to hire a local investigator experienced in these types of investigations. This investigator, a former Butte County Chief Investigator for the
E-13 THE BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY: 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
District Attorney’s Office is very familiar with County operations and many of the people that it employs. The Grand Jury was not sure if this familiarity would help or hurt the investigation as many employees stated a high level of mistrust in County management.
It is the Grand Jury’s understanding that the investigator interviewed every employee in the Auditor-Controller’s office including several employees that had transferred or had retired, some multiple times. The Grand Jury issued a subpoena and obtained a court order to receive a copy of this report for our review. However, we are unable to cover the specifics of this report due to attorney/client issues and privacy rights of the employees.
The Grand Jury reviewed the report and found that the investigator substantiated much of what the Grand Jury had learned during our investigation, including the suspected lack of credibility of one of the witnesses in the Auditor-Controller’s office.
Findings 1. The current Assistant Auditor-Controller was hired without any background in government accounting practices resulting in delays and deferment of decisions and policy setting to a department supervisor. It is not apparent that he has any supervisory or management skills. He consistently relies on a lower level supervisor to make his decisions and set policy and procedure for the office. 2. Lack of management skills of the Auditor-Controller and the Assistant Auditor- Controller has led to an antagonistic work environment where employees are fearful for their safety/well being. 3. Treatment of employees in the Auditor-Controller’s office is frequently inconsistent with Butte County Personnel Rules and MOUs. 4. The Auditor-Controller is seldom available to employees or other County officials. The Grand Jury believes that when the Auditor-Controller attempts to resolve an issue, his lack of familiarity with his office’s processes and policies often exacerbates the problem. 5. The Auditor-Controller sometimes manages employee situations with sarcasm and derogatory comments about his employees. Several of his subordinate managers have adopted his management style as their role model for management by intimidation. Additionally, the hostile behavior is undermining the County’s ability to do business on a daily basis as the anger and hostility disseminates into communications with other County departments. 6. The Assistant Auditor-Controller and Finance Officer initiated and participated in a juvenile and mean spirited prank on an office supervisor, which clearly was demeaning and made the supervisor feel threatened. This type of behavior is unprofessional and unbecoming a member of a management team. 7. Multiple testimonies suggest that the Cost Section Supervisor may have come to work with the odor of alcohol on her person on several occasions. To date no action has been taken regarding this behavior. Ignoring this behavior puts the department’s employees in danger and puts the County of Butte at risk. 8. The Cost Section Supervisor has demonstrated unprofessional and unacceptable behavior towards various county employees.
E-14 THE BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY: 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
9. As a result of the Grand Jury’s investigation into alleged behavioral issues within the Auditor-Controller’s office, the County initiated a comprehensive investigation of the issues. As a result, the County is considering several additional training programs for their managers and line level staff. 10. Problems found by the Grand Jury in the Auditor-Controller’s office should not have reached the level observed. It is apparent that the Human Resources department has limited authority when dealing with departments of elected officials.
Recommendations
1. The Board of Supervisors should utilize the Chief Administrative Officer and his Deputy Administrators to organize a public hearing to discuss possible options for a ballot initiative proposing one or more of these potential solutions: a. Eliminate the Auditor-Controller position completely b. Separate the positions of Auditor-Controller, where the Controller acts as a Chief Financial Officer (CFO) reporting to the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) c. The Auditor-Controller position remains intact with a higher level of accountability to the taxpayers. 2. The County needs to take immediate and appropriate action to eliminate the dysfunction of the management staff of the Auditor-Controller’s office, to include training and disciplinary action up to and including termination of employment. Should replacement of employees be chosen, the County needs to insure that candidates strictly meet the job qualifications for the job to which they are applying. Solving the problems with management, in this Grand Jury’s opinion, would take care of a majority of the personnel problems in the department. 3. Butte County has spent nearly $1,000,000 to implement a time keeping system to insure accurate timekeeping and to control payroll costs. Procedures should be implemented and steps should be taken to not allow an employee to record time worked on any day other than on the day worked, without approval from the department head and the CAO’s office. 4. Elected officials should set an example for their employees and make himself available to his employees during working hours. Elected department heads should record their hours worked for public record. 5. The County should take immediate action to insure that all managers of departments in the County attend and participate in a series of mandatory training sessions as defined by the HR Department. Managers should be required to complete all training within one year and department heads should be held accountable to insure successful completion. 6. Each employee of the Auditor-Controller’s office should be provided with a copy of the Butte County Personnel Rules in order to fully understand their rights as employees of Butte County. 7. The Butte County Board of Supervisors and CAO should empower the Human Resources Director to assert the same authority throughout all County departments.
E-15 THE BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY: 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
Responses Required Butte County Auditor-Controller Butte County Chief Administrative Officer Butte County Board of Supervisors Butte County Director of Human Resources
E-16 THE BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY: 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
AUDITOR-CONTROLLER ADDENDUM: BUTTE COUNTY HUMAN RESOURCES
Reason for Investigation
During the course of our investigation of the Butte County Auditor-Controller, the Grand Jury became concerned about the involvement and participation of Butte County’s Department of Human Resource (HR) in various personnel issues. We heard testimony from some of the employees of the Auditor-Controller’s office that they believed that complaints lodged with HR were being leaked back to their managers which resulted in retaliation for conversations and complaints lodged with HR. These employees believed that complaints to the HR Department were not properly or completely investigated.
Background
The Butte County Human Resources Department consists of nine staff level employees reporting to the Director of HR and supported by the Assistant Director. Each staff member has a specific area of responsibility in support of the 2300+ employees of Butte County, distributed over nine bargaining units. The HR Department supports the following activities within the County:
• Recruitments • Salary and Benefits • Disability Insurance • FMLA Compliance • Internal Investigations • Training • American’s with Disabilities Act Compliance • Fair Employment and Housing Act Compliance • Equal Employment Opportunity Compliance • Workplace Compliance • Employee Evaluations • Establishment of Personnel Rules & Policy • Memoranda of Understanding Compliance • New hire orientation • Exit interview
Meeting with Human Resource
E-17 THE BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY: 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
During our investigation of the Auditor-Controller’s office, the Grand Jury heard a great deal of testimony from the employees alleging a lack of training, lack of timely performance reviews, forwarding of offensive emails and an inability to go to HR during work hours.
In the event that an employee would go to HR to file a complaint either against a fellow employee or manager, some testimony suggested that the HR Department would alert management of the complaint against them before the employee had the opportunity to return to their desk. While an HR Analyst disputed this claim, he did state that in certain cases HR is required to give the department head immediate notification of the complaint, especially in the case of a harassment incident.
One of the primary issues that the Grand Jury heard in testimony was that the employees of the Auditor-Controller’s office were being prohibited from going to HR for any reason while on County time. Several employees testified that they were either banned from going to HR or had the time deducted from their timecard for the time that they were in HR. Testimony from three different employees suggested that they were admonished by their management upon their return to the office. We had also heard that employees of elected officials were required to work under a set of special rules, devised by the elected official. According to witnesses, the Auditor-Controller has an unwritten policy that all personnel issues are to be kept in-house. An analyst from the HR Department was asked about the county’s position regarding employee HR visits, to which he responded, “An employee cannot be docked for talking to HR during office hours.” According to one witness that provided written documentation that the Cost Section (CS) Supervisor had required them to deduct the time from their timecard, the Assistant Director of HR “did not refute that an employee needed to go to HR on his or her own time” and “suggested that the employee could use vacation time.” When asked if there was an internal policy preventing employees from going to HR during office hours, the Assistant Auditor-Controller responded that if an employee needs to go to HR, he or she only needs to inform himself and their immediate supervisor to insure office coverage in their absence.
Training
During our interviews of the Auditor-Controller’s employees, we heard from several witnesses that training of any kind was denied to the employee during regular office hours. We also heard testimony from employees that approval was rarely given for the employee to take advantage of re-imbursement by the county for outside college courses at Butte College or Chico State University.
Many of the employees of the Auditor-Controller’s office came to their current positions at an entry-level position and salary. Each position consists of seven pay steps for each employee. When the employee reaches the top step, he/she is no longer eligible for pay increases without being promoted to a higher pay grade. If an employee hopes to move up to a new pay grade, experience, and training are a vital part of the process. Training in most cases makes the individual a more valuable employee to the county.
E-18 THE BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY: 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
In our interviews with management personnel of the Auditor-Controller’s office, we discovered that only one employee had attended any management training classes provided free of charge by the County, with the exception of the AB1825 training (mandatory training for sexual harassment), which all management employees are required to attend. With the exception of the AB1825, which is for management personnel only, HR offers six different workshops for all employees regardless of their positions. According to HR, the Assistant Auditor-Controller has not attended any of these workshops, and while the CS Supervisor attended the Discipline Process in FY 2000-2001, she has not attended any subsequent workshops. The attendance data for Auditor-Controller employees that is maintained by the HR department is as follows:
Fiscal Year 2000 - 2001 EEO & Hostile Workplace - 2 Discipline Process - 1 Grievance & MOU Administration - 1 Effective Performance Evaluations - 1 Oral Interview Skills for Managers - 1 Promotion & Transfer Tips - 0
Fiscal Year 2002 - 2003 EEO & Hostile Workplace - 0 Discipline Process - 1 Grievance & MOU Administration - 1 Effective Performance Evaluations - 1 Oral Interview Skills for Managers - 1 Promotion & Transfer Tips - 1
Fiscal Year 2003 - 2004 EEO & Hostile Workplace - 0 Discipline Process - 0 Grievance & MOU Administration - 0 Effective Performance Evaluations - 0 Oral Interview Skills for Managers - 0 Promotion & Transfer Tips - 0
Fiscal Year 2004 - 2005 EEO & Hostile Workplace - 0 Discipline Process - 0 Grievance & MOU Administration - 0 Effective Performance Evaluations - 0 Oral Interview Skills for Managers - 0 Promotion & Transfer Tips - 0
Fiscal Year 2005 - 2006 EEO & Hostile Workplace - 0 E-19 THE BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY: 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
Discipline Process - 0 Grievance & MOU Administration - 0 Effective Performance Evaluations - 0 Oral Interview Skills for Managers - 0 Promotion & Transfer Tips - 0
When asked to compare attendance figures of the Auditor-Controller’s office with other County departments, the HR Director stated, “General County attendance is much higher than the Auditor-Controller’s office. Most of our small departments have already sent a majority of their management employees to at least the series of trainings on evaluations, managing leaves of absence, discipline, and MOU/grievance administration. We get high attendance from the larger departments with many from those departments repeating their attendance on a yearly basis to keep current. This is especially true with the MOU/grievance and discipline workshops. I would say that of the small to moderately sized departments, the ones that we have seen the least attendance would be from the Auditor-Controller, Library, Clerk-Recorder, and the Sheriff. The Sheriff appropriately depends largely on POST trainings.” HR is currently developing a database of attendees by department, workshop, date, classification, and trainer.
We asked the Director what training would be appropriate mandatory training of managers. She responded, for new supervisors and managers the most critical training to orient them not only to foundational expectations of a supervisory position, but also to Butte County practice would be the following HR provided training:
• Partnering for Performance (performance evaluation process and policies) • Managing Absenteeism (how to manage overlapping leaves of absence, various protected leaves, and how all this coordinates with Butte County policy) • Positive Discipline (coaching, counseling and communicating expectations) • Progressive Discipline (imposing formal discipline when coaching counseling and communicating expectations has not been successful) • Non-Discrimination (includes sensitivity training concerning protected characteristics, sexual harassment, and retaliation).
The Director presented this information to all of the County department heads and recommended that these workshops become mandatory for all managers and supervisors, emphasizing the importance of the training as a means of preventing potential lawsuits within the County. According to the Director, this idea was not embraced by many in the group as the general consensus appeared to be that the training should be voluntary in case a department head wanted to send their staff to something else instead (it should be noted however that both the CAO and County Counsel were very supportive of her idea. Dissention was among other department heads and more specifically the elected department heads, that were there). The Director’s argument to the department heads was that 1) Our training is very good; 2) There is no charge to the departments for our training, and 3) Our training is geared specifically to the public sector and even more specifically to the County of Butte
E-20 THE BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY: 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
policies and procedures. To date, the director has not seen an appreciable increase in attendance
Performance Reviews
Each employee from the Auditor-Controller’s office was asked to provide testimony regarding the status of his or her annual performance review. The majority of employees stated that they had not received their annual review for one or two years and some stated as many as five years. Typically the employees that stated this fact were at the top end of their pay grade and therefore were not due salary increases. Many of the employees stated if there is no money connected to the performance, management feels that the review does not have to be done.
The fact that management was not providing timely performance evaluations to employees was of great concern to the Grand Jury. We asked an HR analyst if notification was provided to managers regarding up coming performance reviews and he responded, “Departments are made aware of review dates via an on-line system provided by HR,” however no follow up is made to insure their completion. When we asked the Director of HR how the managers are held accountable for providing performance reviews in a timely manner she responded, “HR will not process salary increases unless reviews have been completed.” During testimony to the Grand Jury by representatives of the Department of Employment and Social Services we learned that they maintain a separate data base to track employee performance reviews, when they are due and when they are processed to ensure all employee reviews are completed in a timely manner.
During conversation with the HR Director, she stated that she considers herself a resource to department’s management personnel. However, in reality, her intervention in any employee matter is strongly discouraged by management of other departments. HR intervention is perceived as reducing managements power over employees, which is illustrated by David Houser ordering employees to keep matters within the department and not to go to HR under any circumstance. The County of Butte’s HR Director is also the Civil Rights Compliance Officer for the County, but we could not find evidence that she has put a vehicle in place to ensure that employees are aware of their rights and responsibilities by requiring mandatory training.
Email in the County
Through the course of our investigation, the Grand Jury was made aware of many inappropriate or offending email sent or received by several employees of the Auditor- Controller’s office. Of the email we reviewed, the most offensive were forwarded by David Houser himself. Certain Auditor-Controller’s employees’ email ranged from vulgar jokes to suggestive pictures.
The Grand Jury believes that these specific emails were in poor taste, inappropriate in the workplace and would be in violation of County policy. We asked the Director of Information Services for a copy of the County policy with regards to email and as of this
E-21 THE BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY: 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
writing, it has not been provided. The Grand Jury reviewed the County’s policy on computer ethics, which we understood should cover email policy, but could not find language that would prohibit inappropriate material in email.
The Grand Jury understands that the County is in possession of an email filtering program which if implemented could prohibit these types of messages from being sent within the County email system, additional software may be needed. We have been unable to determine why the County has chosen not to implement such a program. The reduction in this type of email within the County email system would prevent unneeded liability.
Findings
1. The HR Director notifies each department when a performance review is due, however no follow up is made to ensure that the review ever gets done. One without the other is not effective. 2. Performance reviews are a measurement of an employee’s job performance and a vehicle to groom the employee for advancement or disciplinary action should the job performance decline. Additionally, it suggests ways the employee can stretch and grow to enhance their knowledge and skills. Without performance reviews there is no justification for promotions or disciplinary actions. 3. The County currently could filter inappropriate email between County employees with current software or additional software. This could slow the forwarding of inappropriate or offensive emails. 4. Butte County has insufficient policy to control inappropriate or offensive email between county employees. 5. With the exception of AB1825 training, no other mandatory training exists for County managers. 6. As a rule, employee reviews are not done in a timely fashion. Many Butte County employees who have reached the top of their salary range do not receive annual performance evaluations.
Recommendations
1. The County should make the following classes mandatory for all current management employees and require all probationary managers to attend the following training prior to the completion of their probationary period. Management employees should be required to repeat workshops identified by the HR Department no less than every two years to stay current with Federal and State laws and County policy: • EEO & Hostile Workplace • Discipline Process • Grievance & MOU Administration
E-22 THE BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY: 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
• Non Discrimination Partnering for Performance (performance evaluation process and policies) • Managing Absenteeism (how to manage overlapping leaves of absence, various protected leaves, and how all this coordinates with Butte County policy) • Positive Discipline (coaching, counseling and communicating expectations) • Progressive Discipline (imposing formal discipline when coaching counseling and communicating expectations has not been successful) • Non-Discrimination (includes sensitivity training concerning protected characteristics, sexual harassment, and retaliation). 2. All employees of the Auditor-Controllers' office should be encouraged and allowed to attend all pertinent and appropriate trainings offered by the Butte County Department of HR.
3. HR Department should track attendance of all trainings given and notify departments when the annual participation of supervisors and managers is required.
4. Information Services should install email filtering software on the County email system that automatically filters County employees’ email and insure that all employees are aware of a sufficient, adopted email policy.
5. The HR department should be the de-facto enforcer of County policy and must be empowered by the Board of Supervisors to serve in this capacity. There cannot be special rules for departments of elected officials.
6. The HR department should implement procedures for timely notification to managers of upcoming performance reviews of their employees. Department managers must be held accountable for completion of annual performance reviews, and HR needs to provide follow up with the department before reviews are due.
Responses Required (Penal Code 993 & 933.05) Butte County Board of Supervisors Butte County Chief Administrative Officer Butte County Director of Human Resources
E-23 THE BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY: 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
THE BUTTE COUNTY AUDITOR-CONTROLLER PART II: AUDITING THE AUDITOR AND HIS AUDITORS
Reason for Investigation
Early in the term of this Grand Jury, the Grand Jury received a copy of an audit performed by the State of California reviewing the Butte County Assessor’s standards and practices for setting values on taxable property. The Grand Jury was concerned that many findings of this audit stated that problems identified in another audit performed approximately five years before had not been corrected. It appeared that the county was losing potential tax revenue due to poor practices. As we began our review of the tax collection and distribution process, we became increasingly perplexed and disturbed by symptoms of entropy and evidence of undermining behaviors by the Butte County Auditor-Controller and his top managers in the performance of their duties. We discovered that while Butte County administrators, managers, and employees have had years of training to adopt a “team” model with customer service at the core of its mission, we had begun a review of a distressed organization. Due to the gravity of what we learned working with the Auditor’s office, we did not complete the initial review of Butte County’s tax assessment practices. Rather, our review focuses on the wasted resources caused largely by the Butte County Auditor-Controller; it is our hope that members of the public or a future Grand Jury review the effectiveness of Butte County’s tax assessment practices.
Much of this report discusses issues that require coordination of multiple county departments; all of these departments must work together for Butte County’s finances to be managed properly. One elected official’s complacency has disquieted Butte County government and decisions are being made in the absence of his legally defined role and authority. Butte County’s auditors, officials, and employees have kept their silence to keep the peace; this silence must end now.
Background
Generally, property taxes have three local departments involved in order to safeguard the process. Each department is headed by an elected official as a means of providing checks and balances to the policy and purchasing role of the Butte County Board of Supervisors and Butte County Administration, who are charged with implementation of Board policy. The Assessor’s office determines an appropriate value for taxable property; the Treasurer collects, invests, and in general acts as a bank for the county, while the Auditor-Controller is responsible for processing payments for contracts, services, and payroll, as well as determining and applying consumer price index (CPI) increases to property tax as allowed by law. The Auditor’s office is charged with reviewing contracts before they are executed to ensure a source of funds is encumbered (guaranteed) for the contract and that the payment schedules comply with relevant government codes. We learned that local ordinance only requires forwarding contracts to the Auditor’s office for review, but does not require Auditor approval. Additionally, the Auditor’s office currently maintains the mainframe that runs the
E-24 THE BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY: 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
financial database, Pentamation, and is charged with maintaining the integrity of the data that all county departments rely on for their budgetary needs.
The Pentamation Financial System
As with all organizations, the quality of the work and the environment are predicated on the people employed in the agency. Butte County uses a classification/ merit system to attempt to ensure that employees are working at a level appropriate for their training and skills. The system in place has the potential advantage that communication and cooperation between departments is synchronized with members of various departments coordinating with peers operating at similar levels of authority and training. Many of the concerns we had during this investigation were related to employee misbehavior and poor training. We came to realize that the perceptions of other county departments were largely based on the point of contact within the Auditor’s office. County departments reported somewhat uniform complications with getting timely and accurate answers from the Auditor’s office. We came to believe, after more than fifty interviews and hundreds of hours of work, that there is a lack of skill or accountability at the highest levels of the Auditor-Controller’s department.
The foundations of good accounting, in the modern era, require sophisticated security in facilities, electronic data infrastructure from the Internet all the way down to a consistently enforced database password and login policy, as well as an acceptable computer use policy. More than anything else, good accounting begins with honesty and integrity in employees. Most importantly, generally accepted accounting principles are predicated on the philosophy of “trust, but verify.” The fundamental requirement of verification is the concept of internal controls. Internal controls is a term used in accounting circles that mimics the checks and balances of the divisions of responsibility among the Board of Supervisors, Treasurer, Assessor, and Auditor Controller at a staff level. The controls within the Auditor’s office begin to be established by dividing the staff into five sections: 1) General Accounting, 2) Staff Support and Special Projects, 3) Accounts Payable and General Ledger, 4) Administrative Services (Payroll), and 5) Property Taxes.
The Accounts Payable and General Ledger section issues checks for the County of Butte and is responsible for timely payment of vendors and employees. This section also receives and “books” in funds from the Treasurer’s office for expenditure. The manager of this section has operated for years as the database and security administrator of the Pentamation financial software as well as its mainframe hardware platform and operating system. The Grand Jury has a strong concern over this clear violation of the basic tenants of the concept of internal controls. A person who has taken “Accounting 101” knows that it is not good practice for the person who receives the money to spend the money.
To make matters worse, we heard over and over again that the Accounts Payable manager had complete control of the database that records the transactions. We were told by several county officials that this manager has, and frequently uses, a “backdoor”
E-25 THE BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY: 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
password to “correct” financial transactions (journals) that had already occurred, sometimes as far back as several years earlier. The Director of Information Systems (IS) testified that he knew this was happening and was trying to work through Administration to put safeguards in place. The Director of IS testified that the exploited vulnerability was initially designed as a portal for other types of databases to link into Pentamation, and instructions to use the portal/vulnerability are published on the Pentamation website. According to several witnesses, using this level of access, which essentially gives you all rights to all data within the Pentamation System, generates no discernable history of changes, or overrides, to financial journals. We came to understand that this is a perfect environment for potential fraud.
According to several witnesses, budget numbers and expenditures have been routinely changed after fiscal years were closed and external auditors had completed reviewing Butte County’s books. We were told by several witnesses that a former Assistant Auditor-Controller had this level of security access as well and used it regularly, particularly at year end to “back into” numbers and close the books.
Employees from the Auditor’s office, and other county departments, described David Houser as “miserly,” “cheap,” or stated that “he would go to any lengths to save the County money.” We discuss our concerns about Butte County’s debt later in the report in a section called Sunshine on Indebtedness, and we initially appreciated a sense that David Houser was going to extraordinary means to keep costs down in his own department and within Butte County. We thought much of the tension with other county departments could well be caused by efforts to ensure there are legal sources of funds before expenditures are made. We came to understand that this was not the case, that his decisions are “penny-wise and pound-foolish” and that complaints that David Houser’s, and his employees’, efforts to save Butte County money were in conflict with Board approved policy. We learned during the course of our review that there has been more than a 50% employee turnover in his department in the past four years, that it is not uncommon for Mr. Houser to keep positions vacant as long as possible to save money, rendering his department incapable of appropriately managing the workload.
The logjam of claims, contracts, and transfers that only the Auditor’s office is permitted to perform can delay projects for months. A financial analyst told us that she had a contract go through all phases of approval (Board, County Counsel, Auditor) in December and only needed a “B” transfer to be processed by the Manager of General Accounting so that the money could be encumbered for payment to execute the contract, yet as of mid-April the department did not have the money to spend. We were told by several witnesses that this manager does not allow anyone else in her division to do this type of transfer, which we thought was not only poor management to allow only one employee that knowledge, but also flawed internal controls. We also learned that the Auditor’s office has a long history of not paying claims in a timely fashion due to inefficiency and lack of staff. We heard that at one point it was so poor that vendors threatened to cut off basic daily services such as food deliveries to the jail. Testimony suggests that routine payments are now being made in a much more timely fashion than before.
E-26 THE BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY: 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
Fiscal Analysts from many county departments report that they keep their own set of books for tracking budgets and expenditures, that while total dollars within budget units are generally maintained accurately, budget detail and payment details are an unreliable mess. These analysts report that data entry into Pentamation is so far behind, inconsistent, and inaccurate that they must keep their own books to protect themselves from the Auditor’s office, especially in tracking and justifying their expenditures for grants. Every analyst we interviewed testified to catching large errors and having to take matters into their own hands to ensure the Auditor’s office made corrections. Many testified to finding their budget numbers and expenditures changed long after a year end closing and audit. Some of the errors were reported to be over $100,000 in value. A specific, less costly example, is an $85,000 payment that was erroneously paid twice for a medical contract. When the error was found by the analyst, she reported having more than one heated discussion with an Auditor’s office employee who denied the error could have happened until she proved it.
According to documentation we were provided dated 12/01/2005, there were 36 positions in the Auditor Controller’s office and 17 percent (6 of 36) of the positions were vacant. Half of those (3) were in the General Ledger division. We later learned that there is no intention of filling most of these positions. We also learned that a few years ago, a number of County departments got together to pool resources that they could transfer to David Houser’s office to add more staff to keep up with the workload. We learned that after presenting the proposal to David Houser, his response was that he did not want any more employees. It appears to the Grand Jury that, after that effort, there was no choice but for departments to hire their own people to keep their second set of books. We were able to clearly identify seven fulltime equivalent positions in County departments whose sole purpose was to audit the Auditor’s staff and financial system, but the number is likely higher than that. As we will discuss later, there is a plan to utilize these staff to ultimately manage their department’s data directly in the Pentamation system.
The Accounts Payable/General Ledger Manager currently acts as System Administrator of the Pentamation system with no background in Information Systems and little or no training in database maintenance or management (we will discuss staff training later in this report). She has not maintained a consistent system or documentation of login accounts. There does not appear to be a documented security policy or procedure for County department’s employees to follow while performing their job functions in Pentamation, nor is there an organized training program for the financial database.
According to the IS Director, when they call this manager for assistance, they are required to provide their login ID and password. This manager uses it to login for them and make changes to the system, resulting in the system history recording the end user in another department as having made the change. That department cannot see what is being done in their name. Additionally, the IS director and other County officials testified that in the early spring of this year, this manager locked herself out of the Pentamation system, and did not have any alternative administrative access to the
E-27 THE BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY: 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
Pentamation system. She did not tell anyone what she had done for approximately five days, the problem was resolved several days later. She finally spoke up when the system “had nearly ground to a halt from the lack of maintenance” that only she could do, and there were no other County employees with sufficient system security rights or training. The lack of documented procedures or alternative access to the system violates basic tenets of IS administrative procedure. However, there was simply no way that she would know that due to insufficient training.
The IS department bailed her out by working with the operating system vendor to regain access to the database. IS has been quietly performing tape backups of the Pentamation database for years. The IS Director stated that prior to doing so, backups had been erratic and not all of the database tables had been selected when backups did happen. The tape backup has saved the County several times. The Auditor’s manager has deleted or corrupted whole tables of financial data more than one time due to lack of training.
Butte County is in the process of resolving some or all of the Pentamation issues. There is a long-term plan that was drastically accelerated as a result of the near system crash mentioned above. Since the late 1990’s Butte County has been moving forward on a plan to improve its technology infrastructure. It has installed fiber optic networks to connect every County facility and centralized many data processing needs for the smaller County departments. Larger departments, such as the Sheriff and the Department of Employment and Social Services, have very specialized needs and have sufficient budgets to warrant staff dedicated to their systems, while at the same time being able to utilize their connectivity and IS to create bridges between data sources.
In 2008, Pentamation is scheduled to release a Microsoft Windows Server based version that could allow County departments to do their own data entry, leaving the Auditor free to issue checks after approving payment for expenditures that would be entered into the Pentamation system by County departments. In theory, approval of payments would be based on availability of funds in a department’s budget, and the Auditor’s staff would audit department’s spending as well as their financial management procedures. County departments would then be responsible for the integrity of their own data. The security issues with “backdoor” access may be eliminated in a future software release, or the County’s IS staff may build a “front end/back end” infrastructure and use firewalls to secure the platform. It has been part of that plan to move the administration of Pentamation to IS for proper, consistent, and documented administration.
When the Auditor’s manager nearly brought down the system early this spring, an expedited plan was executed. IS staff moved rapidly to rebuild an extra piece of hardware and shipped it to Pentamation to have it certified for their support. At the end of May, 2006, IS successfully moved the financial data to the new server located in a secured, power conditioned, and appropriately environmentally controlled location to manage themselves. At the time of the server/database move, IS was recruiting a qualified system administrator or a competent County employee that can be trained
E-28 THE BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY: 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
effectively. We learned that Administration, in coordination with IS, will likely hire additional staff to build a training platform for County departments to standardize appropriate procedures and internal controls as they learn to manage their own finances through a single financial database.
As this process moves forward, it will be necessary to verify and “clean” the data in the existing database tables for corruption and erroneous entries. The IS director stated that he is very concerned about the next few years of Butte County audits as he does not know “what bodies will float to the surface” during the migration that could become “reportable conditions” during an external audit. The Butte County Chief Administrative Officer stated that he has “full confidence in the IS director to handle it.”
The ‘Grand Jury’ Audit Goes Under
It has been our observation that most, if not all, governmental agencies are audited on a routine basis. For Butte County, audits of the financial health of the County are annual, with audits for other reasons occurring on a regular basis. This does not mean, or imply, there is any wrongdoing; it is simply a fact as a public agency. During our term, we were aware of three separate audits: one mentioned early in this report regarding tax assessment practices, one for the PERS retirement system that Butte County uses for its retired employees, and the normal annual ‘Grand Jury’ audit performed under contract by Gilbert and Associates, Inc. of Sacramento, Ca.
Butte County hires auditors under the direction of the Board of Supervisors every three years for three-year contracts. The expense of the contract is billed to the office of Butte County Administration. Historically the Grand Jury, as an independent ‘watchdog’ body, has been involved in the selection of an independent auditor and has received copies of significant communications with the external auditors as they have become available. That all changed in 2004 after a 2003 “management letter” from Gilbert and Associates, addressed to the Butte County Board of Supervisors, recommended the formation of an audit committee comprised of a cross section of County departments to “help facilitate communication between management, the auditors, and the governing Board. An audit committee also provides documentation, through minutes and procedures, of the Board’s process for managing the financial statement audit” (See Exhibit A). A Management Letter is a document provided with the annual audit, addressed to the Board of Supervisors, that states procedural and policy issues that they feel could become problems (“reportable conditions”) if unaddressed. These letters contain findings and recommendations, much like a grand jury report.
The Grand Jury supports the 2003 recommendation by Gilbert and Associates; replacing the Grand Jury with a properly constituted audit committee in the selection of an external auditor makes a great deal of sense to us. A grand jury is selected every year as a random cross section of citizens of Butte County who may not have the professional backgrounds to comprehend the complexities of government finance or appropriately understand all of the criteria and concerns of the Board of Supervisors. However, when this Grand Jury submitted a records request for policies, procedures,
E-29 THE BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY: 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
minutes, and work product of the audit committee, such as is recommended in the 2003 management letter, we learned that this committee had only met three times and produced no work product, policies, or minutes other than a request for proposal (RFP) for the next three-year contract for an external auditor. From the Grand Jury’s point of view, the essence of the intention of the Gilbert recommendation was to coordinate the production of written record and new policy that would enhance the sophistication of Butte County’s fiscal policy.
In 2004, when Gilbert and Associates wrote their management letter to the Board, they stated they had followed up on the recommendation for the audit committee and it was “implemented.” A typical management letter introduces new concerns and follows up on implementation of the prior year’s comments stating that the recommendations are “implemented,” “partially implemented,” or “not implemented.” The audit committee consists of one member of the Board of Supervisors, the CAO and his Chief Deputy, the Auditor-Controller and his assistant, and the Butte County Treasurer. The management letter is sometimes referred to as “prior year’s comments.”
The financial statements produced by the external auditors are public record and are required to be submitted annually to some of Butte County’s creditors. The management letter that accompanies the audit under separate cover is a less public document, and it is not typically given to potential creditors, unlike the annual financial statements. The letter’s findings and recommendations, if unaddressed, could affect the credit rating of the County by becoming a “reportable condition”, a warning that County officials often feel is overstated. A reportable condition is declared as part of the financial statements provided to creditors when the financial impact of the problem reaches a predefined dollar threshold. The Butte County CAO and his deputies take the management letter seriously. The CAO said that “you fix the problems” even if you don’t believe that the situation stated in the letter would ever really have a significant dollar impact.
The Grand Jury reviewed 24 years of audits and management letters as part of its review. According to the Auditor Controller, his Assistant, and his Finance Officer, the 2004/05 fiscal year was the first year during that time that did not have a management letter. In 1987, the management letter stated, “there were no reportable conditions” as the entirety of its body; all other years there was at least one substantive recommendation, or follow up on the previous year’s comments.
We learned through testimony of one employee that this year, during the retirement system audit, the PERS auditors requested a copy of the 2005 management letter and the Assistant Auditor-Controller was overheard telling another employee that there wasn’t one. The witness said that the Assistant Auditor-Controller stated, “We rejected the letter because it was flawed.” Another employee of the Auditor’s office recounted David Houser pounding his fist on the table when he discussed the letter, saying, “not in an election year.”
E-30 THE BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY: 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
We could not find two or more witnesses who had the same story about this year’s management letter, nor could we find any written proof that one had ever existed. We called the Assistant Auditor-Controller and the Auditor-Controller in front of the full Grand Jury, swore them in to tell the truth under penalty of perjury, and in spite of the testimony we later heard, they both assured us in many different ways that there had been no management letter or draft management letter. Additionally, the Finance Officer told two jurors in an informal meeting that there had not been a management letter, only verbal comments. We noted that this County employee did not look directly at us when he answered. We later discovered that the draft management letter had been sent to him first in an email. We also learned that the CAO and his Chief Deputy were perturbed and angered by the lack of a letter. For Butte County to move forward with the plan to create an appropriate division between the Auditor-Controller’s office and County departments of strong internal controls, it is essential for the Board of Supervisors to learn of potential weak links in the County’s procedures. We consulted with outside experts and found that it would be extremely unusual for a county as large as Butte not to receive some form of management letter.
In combination with learning about the serious personnel issues discussed in part 1 of this report, the Grand Jury began the long process of obtaining subpoenas and preparing for, and attending, closed hearings to respond to motions to quash those subpoenas. We were eventually able to gather evidence as to possible wrong doing by employees through public record and court ordered protected records such as e-mails, investigation reports, and audio recordings from a private investigator hired by the County’s Human Resources (HR) department, and to bring the Gilbert and Associates’ audit team to Butte County from Sacramento to discuss the County’s debt, the missing management letter, and to understand why the audit had been completed so late.
Not only did we learn that a draft management letter had indeed been issued via e-mail, but that it had been forwarded by the Finance Officer via e-mail to the Assistant Auditor- Controller and the e-mail with the subject line “Draft management letter” had been forwarded to David Houser stating that it was attached. The same e-mail said, “We will discuss the second, tomorrow. Thanks.” (Exhibit B contains the draft management letter, Exhibit C shows the e-mails between the Assistant Auditor Controller and Gilbert and Associates). A subsequent e-mail was sent by the Assistant Auditor-Controller rejecting the management letter, stating, “We will not need to show prior years comments as implemented” (Exhibit D) in spite of the fact that there were actually new findings in the draft letter and findings that showed that the prior year’s recommendations had not been implemented.
There were several items that were disturbing about this draft management letter: In 2003, Gilbert and Associates had concerns about Butte County’s “debt covenant monitoring.” They recommended: • Implementation of an audit committee. • The establishment of a formal fraud policy.
E-31 THE BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY: 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
• That a formal vacation request form be required of employees because they found an inaccuracy in vacation time in their sample (accrued vacation time is paid at the severance of an employee and is considered a liability). In 2004, Gilbert reported that: • The County was in the process of implementing the debt covenant monitoring and fraud policy, • That the audit committee and vacation controls were implemented, and • That there was a new concern about cash receipt handling at the landfill. The 2005 draft letter states: • That the landfill cash problem had not been fixed. • That the County had failed to submit the required Inflation Factor Form to the state as required by the California Code of Regulations.
The failure to file the “Inflation Form Factor” was the item suggested in the e-mail (included in Exhibit C) that required the meeting between the Auditor, his Assistant, and the Finance Officer. We learned later that the Inflation Factor Form is a required form for landfill operations; the State of California requires a landfill operator to maintain cash reserves for the eventual closure of a landfill. The cash reserves required are generated based on the total volume of trash collected plus sanitary fill used (inflation of the landfill) versus total landfill capacity and are for the CPI adjusted annually. Butte County had been providing that data annually to the State on a single form, but had not been providing the data on a second required form.
The 2005 draft management letter also goes on to warn that the next fiscal year requires implementation of GASB 34 (GASB is the Governmental Accounting Standards Board) infrastructure assets declarations. That means that as of this summer, every sidewalk, storm drain, street sign, bridge and road in Butte County has to have an asset value and depreciation value assigned to it for reporting. Should Butte County fail to complete this, it will become a reportable condition on the reports that Butte County’s creditors see. The 2005 letter contains no mention of either of the “partially implemented” recommendations from 2003. The Grand Jury does not understand why these issues are not being fixed within a year’s time, nor do we understand why the management comments addressed to, and paid for by the Board of Supervisors were rejected by the Assistant Auditor-Controller with the apparent knowledge of Auditor David Houser and his Finance Officer (Exhibit D).
When the RFP was issued for the selection of the external auditors for the next three year contract for the County of Butte, only two companies responded. One of the companies was Gilbert and Associates. The other firm was Bartig, Bassler, and Ray. The member of the Board of Supervisors who serves on the audit committee stated that she did not want Gilbert and Associates because of, “Gilbert’s participation in an audit that attempted to state that the former principal of Marsh Junior High School had, ’misused public funds’.” The 2004/05 Grand Jury report also suggested that the jury found flaws in that audit report.
E-32 THE BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY: 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
The County CAO stated that he was not happy about how late this year’s audit was completed. The final adopted budgets are due by the end of summer with deadlines for filing specific schedules with the State of California shortly thereafter. A final, adopted budget is normally printed and distributed to the Grand Jury, County departments, and the public by fall. This year it was not available until the end of February when two thirds of the fiscal year had passed. The final audit report for 2005 was released by email on January 31, 2006.
One of the debts owed by Butte County is a pension obligation bond (POB), which essentially covers the County’s shortfall in the PERS retirement system. This shortfall was brought on by several years’ worth of poor investment returns by PERS after years of good returns (see Exhibit E). During the years of good returns, the County didn’t have to pay any money into PERS one year, and paid very little money at least one other year. When the returns were low, the County did not have the cash to cover the shortfall. Instead of paying PERS back at eight percent interest, it covered the shortfall with a $57,760,000.00 bond payable at an average rate of 5.941%. $49,100,000.00 was to cover the obligation of prior years, and the balance was to prepay the current year’s obligations. PERS seemed to offer incentives for payment up front for a current year to increase their available investment capital, but the Butte County CAO stated that PERS returns have dropped such that annual prepayment of retirement is not beneficial. This bond issue requires the County to submit their financial statements annually. The e-mail documentation we were provided showed that staff at the Treasurer’s office wrote to the Assistant-Auditor, who then wrote to Gilbert and Associates, almost daily in January of this year trying to get the final audit report pushed through.
We learned through testimony from Gilbert and Associates that it is their contention that staff from the Auditor’s office were far less than professional during the audit. Requests to the Auditor’s office to provide documents in advance were routinely ignored. CPA’s from Gilbert would drive from Sacramento to Oroville to meet with people to get requested documents and do interviews only to discover the documents weren’t ready and/or the staff member had called in sick. A manager with Gilbert described her dread of working with the staff in no uncertain terms. This was her first year working with Butte County as a manager for Gilbert. In the short amount of time she spent working in the Butte County Auditor-Controller’s office, she described experiencing many of the anxiety responses that Auditor’s employees described to us. She stated that the Assistant Auditor-Controller made a comment when they first met, which she heard as derogatory, about the all female makeup of the audit team. The County CAO, however, expressed surprise that no one from Gilbert had communicated any obstacles to completing the audit with him or any of his deputies. The audit is managed and paid for by the Board of Supervisors through his office, not the Auditor-Controller.
The mishandling of the annual audit by David Houser’s employees was very costly for Gilbert and Associates. A contract for professional services with a public entity typically contains an hourly rate and a maximum payment amount. Exhibit F at the end of this report is a letter from a managing partner at Gilbert and Associates stating that they lost
E-33 THE BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY: 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
a great deal of money in the past two years due to the inexperience of the Assistant Auditor-Controller and lack of cooperation from the staff of the Auditor-Controller. They estimate they lost $19,520 in professional billings, after discount, due to what we would characterize, based on the letter and testimony, as poor social and financial training of the Auditor’s employees. In addition, the hourly rate for professional billings of the time spent responding to Grand Jury subpoenas and mileage totaled $2,275, which Gilbert and Associates are expected to absorb. The subpoenas for the staff of Gilbert and Associates to travel to Butte County would not have been necessary had the Auditor’s staff been forthright and provided the requested documentation.
The Assistant Auditor-Controller stated that one member of the Gilbert audit team took time off for a maternity leave in the middle of the audit. The Assistant also stated that other Gilbert auditors cycled in and out of the audit and were unaware of work that other Gilbert auditors had already performed, causing them to ask for documents that had already been produced. However, the Grand Jury is concerned that Butte County only received two bids for the most recent 3 year audit contract. The embarrassing and unprofessional behavior by Auditor David Houser’s employees, as described above, coupled with the stated $21,795 financial loss for Gilbert and Associates, may further hamper Butte County’s ability to attract competitive bids for services and ultimately cost Butte County a great deal.
Sunshine on Indebtedness
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 16 PUBLIC FINANCE
SEC. 18. (a) No county, city, town, township, board of education, or school district, shall incur any indebtedness or liability in any manner or for any purpose exceeding in any year the income and revenue provided for such year, without the assent of two- thirds of the voters of the public entity voting at an election to be held for that purpose, except that with respect to any such public entity which is authorized to incur indebtedness for public school purposes, any proposition for the incurrence of indebtedness in the form of general obligation bonds for the purpose of repairing, reconstructing or replacing public school buildings determined, in the manner prescribed by law, to be structurally unsafe for school use, shall be adopted upon the approval of a majority of the voters of the public entity voting on the proposition at such election; nor unless before or at the time of incurring such indebtedness provision shall be made for the collection of an annual tax sufficient to pay the interest on such indebtedness as it falls due, and to provide for a sinking fund for the payment of the principal thereof, on or before maturity, which shall not exceed forty years from the time of contracting the indebtedness.
As taxpayers and citizens, the Grand Jury has always slept well knowing that if our government were going to incur debt we would have a say in that—until now. We always assumed we would hear clearly and publicly what a ballot initiative was for, as well as a summary of the terms and conditions of repayment. Exhibit G at the end of
E-34 THE BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY: 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
this report shows that the County currently has $118,319,961.27 in “financings,” of which $107,462,659.65 was unpaid as of 11/01/2005. This is more than one third of the annual Butte County budget, and to the best of our knowledge, none of the debt listed in Exhibit G is voter approved. As we explored the issues, we learned that government agencies and districts statewide appear to have used a cadre of attorneys to rationalize mechanisms by which agencies can indeed finance debts. The legislature appears to have given ‘tacit’ approval to ‘creative financing’ mechanisms.
One of the mechanisms is a lease. Under this scheme, a lender purchases the equipment for the agency and “owns” it for the life of the financing cycle. At the end of the lease, the ownership defaults to the public agency. The County, as of 11/01/2005, was “leasing”: • $2,726,895.74 worth of its own light fixtures to pay for an energy retrofit designed to reduce the energy use of the County. • Caterpillar tractors ($2,526,538.93). • Tarp machines ($76,237.00) • The Juvenile Hall and Jail (buildings it previously owned) while repaying $20,478,700.00 in taxable notes to move to self-insured status on workers compensation. Other financing mechanisms include certificate of cooperation and short term loans (called TRAN) that are repaid before a future Board begins its first budgetary cycle. TRAN is a County maintained line of credit to even out cash flow between property tax assessments, and are typically repaid within the same budget cycle.
We don’t understand the legal rationale behind the balance of the debts owed by Butte County, especially the California Energy Commission (CEC) loans and GAP treasury loans to pay for the solar projects. Employees of the Auditor’s office testified that they do not understand the rationale, either; when asked by the Grand Jury about these debts, David Houser had no answers for us. Auditor’s office employees and staff from Gilbert and Associates scrutinized the Pension Obligation Bonds and CEC/GAP loans very heavily. A manager from Gilbert and Associates described these transactions as “extremely sophisticated for a county this size.”
After much discussion between staff at the Auditor’s office and the external auditors, $49,100,000.00 in unsecured debt to be paid through various departments’ payroll budgets appeared simultaneously as assets to the County in the most recent fiscal year. The $49,100,000.00 debt did not appear as an asset in the prior year when the debt was begun. We still do not understand how a financial obligation can become an asset, in spite of the many explanations we heard. We know that the County has an obligation to fund the retirements of its eligible employees, and that when the PERS investment pool yields poor returns, the County is obligated to fund the retirements accordingly. To use an analogy, it would seem that if you take a second mortgage, even at a lower rate, in order to fund original obligation you would be borrowing from one lender to pay another, and you would still owe the second mortgage. Under that analogy, only investments and returns above and beyond the unfunded liability would be declared as
E-35 THE BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY: 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
assets. However, this year’s financial statements appear to show a net zero liability to the county for a $49,100,000.00 debt.
The GAP and CEC loans were very interesting to the Grand Jury. California has a system where all energy bills contain surcharges to put money into a fund for rebates on alternative energy projects. The CEC has been providing low interest loans to public agencies that install alternative energy generation, such as solar, with flexible repayment plans based on projections of energy savings. At the time Butte County became interested in solar, the CEC was loaning 50 percent of the value of projects while rebates were funding 50 percent. The CEC operates its loan program on a diminishing scale, where at a certain point in time it will only loan 40 percent; later, 30 percent, etc. with the concept in mind that as solar becomes more prevalent, it will become more cost effective. By the time all of the work was done on the contracts as they went through the Butte County bureaucracy, the available CEC loan funding had dropped from 50 percent to 40 percent.
The County then had to choose between losing the project and borrowing money from its own bank, the Treasurer, who was holding monies for Butte County and its cities, districts, and commissions. The Treasurer has an investment policy in place that currently generates returns of approximately 3.8%. The Treasurer’s office staff decided that it was consistent with the County’s investment policy to loan itself the property taxes and Motor Vehicles fees that it holds for many government agencies, and pay them back at a variable interest rate consistent with the yield of the balance of the funds. As we later learned, this inter-fund loan advance of $1,200,000.00 had no designated source of funds for its repayment other than the budgets of County departments connected to the solar panels. The affected County departments did not appear to know this until after the first payment came due.
The Assistant Auditor-Controller provided to the Grand Jury, upon request, a copy of the Debt Covenant Summary spreadsheet that was generated as a result of the recommendation in the 2003 Gilbert Management letter. The Debt Covenant summary should include all relevant terms and conditions of the financial obligations of the County so that no one debt should use the same leased collateral and so that requirements, such as providing annual financial statements to creditors, are not forgotten. The document also contains amortization tables for the entire repayment schedule. In reviewing this document, we saw that the CEC loan has no collateral, only terms and conditions that the panels must be kept in good working order, and that the CEC must be notified within five days if they are sold, with payment due thirty days from sale.
The Treasurer’s inter-fund (GAP) loan has no documented collateralization nor terms and conditions other than the Treasurer’s office investment policy, which is a separate document and not included in the Debt Covenant Summary. A Treasurer’s office employee stated that the solar panels themselves are the collateral due to the clause in the CEC loan about selling the panels, but she was unaware of any data pertaining to the retail value of used solar panels. She also stated that the GAP loan was initiated as
E-36 THE BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY: 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
no lenders were willing to “act as a second” to the State of California (CEC) for used solar panels.
By all appearances, if a future Board were to decide not to approve payment of this debt, or the CEC loan, it would appear to be in default on real property owned by Butte County, and would be forced to sell the panels before stopping the repayment. Should the new Board of Supervisors take office in 2007 and not approve funding for the ongoing payments of the CEC and GAP loans for the 2007/08 fiscal year, the amortization tables for the loans shows that the week of June 22-30, 2007, Butte County will still owe 83.59% of the principal balance on the combined CEC loans and Gap loans.16 Furthermore, since the combined loans constitute 50% of the original purchase price and it is not uncommon for labor to be half of the purchase price of new construction, it appears to the Grand Jury that the future Board of Supervisors would be indebted unless the resale value of the panels is very close to the original hardware purchase price.
Should the resale value of the panels fall short of the principle balance owed the CEC, the Butte County Treasurer would be left with no available source of funds by which to reimburse the accounts of the other government agencies for which it collects, holds, and distributes money—the Board of Supervisors would still be in debt for repayment of money held in an investment pool for its special districts, cities, towns, and school districts.
What is also perplexing is that the data included in the final audit report (see Exhibit H) does not match the spreadsheets provided by the Treasurer’s office or the debt covenant summary. The long term obligations of the county listed on page 50 of the County’s financial statements include $70,165,713.00 in long term debt. The page also says that the calculated legal debt limit for Butte County is $167,139,772.00, for which we were unable to locate California code authorizing such debt. The Finance Officer for the Auditor-Controller stated he calculated the debt limit as 1.25% of the assessed value of Butte County property, but could not recall the justification to do so. A Treasurer’s office employee stated she believed the debt limit had been provided to Gilbert by the Finance Officer. The Debt Covenant summary and the Treasurer’s spreadsheets do not include the 1974 and 1975 sewer bonds, and the “Long Term Obligations” listed in the County’s financials do not include Workers Comp bonds series B for $15,000,000.00 instead only listing Series A bonds; they do not include any mention of the Tarpomatic or Caterpillars, etc. even though their term spanned 3 and 5 years respectively. Short term debt, according to the Treasurer’s office, is defined as being repaid within a single budget cycle.
16 Using the Formula ((Solar Project Loan No. 019-03-ECB 6/22/07 ending balance + Solar Project Loan No. 030-03-ECB 6/22/07 ending balance + Solar Energy GAP Financing Contract No.(R40613) 6/30/07 ending balance)/(Solar Project Loan No. 019-03-ECB 12/22/05 opening balance + Solar Project Loan No. 030-03-ECB 12/22/05 opening balance + Solar Energy GAP Financing Contract No.(R40613) $1,200,000 opening balance)*100) E-37 THE BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY: 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
These numbers vary so greatly from document to document that we are still unsure that this is all of the debt that the County owes, and we are greatly concerned that in spite of a 10.1% increase in revenues in 2005 due mostly to increased property value, the County lost 2.2% to fixed asset depreciation, lost 5.9% in cost increases while appreciating slightly more than one million dollars in fixed assets and construction in progress. All of these expenses came due before fuel and metal prices, as well as interest rates increased and the employees of the County got their raises. Our research indicates that Butte County, in spite of its small budget, has not traditionally been an indebted county. We understand the need for capital to make investments in the future, but the need for public input and transparency must be weighed against that.
County employees stated that they believed that Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) and other utility companies are not entirely friendly to these types of energy sources, but they are required by law to participate. There are three separate solar panel arrays that are connected to the Phase 1 solar project, as it is called—25 County Center Drive (the main County offices), the East Jail complex, and Juvenile Hall. There are scores of power meters countywide, but only power meters in these facilities can reduce their PG&E energy use through solar power. Each meter is considered a separate account when it is billed to the County. Each meter monitors usage during 3 periods of the day, night time having the cheapest cost, morning being medium in cost, and peak afternoon hours have the highest Kilowatt/ hour (KW/hr) cost. As the solar panels produce power, they either reduce the number of KW/hr units or generate a credit for that meter to be used later. On September 15th of each year, PG&E and the County go through a “true up” process where PG&E balances each account (power meter) for usage versus generation. Any account with a credit on that date immediately loses that credit.
Evidence provided by the Auditor’s office suggests that the East Jail meter has lost credits on its true up, while the other meters have not. The County is new to the solar game and, according to the General Services Director and the Auditor-Controller, it didn’t know several facts going in: the panels have to be cleaned periodically to maintain their operating efficiency, there are unforeseen costs for maintenance due to fences, weed abatement, etc., and the solar panels produce optimal power in full sun when the temperature is around 80 degrees Fahrenheit. When the temperatures rise, resistance in the silicon of the solar panels causes the power output of the solar panels to drop, frequently during a time of day when power is most expensive. Data suggests that power usage among County departments connected to the panels has risen 36 percent, or the panels are not producing what they should, or the data provided to the CEC for the repayment schedule was faulty. The Butte County General Services Director reported that the flexible repayment plan to the CEC is not as flexible as anticipated; another witness stated that the CEC would rather have several years of data before renegotiating a repayment schedule.
We learned that Auditor’s office employees tried to raise these issues after the solar projects were completed while doing analysis for a proposed Phase II solar project. Documents showed that the Phase II of the project has, at least for the time being, been stopped as there is no way to install it without indebting a future Board. The cost benefit
E-38 THE BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY: 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
numbers don’t add up when calculating the energy savings per meter, ongoing maintenance cost and lost developable land that could be used for future Butte County Government facilities. The questions the Grand Jury asked related to these debts revealed to us the nature of the lack of coordination between Administration and the offices that participate in safeguarding income and expenditures. No one person could answer our questions, and for some questions, there was no answer. The signoff for review of the contract for an encumbered repayment source, which is not a code mandated signoff, was made by the Auditor’s Office for Phase I solar by the employee who publicly accused the Board of Supervisors of having a special retirement plan. In an interview with David Houser, he stated, “all claims are processed in accordance with the law.” The Grand Jury believes that David Houser is often unaware of decisions being made by the County in his absence and in the vacuum of leadership in his office.
County Departments Under Attack: A Tax On All Your Houses
The unanticipated costs of the solar projects are being passed directly back to the departments connected to the solar panels through supplemental charges called Internal Service Fund (ISF) transfers. An ISF charge is a method of billing different departmental budget units costs incurred. Electrical costs are paid by the Auditor’s office and billed back to the appropriate department as a transfer. Another type of ISF charge is an A-87 internal service fund, which are indirect costs for support from County departments that provide no public service other than support to other County departments. Each department is given a pot of money at the beginning of the year that they can spend however they want, with the exception of grants, salaries and benefits (governed by agreements with various unions) and ISF/A-87 transfers. Whatever is left, usually a very small percentage of a budget, a department can spend however it likes on things such as fuel for patrol cars, postage, office supplies, etc. and possibly some programs.
The GAP loan, which is in current repayment of $50,000.00 principal plus interest biannually, and has a large balloon at the end of its life, is being repaid by County departments that are connected to the solar panels as supplemental ISF transfers, forcing County departments to decide which programs to cut. The affected department’s representatives testified that they have no control over what monies are transferred out of their budgets, that the ISF charges for the solar panels were a complete surprise and came at a very bad time after several years of State of California budgetary crisis. They testified that these types of unexpected transfers are not typically offset by supplements to the total yearly dollar amounts given to their departments. Departments are simply supposed to figure out how to make the numbers work at the expense of another program.
Exhibit I at the end of this report contains a memo that is supposed to explain A-87 indirect costs to County departments. David Houser produced it after years of requests for information by County departments that testimony suggests eventually became hostile. It was our experience that County departments were not satisfied with the explanation, nor has the anger over the lack of control of these budget items subsided.
E-39 THE BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY: 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
After some research and a few questions to a manager of Gilbert and Associates, we thought we had an understanding of the concepts, but not the implementation. Simply stated, an A-87 plan is a system of billing for services by other County departments in support of the requesting department. Many County departments receive Federal and State grants for programs they provide; these grants have very specific purposes for which they are allowed to be used. Butte County is permitted to charge grant programs for services by the following departments: Information Systems, Personnel, Administration, Auditor’s Office, County Counsel, Purchasing, General Services (janitorial, maintenance, etc.).
Federal and State guidelines require that a jurisdiction maintain a documented and consistent plan of indirect costs, with supporting justification for each charge. The ISF “indirect cost” charges may not specifically be directed to grant programs, but rather must be applied consistently to all departments to be eligible to charge the grant these types of costs. A Gilbert and Associates manager stated that the costs billed to grant programs must also be competitive with comparable services in private industry. An indirect cost is a specific type of ISF transfer. Other types of ISF transfers are utility bills and cell phones.
Some county employees call A-87 indirect cost charges “funny money” while those responsible for department budgets seem to miss the humor. To the untrained eye, it doesn’t seem like real money as General Fund dollars are simply being transferred from one pot to another and no money has left the county budget. However, the impacts are real, as departments funded by fees generated through indirect costs use their billings and time reporting as justification for adding additional staff and expanding facilities and services.
While the Grand Jury appreciates the efforts of Butte County in its efforts to recapture the true costs of grant management, we had significant concerns over what we saw as inconsistent procedures being used for justification of billing of indirect costs or the accuracy of those billings. We were also seriously concerned about the radical approach to assembling proposed budgets and the final adopted budget; this was where we thought the practice of “backing into numbers” came back to haunt Butte County.
There were visible signs in the working environment of the Auditor’s office that staff are behind in their work and that the work is less than organized. Members of the Grand Jury visited the Auditor’s office many times during the course of our term for this review, and for information for reviews of other agencies. When we visited, we observed cramped and potentially hazardous working conditions. Boxes and files were stacked on the floor throughout the entire office. The hallways were so crowded with the boxes and files we could only walk single file. Not only were employees required to work from files on the floor, their equipment was old and worn out. Some desks were wobbly, and some desk drawers would not stay closed, rolling open on their own. In this context, we had no difficulties envisioning why employees were often months behind in their work.
E-40 THE BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY: 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
The budgetary cycle starts in earnest in February of each fiscal year. Butte County Administration works with each county department to assemble a proposed budget based on projections of income provided by the State and conjecture of mandatory ISF expenses provided by the Auditor’s office for the assembly of a proposed budget by the middle of March. From July 1 to July 31, Auditor’s employees must deal with all of the piles that are strewn throughout the office and on the floors and find out what the real costs of doing business in Butte County are in order to close the previous fiscal year’s books.
Between August 1 and August 31, the real costs must be worked into a final adopted budget, assuming the State of California has passed its budget and Butte County knows what its income will be. We learned that it is extremely common for A-87 and ISF costs to increase so dramatically between the time the proposed budget is assembled and the final budget is adopted that County departments are at a loss as to how to afford some of their programs.
County departments also stated that they are often not provided detail of the final budget until after the Board votes to approve it. The common response to the final budget that we heard was, “What did they do to us now?” It is ironic that the common complaint the Grand Jury heard from members of the Board of Supervisors and Butte County Administration was about how the State of California treats the County, in that they believe that the State has historically solved its budget problems at the expense of local jurisdictions; we came to believe the County applies the same paradigm to its own departments.
When the ISF budget items are adjusted at the fiscal year end, the total dollar figures for the county departments budgets are synchronized as needed to make the final numbers work. During an interview with David Houser, we came to understand the costs as being tariffs on the departments, which we believe is consistent with the view of the County employees that we interviewed. He stated that real costs of running these internal departments must be covered from these transfers under all circumstances, that they cannot be funded directly from the General Fund.
We became aware that the Auditor’s office, at year-end, must “back into the numbers,” a common phrase that we heard from county employees, stating with the total costs to run the departments listed in the A-87 memo and divide it by the number of hours service billed to each department. Evidence shows that hourly rates are adjusted and money is transferred between departments to add up to a final total cost. According to employees, what makes matters worse is that the A-87 departments bill each other for service. Trying to balance the books while making adjustments to departments that are billing each other from money that was not directly transferred from General Fund departments becomes a maddening chore.
Furthermore, we learned that County departments that have unspent money in their ISF budgets lose that money to cover departments that have gone over their costs for the
E-41 THE BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY: 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
year. Any savings become part of the prediction of subsequent years ISF charges with the billing rate being set considering the total number of hours needed by all County departments divided by the total cost to operate these departments. County analysts state that costs savings in the current fiscal year are diverted to shortfalls in other departments, and they are not allowed to use those dollars for other needs. In testimony, David Houser stated that the costs savings must be used for the A-87 department as their costs for the year are mostly fixed when the budget is made, not using the A-87 department does not change the cost to run it. Under the current system, it seems indirect charges against grants are not consistently billed under a documented billing rate, and County departments are stressed in managing their own budgets as there are large portions of that budget over which they have no control.
Doing Time at the County
Several years ago, the Auditor’s office spearheaded an effort to modernize the County’s time keeping system. They recommended, and the county purchased, the Kronos Workforce Timekeeping System and the 2004/05 Grand Jury published a report documenting its slow and tangled rollout to County departments. We learned this year that the project essentially languished while under the care of the Auditor’s office. David Houser rarely attended high level rollout meetings while he was in charge of the project and he refused to pay for County staff to go to trainings, preferring to use his staff to do the training even though they themselves had been provided little or no training.
The project was taken away from the Auditor and given to IS for proper project management and appears to be mostly rolled out, with many residual issues still pending from a payroll and personnel point of view. We believe the project has been needlessly expensive for the County, partially because at purchase, few managers really understood what the software could and couldn’t do and those gaps are being filled in after the fact. The Grand Jury believes that the majority of the cost over-runs were caused by poor planning up front and a failure to communicate with affected departments before implementation.
An Auditor’s office employee has been transferred permanently to IS to manage the database, training, and coordination with County departments and payroll. There are issues with the software needing to be tweaked to satisfy requirements of 9 different Memorandums of Understanding (MOU) with various unions that represent County employees, and in some cases, employees are being asked to make small changes not yet documented in the MOUs.
The Kronos Workforce Timekeeping System (Kronos) could be a powerful tool for clearly documenting time spent in support of other county departments, and for justification of A-87 indirect costs or internal documentation of time spent supporting its own programs, especially grants. However, some County departments already using Kronos will not track their indirect costs through Kronos, instead only putting in the number of hours worked for payroll. Departments use other software packages instead. One department stated Kronos does not support the level of detail their customers
E-42 THE BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY: 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
(other county departments) require. The billing hours for that department are then given to the Auditor’s office on paper and entered into the Pentamation system by hand.
Additionally, Kronos is not being used as a true time system in most County departments, in that employees do not log hours in real time such as a time clock would. Employees can enter their time from their computer anytime before a pay period closes for one entry or the entire two-week period. Changes to employee time can be made by some managers for several months after payroll is paid. The IS Director stated that it was more important to get all County departments entering work hours into Kronos, that Kronos and third party software could be integrated to eliminate duplicate data entry for accurate statements of indirect charges in the future.
Prior to Kronos, County employees would fill out paper time slips and turn those in days before a payroll run; many times these were not received in time and employees were paid or docked in future pay periods for time not on record on the due date. Vacation accruals and sick time were often inaccurate. We learned that Butte County’s Department of Behavioral Health recently implemented a real time clock version of Kronos, unlike other County departments. We learned that Behavioral Health had been turning in paper time cards two and one half weeks before the end of a pay period, which is before the beginning of the time reporting period.
Kronos does not appear to have solved many County problems; a supervisor may override pay periods already closed and allow records to be edited. We learned that in the Auditor’s office, the Cost Section Supervisor and one of her subordinates routinely do not enter any of their time or billings for indirect costs until the very end of a pay period or after. Multiple witnesses, including a payroll clerk who was charged with verifying the accuracy of time cards, stated that the Cost Section Supervisor would frequently bill for time when she was not in the office. The payroll clerk testified that when she raised the issue with the current Assistant Auditor-Controller, she was ordered to sign it. We verified, through the Director of IS, that the Cost Section Supervisor does not have remote computer access to the county’s network or financial system. We understand there has been minor counseling over time reporting issues, but no real actions. We would be very surprised if the indirect costs billed by these employees could be supported in an audit if they should be chosen as part of the sample.
Kronos may be a time-keeping or time-reporting system, but it is not a payroll system. Payroll is still handled by the Pentamation system, and IS staff have successfully built a data bridge that allows Kronos records to be integrated into the Pentamation system for eventual payment. However, there are many manual processes that must happen to verify and correct data between the close of a pay period and the issuance of payroll payments.
Early in our review of the Auditor’s office, we were told by an employee of the Auditor’s office who worked with payroll that she was unable to get the payroll runs to reconcile. She stated that there had historically been a roughly $8,000 discrepancy that suggested
E-43 THE BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY: 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
overpayments. We understood that prior to her being transferred to the payroll department, there was no one staff member that tried to reconcile all facets of payroll (pension payments, Federal and State taxes, voluntary withholdings, etc.) This employee stated that after working with the numbers for many months, she was able to reduce the difference to approximately $550 per payroll run that was the exact same number in every payroll run going back over some time. The Grand Jury brought in a CPA/Certified Fraud Examiner as professional help due to this concern, and others stated earlier in this report.
We were provided voluminous documentation from the Administrative Services Manager, which we reviewed diligently. In the presence of the documentation and the Certified Fraud Examiner, the payroll Auditor-Accountant changed her story to state that she had learned how to better read the journals, and that the real issue was “a matter of timing.” She stated that she had been able to balance the prior year to within less than $15.00. She also stated that between the payroll run, when data was dumped from Kronos into Pentamation and time the journals were printed, several days elapsed. We were able to verify that between the transfer from Kronos and Pentamation and the time the journals are printed, several days are needed to change and correct data in both Kronos and Pentamation and verify data. We also believe that the checks that are issued are based off of the same data that is printed on the journals, but are unclear at the time of this writing how much data is changed after leaving Kronos and if the checks are consistently accurate. This lapse in time when corrections are made, and data is verified, troubles us greatly as an internal control problem. Pentamation journal edits are virtually impossible to trace to an employee, and ultimately the potential for fraud in both time reporting and payroll calculations seems to be running at a very high risk. We do not believe that the Auditor’s office, given its internal staffing and management issues, is the appropriate department to issue payroll.
We discussed payroll procedure issues with the experts from Gilbert and Associates; they seemed concerned about the procedures as we described them. One Gilbert Auditor noted that during a conversation with the Assistant Auditor-Controller, one of David Houser’s employees came in for a signature on a journal. The Gilbert employee stated that the Assistant Auditor-Controller did not break in his conversation with her, he simply signed it without so much as a glance at its detail. She stated that she was stunned, but did not say anything. The Grand Jury will suggest that during the next audit of the County, a very aggressive sampling of payroll data and polices and procedures are examined in detail. We do not believe that the new audit firm should provide the questions, as is often the practice and often suggests the correct answer to the County employee. Rather, a comprehensive review of the practices as they are documented and implemented, could bring to light issues with internal controls and payroll accuracy.
Policies and Procedures
It has been the experience of Grand Jury members, both while serving on the jury and in our professional careers, that when departments are understaffed or when there is a
E-44 THE BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY: 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
vacuum of leadership, documented policies and procedures are typically the first casualty. We found during the course of our term that while witness testimony is helpful, the available documentation is a primary indicator of the true functioning of the department. With that in mind, the Grand Jury submitted a Public Records Act request to be provided internal policies, procedures, and desk manuals available to Auditor- Controller staff to determine what would be available to a new employee, an employee covering another position due to vacation or illness, or other County departments when they assume responsibility for doing their own data entry in Pentamation. Additionally, we requested documents that would demonstrate implementation of the recommendations of previous audits that were recorded as being implemented, partially implemented, or were not stated as implemented in a final Management Letter to the Board of Supervisors. The results of the Public Record Request were very troubling.
This was the only Public Records Act request that the Grand Jury submitted to a department within Butte County that was not responded to within the requisite 10 day time period, a response was negotiated after a phone call from the Grand Jury Foreman following up on the letter. We would like to note that the County Counsel office provides regular trainings on the requirements of the Public Record Act for Butte County managers; these trainings are reported to be comprehensive and excellent. Additionally, when County Counsel learns of a Public Records Request, they are ready to assist in any way to help gather documents or work with the requesting party to clarify the intention of the request as needed, they maintain a detailed log of requests and responses to ensure timely compliance. We made a request to the Auditor’s office on April 5, 2006, but that request, responded to outside of the required time limit by the Assistant Auditor Controller was incomplete. We submitted a new record request to the Office of County Counsel on May 3, 2006 and received the response from County Counsel on May 11, 2006 to complete this review.
Employees reported that after our records request for policies, there was a rush to produce documents and gather together anything anyone could find in a desk drawer. The Internal Auditor, a subordinate to the Assistant Auditor-Controller, deserves credit that he does produce documents as requested and maintains a well organized binder of policies and procedures that includes memos and directives written by Auditor- Controllers who occupied the office prior to David Houser, but did not appear to contain any from David Houser himself. The Internal Auditor wrote the draft fraud policy in compliance with Gilbert and Associates 2003 management letter and to our knowledge has not been approved by the Board of Supervisors as a Butte County policy.
The Administrative Services division employees all maintained desk manuals which simply were copied and put into a large binder for our review. These documents appeared to be well done and comprehensive, but we were not able to verify that as we did not attempt to actually perform the functions described in the manuals. We were very disturbed that the payroll documentation, as well as the General Ledger documentation, included pass codes for logging into Butte County’s bank account as well as the DESS system by which checks for their clients are issued. The procedures for General Ledger to perform their part of the payroll and check writing function were
E-45 THE BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY: 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
poorly written, but included enough detail that if the documents fell into the wrong hands could potentially be used to cost Butte County citizens millions of dollars. We believed that a person with IS knowledge could easily compromise the County with these documents. Physical access to the buildings would make it much easier, but may not be required.
A procedures manual was prepared for a specific employee in the Cost Section of the Auditor-Controllers office. We heard from many of the Auditor’s staff that this employee has been targeted by her supervisor for dismissal. She was described by David Houser and his Assistant as a “problem employee.” After reading this manual, we found the language and grammar so offensive that we will recommend that this manual be destroyed. Reading the manual, we felt the writer was shouting at, and insulting the employee with every word, essentially telling her to follow the instructions in the book, not to think, and not to do more than the book stated. This manual appeared to be intended to describe the chores that she had to accomplish in a months time. Grand Jury members who read the manual felt that we could accomplish the tasks in the book in four hours or less with no background in accounting. We learned that at the same time, managers from other sections of the Auditor’s office frequently request her help with projects when she has no work to do.
We also noted that there are no flip charts or readily available documents for referencing appropriate account codes. Raw data from Pentamation, when exported into a spreadsheet, cannot be easily sorted or analyzed as the account codes sometimes contain more than one kind of expenditure. The detail that accompanies those expenditures are typed in differently by different operators on different days so even that is not a reliable way to sort expenses or income. Analysts at various County departments have repeatedly asked for a chart of accounts to track their own expenditures, only to be told that the chart of accounts is over 100 pages long and cannot be reproduced for each department as it is constantly changing. The California State Controller’s office maintains a suggested chart of account codes for County governments to use; Butte County used these State account codes in the past. According to the Internal Auditor in the Auditor’s office, when the State Controller’s office simplified their account code tables several years ago, Butte County did not follow suit and continues to use, and add to, the previous system.
The Butte County CAO described Butte County’s account codes as “ridiculous” and appeared to be strongly in favor of tossing over the current system. We believe that adherence to the State Controller’s codes would be a great benefit to departments, as the County departments could use a standard other counties use and go outside the County for training. Additionally, there are no staff trained and available in the Auditor’s office to help other County departments learn the financial system and migrate to a system where County departments enter their own data. Under these circumstances, it is simply impossible to give County departments training or documentation and have them succeed in maintaining either a sound financial database system or good fiscal policy.
E-46 THE BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY: 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
Proposition 172
In 1992 and 1993, Butte County, like all other California Counties, was in severe financial distress after the State Government balanced it’s budgets by transferring over half a billion dollars away from counties and local governments to cover shortfalls in public schools. A one half cent sales tax had been imposed statewide to cover shortfalls for a temporary period. Newspaper articles and lobbyist papers wrote that they felt the state government knew that raising taxes would be very unpopular, so instead the state legislature voted to put Proposition 172 on the ballot. The initiative, which was passed by the voters of California, gave counties the ability to permanently impose the one half cent sales tax on themselves provided they adopted a resolution in that county that all of the sales tax would be spent on public safety agencies such as fire protection and law enforcement.
The initiative was supported by some groups, others gave it begrudging support as the lesser of two evils. Some believed that it was cowardly of state politicians to push their financial mismanagement into local politics where those who opposed new taxes were forced to say that it was better to impose the sales tax than to radically cut law enforcement and life safety programs; for them, there was no right answer. The language of the proposition and the subsequent state law, AB2788, made clear that the sales tax was designed to supplement public safety agencies budgets, not to replace (subvent) them. Further, the law established a threshold to be met in order to utilize Proposition 172 funds. The threshold is referred to as a “Maintenance of Effort” (MOE) and defined as “an entity’s appropriation of general funds for public safety activities shall not fall below the 1992-93 base year.”
After implementation of AB 2788 in January 1995 (Chapter 6.5 California Government Code enacted August 1994) battles broke out across the state over claims that local jurisdictions, in their continuing fiscal crisis, were reducing general fund contributions below the 1992-93 base year and replacing it with the Proposition 172 sales tax.
The battle over Proposition 172 is still quietly raging in Butte County. The Grand Jury learned of this issue in testimony during our review of the Auditor’s office, but quickly realized how clearly this issue illustrates the frustrations among county employees that requests for information, documents, transparency, and minimal influence in some portions of the budgetary process routinely fall on deaf ears in both the CAO’s office and the Auditor’s office. The Grand Jury came to believe that we have better access to records than County employees; we believe that requests for records related to Proposition 172 made by an analyst in the Sheriff’s office from a Deputy CAO were refused, saying they could not be located in the basement storage. Staff from the District Attorney’s (DA) reported a similar lack of cooperation in providing background data related to Proposition 172 from the CAO. We also consistently heard that requests for information from the Auditor’s office were not forthcoming, in spite of the Auditor- Controller’s specific authority and responsibility under AB 2788 to request, and be provided all information requested by the Internal Auditor, related to expenditures under Proposition 172.
E-47 THE BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY: 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
A County employee requested data from the former Assistant Auditor-Controller (see Exhibit J) and was told that her assumptions about her department’s eligibility for Prop. 172 funds, “didn’t fit the facts.” We surmise that essentially there is no legal requirement for any single public safety agency to receive any portion of the Proposition 172 money provided all of it was distributed to at least one of them. The Grand Jury was left wondering if that was good policy when County departments seem to wish for communication, consistent policy, and some budgetary predictability above all else. Public safety agencies that we interviewed stated they had a strong belief that Proposition 172 money was being distributed to the Public Defender’s office, in spite of their belief that Butte County policy did not appropriately define the Public Defenders as eligible.
The Maintenance of Effort (MOE) calculation as defined in statute is applied to “public safety activities” in total for the jurisdiction. Therefore, the funding impact on individual public safety department may vary significantly from year to year and the jurisdiction will still be meeting the MOE requirement. With this concern in mind, the Grand Jury attempted to analyze Butte County’s historical MOE calculations and allocations primarily off of data and records provided by the Butte County Sheriff’s Office, Butte County’s District Attorney, and the current Supervisor from District 3 who has a long standing reputation as an expert on the finances of Butte County, and maintains excellent records. Exhibit K at the end of this report shows MOE calculations from two separate fiscal years and Exhibit L shows a chart and data provided by the DA’s office. Several years ago, the Butte County DA spoke at a Board of Supervisor’s meeting on this issue, providing the data in Exhibit L to the Board of Supervisors. The data in the chart was generated by “backing into numbers,” applying a research methodology which calculated the percentage of each public safety’s agency’s Prop. 172 eligible budgets and distributing the actual Prop. 172 revenues using those percentages.
This data, as well as the historical MOE calculations, affirms that the General Fund contributions by Butte County to the DA has varied a great deal from year to year and has fallen short of the 1992-93 base year in spite of the legislative requirement not to subvent funds. In 1992/93, the DA criminal budget totaled $2,561,969, of which the county’s general fund contribution was 86.47%. In 1993/94, the first year of Prop 172 revenues being paid, the General Fund contribution decreased to 50.95%, or $1,265,354 and then varied greatly from year to year, dipping to a low of 24.3% ($778,534) in the 1999/00 fiscal year. The MOE calculations show similar patterns in all public safety agencies. Furthermore, testimony from public safety agency managers and analysts suggest that while Butte County maintains a separate public safety account for receipt of Proposition 172 funds as required by California law, those deposits are quickly transferred to the County’s General Fund. Testimony suggests that the transfers of Proposition 172 funds to the General Fund makes tracking and predicting the funds distribution impossible for the public safety agency’s staff.
Further analysis and testimony reveal the true shortcomings of the MOE method, poor communication, and the effect of County departments not being partners in the budget
E-48 THE BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY: 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
making process. The County has a much used tool available to clarify, at the individual pubic safety department level, the utilization of Proposition 172 funds, a Board of Supervisors authorized Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). As examples, the County enters into MOU agreements with employee bargaining units and requires MOU agreements for intradepartmental programs and financing. In a MOU for allocation of Proposition 172 funds, the allocations for each public safety department would be fixed as a percentage, lending a greater sense of predictability to each department that would only be affected by cost increases, total available General Fund dollars, and sales tax collection (mostly a function of Butte County’s consumer spending).
Under Butte County’s MOE process, while the total dollars allocated to all public safety agencies may be correctly calculated, the allocations to each department seem to vary wildly from year to year. We learned, through testimony that there is a commonly held suspicion that Proposition 172 monies are being used for the Public Defender’s department, in spite of the fact that witnesses stated that they are not defined by County policy as a “public safety agency.”
Butte County’s General Fund dollars are so limited and tightly controlled by Administration, and ultimately the Board of Supervisors, that when a particular public safety agency has an expensive need, that agency’s budget increase affects all other public safety agencies such that they are told that a difficult year is coming and to go find grant funding. Even with grant funding, Proposition 172 money, and other revenues combined, the total allocations show large and wide variations by department year by year. As we discuss earlier in this report, very little money is left in each department for actual programs after payment of A-87 fees/ISF charges and salary and benefits. Departments have had to resort to voluntary furlough, staff reductions, and other types of cuts and it appears that public safety agencies have been hit harder by these types of issues, due in part by these types of budgeting shuffles and the MOE calculation’s allocation methodology for each department.
Additionally, a report generated by the Institute of Law Policy and Planning (ILPP), attempting to “audit” coordination and cooperation of all facets of the criminal justice system within Butte County (including cities and towns) did a fairly astute job of illustrating the secondary costs of grants and made recommendations that Butte County and its cities and towns do a better job predicting and budgeting for secondary impacts of grants before committing to the grants. While it may seem to some to be over the top to refuse grants or to try to impose conditions on the grant source, within the scope of these annual budget fluctuations the concept stands to reason. Structuring a public safety agency’s budget around grant funding in lieu of County contributions forces the program choices of a department’s budget to be structured around the terms and conditions of the available grants, not necessarily the needs and priorities of the local jurisdiction or department. Grant fund expenditures are, by definition, restricted.
The Grand Jury believes that this mistrust and lack of communication has gone on long enough; a primary tenet of democracy is transparency and the Board of Supervisors has embraced a model of customer service and teamwork as their vision for County
E-49 THE BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY: 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
employees to adopt. Under the provisions of Proposition 172 and AB 2788, a county’s Internal Auditor has authority to request and be provided all relevant documentation related to the receipt and expenditures of these funds.
We believe that an ad hoc committee similar in makeup of the audit committee should be formed for the purpose of bringing transparency to this issue, and to bring forward a recommendation for the County to develop a policy of imposing an MOU type agreement on the allocations generated by the MOE calculations. In addition to the suggested makeup of the audit committee, the Internal Auditor should be a member, and a representative from each public safety agency that receives Proposition 172 money should attend. The Grand Jury recommends that minutes are taken and a methodology for auditing Proposition 172 funds are established and agreed upon by at least two thirds of the committee and are written in a policy document. Butte County could easily establish transparency by adopting a policy that requires distribution of Proposition 172 funds directly from the public safety account in which they are received, instead of transferring the money to the General Fund; counties such as San Diego County already have such a policy and could easily be modeled in this respect.
The Internal Auditor should then perform a full audit of these funds and provide the results to the public and interested county departments. This audit should be reviewed by external auditors and the external auditors should use appropriate sampling techniques to verify that Proposition 172 funds are being allocated in accordance with State of California law and that County contributions are not being subvented or being used by departments not authorized by the Butte County Board of Supervisors, in accordance with California law.
This committee could be dissolved after a policy document is produced and presented to the Board of Supervisors for their adoption that allows for full participation of public safety agencies and transparency in Proposition 172 funding allocations going forward. We believe that County departments should be rewarded for grants, not punished, and that the secondary costs of those grants considered such that best efforts to predict and budget for those costs are allocated. California law provides penalties for counties that do not comply with the guidelines of the MOE calculations in AB 2788 correctly.
Government Code Section 30052(b)(1) defines public safety services to include, but not limited to, sheriff’s, police, fire protection, county district attorney, county corrections and ocean lifeguards, but does not include courts. The Board of Supervisors is enabled, by law, to define which County departments are defined as public safety agencies for purposes of the MOE calculation. Those currently authorized for Butte County are the District Attorney, Sheriff’s, Probation and Fire Services. If it is true that the Public Defenders are receiving Proposition 172 money, Butte County Administration should ensure that the County policy includes them within the definition, if legally permitted to do so, so that full transparency is always maintained.
The Next Big ‘Grand Jury’ Audits
E-50 THE BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY: 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
The next three years of annual audits are crucial for Butte County. These audits will likely be the most expensive and comprehensive ever performed. We think that some of the recommendations we will make in our report, if acted upon, will have to wait a year or be performed during a separate mid-year audit, as the County’s fiscal year end will coincide with the end of our term. The RFP for the next audit calls for a completion date of November 20, 2006 and there are 10 items already listed in the “scope of examination” included in the RFP (see Exhibit M) that are additional to a typical year end audit.
Many of these items are related to grant programs, but notably, there are inclusions asking for a review of the County’s internal controls with regards to, “Separation of duties within the Pentamation System” and “Development Services Department Fee Collection”. The Development Services fee collection audit is likely in response to the 2004/05 Grand Jury report recommendation. We heard testimony this year that refunds of fees for development projects were generating checks written to individuals other than the development applicants, but our review of the available data was inconclusive. We also heard testimony that refunds from trust accounts were being given to the wrong people; witnesses did not produce documentation, but it may be an issue worth at least a cursory review during an audit.
The Grand Jury believes that the Auditor’s office would not likely be aware if these types of mistakes were being made, or even if low volume fraud was happening under their watch. The office is far too under trained and under staffed to be on top of their own system. The truth will become evident as the separation of duties in Pentamation takes place, the data is cleaned, and the security is hardened. Some Butte County employees and officials believe there is a momentum to take a charter amendment to the voters to abolish the independently elected Auditor-Controller’s position in favor of a hired Chief Financial Officer. There are pros and cons to every argument, but the Grand Jury’s belief is that such a decision should not be a referendum on one man’s job performance. When an elected official runs unopposed for over a decade, there is a tendency for the voter to assume that he must be doing a good job and thus not scrutinize his performance.
Putting the Chair Back Together
The Butte County Auditor-Controller’s office, as previously mentioned, is an often unkempt office space that appears to us to be full of safety hazards and may even be a fire risk. One of the many sad tales we heard during our review was about a pregnant woman destroying a chair when she sat on it. The employee that told us about it related that Mr. Houser had given another staff member instructions to glue the chair back together again. To the Grand Jury, this became a metaphor for the entire operation; bailing wire, tape, and glue are not what a modern government agency needs to hold it together. A Deputy Administrator in the CAO’s office remarked, during an interview, that the employees in the Auditor-Controller’s office have been living in a box; they have never been exposed to any other way of doing things than what they have learned there.
E-51 THE BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY: 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
We requested documentation on training dollars spent in the Auditor-Controller’s office for fiscal years 2003/04, 2004/05, and year to date 2005/06. The report we received for 2005/06 was dated May 3, 2006. Many employees complained to us that there was no training, that they simply had to figure things out, and that everyone had their own way of doing things. The figures listed below include professional memberships, tuitions and registration fees, mileage, and payroll charges. Butte County bills David Houser’s car allowance ($620 per month currently, $520 per month in prior years) and cellular phone allowance ($70 per month) to the same budget that travel expenses for training come from. In 2003/04, the Auditor Controllers office had a total training/travel/professional membership budget of $19,779.00, of which they spent $13,001.54. David Houser consumed approximately 80%--we were able to distinguish $10,335.71 in billings including the car/phone allowance, but noticed that on a couple of conferences/trainings he covered the expenses of another employee on the same invoice and was reimbursed for all of the expenses. The payroll charges for David Houser’s department head privileges amounted to $7,080.00, billed at $590.00 per month ($520 car, $70 cell phone). After subtracting David Houser’s payroll, travel, membership, and training expenses, the remaining $2,900.00 was divided among 5 other employees. The former Assistant-Auditor Controller spent $1272.91, leaving $ 1627.09 for the remaining 4 employees.
The 2004/05 training budget was slightly less lopsided, with a total of 12 of 36 employees having some training, including the four from the year before. Two employees took advantage of a County benefit established in the MOU of the Butte County Employees Association for reimbursement of one half of the costs of tuition and books (up to $500) after successful completion of course work from an accredited university or college, provided the department head authorizes the charges ahead of time. Witnesses stated that David Houser is very reluctant to authorize tuition reimbursement for his employees. There were no charges or receipts for tuition reimbursement in either of the two other years we reviewed.
Three of the employees only outside trainings were attendance at management meetings such as the Tax Managers Subcommittee, Payroll Managers, and Accounting and Reporting Managers. These meetings had fees ranging from $25-$40. David Houser consumed $7,775.87 of the $18,427.33 in the 2004/05 year, with his Assistant using only $540.06 of the training. A new Assistant was hired in the spring of 2004, worked for three months, and quit, so in the 2004/05 fiscal year a new assistant was being recruited. One of David Houser’s expense claims totaled $1,147.00 for 2 back to back conferences in Napa, CA. He stayed his first 4 nights at the Napa, CA. Hilton for $140.09 per night and returned to Butte County for the weekend. He returned to Napa the next week to spend 2 more nights at the Marriot for $133.28 per night.
We believe it costs real money to keep a department head well trained. Our complaint is not so much staying at the Hilton and Marriot in Napa, as much as the contrast between one of these hotels and the working conditions of his office, the lack of training of staff, and the complaint we heard from many of the employees that very little or none
E-52 THE BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY: 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
of the information David Houser gathers at these conferences is ever shared with his own employees, that it does not trickle down. We noted that there are no payments in any of the training budgets that we reviewed to keep a CPA license current, nor does it appear that the license mandated requirements for continuing education for CPA’s within that office are being paid for by Butte County.
We also learned, from a manager of a County department, that when they were offered a new grant, one of the conditions was that there was a required training in Sacramento that their employees, and an employee from the Auditor’s office had to attend to ensure proper administration of the grant. The witness stated that the Assistant Auditor- Controller refused to pay for the travel expenses, which would be mileage and lunch. The manager offered to car pool to eliminate the mileage charge, but the Assistant Auditor-Controller still refused to pay for lunch. The grant funding was secured when the department receiving the grant bought the Auditor’s employee their lunch.
The Butte County standard for bringing in new employees has historically made it very hard to hire experienced workers. In the past, Board of Supervisors approval has been required to hire an experienced employee to the County at a salary scale above the lowest step. Approval was typically listed as an agenda item on a consent calendar and not disputed, but depending on the Board calendar, this could delay the hiring for as much as three weeks. A recent policy change allows a simple signoff of the Department Head and the Director-Human Resources’ approval to bring an experienced employee to work at the County at a limited higher pay rate without Board approval. The previous policy will affect the County for some time to come, and it may still be challenging for Butte County to recruit staff already trained in government accounting. We learned through testimony that most of the accountants for the County are “homegrown” and may well need these training dollars more than other employees. We also believe that ongoing training provide opportunities for advancement for employees and greatly benefits the County in quality of work and in morale.
We also believe that it costs money to keep employees working productively at their desks hour after hour, reading computer screens and analyzing numbers. A work environment with broken desks and chairs does nothing to help the employees of the Auditor’s office performance or morale. Many employees complain of neck and wrist strain due to office equipment that was not designed with ergonomics in mind. We did not analyze costs related to workers compensation claims for costs. We are aware of many assertions by employees that there have been many claims or lost time related to stress, hostility, and general work environment issues. Workers Compensation and lost labor time are some of the most expensive costs over which the County has some control. We heard from multiple witnesses that David Houser has pressured employees not to file workers compensation claims, but we believe that with County training, employees may well learn to assert their rights even under pressure.
An office remodel that includes replacing furniture with ergonomically adjustable chairs and desks, and improved lighting is needed. Using flat screen monitors or CRT’s that contain flat viewing surfaces would contribute to a more positive and safe working
E-53 THE BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY: 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
environment. Additionally, record storage facilities should be developed so no employee is working off of the floor. Boxes, files, and papers should never be stored on the floor in any cubicle, or walkway. Offsite storage should be nearby, convenient, climate controlled, and kept in the correct humidity range for paper records so that needed documents can be found quickly and the temptation to keep files nearby is mitigated by the convenience of an appropriate storage facility. Additionally, many of the records that are kept on file could likely be scanned and kept in electronic storage so that they are readily accessible to staff without the need for manual document retrieval.
A mandatory training by Human Resources and County Counsel has been held for employees of the Auditor’s office. We learned that this mandatory training covered everything from appropriate social decorum in the office, sexual harassment and sensitivity, and the grievance process. In a final interview, the Assistant Auditor- Controller stated that all of the Auditor-Controller’s employees attended except for David Houser.
Commendations
The Property Tax section of the Butte County Auditor-Controller’s Office appears to be a quiet and stable workplace; the Administrative Services section seems to be functioning at a high level and independently of the management.
By and large, the Butte County employees we met in the Auditor’s Office, are some of the hardest working and dedicated people we have ever met. Those who poison the workplace do not seem to ultimately dissuade these employees from conscientiously performing their duties, to the best of their abilities, in the service of the Butte County taxpayer.
Findings
1. By Generally Accepted Accounting Practice standards, there are currently insufficient separation of duties or internal controls within the Butte County Auditor-Controller’s office. 2. In spite of the recent changes in location and management of the Pentamation financial system, there are still many challenges and shortcomings with proper management and security of the financial data. 3. Many Butte County departments do not trust the budget detail contained in the Pentamation Financial Database. At an added expense to Butte County, some departments keep their own set of books to discover errors and unwarranted changes by the Butte County Auditor-Controller’s office. 4. Adjustments to payments and cash receipts have been made by one or more employees of the Auditor-Controller’s office after the fiscal year end has been closed and the Financial Statements have been prepared by an independent audit firm. These Financial Statements are required by California law.
E-54 THE BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY: 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
5. Butte County Administration and Information Systems are currently leading an effort to improve the Pentamation database security and performance, and improve the accuracy of the budget and expenditure details. 6. Butte County is in the process of moving many of the functions of the Auditor- Controller’s office to other County departments, partially to establish better internal controls/separation of duties, and partially to compensate for poor management and training by the current Auditor-Controller and his top managers. 7. Adequate and uniform policies, procedures, and training are not currently developed or available within the Auditor-Controller’s office. Consequently, Butte County employees are not prepared to train other County departments to manage their own financial data. The County cannot move forward with a separation of duties, where County departments are responsible for managing their own budget expenditure detail in Pentamation, without policy and training. 8. The Butte County financial statements, produced by Gilbert and Associates, cannot be relied upon as an accurate reflection of Butte County’s financial status. This was due to: unreliable data, lack of adequate management and training in the Auditor-Controller’s office, and a rush to provide feedback and data (to assist in the production of a final Audit report by the current Assistant Auditor-Controller and his subordinates). 9. Butte County’s Assistant Auditor-Controller rejected a draft management letter from Gilbert and Associates addressed to the Butte County Board of Supervisors. This action prevented the Board of Supervisors, the CAO, and the public from seeing findings and recommendations that the management letter contained. 10. The 2005 Financial Statements for Butte County, produced by Gilbert and Associates, shows far less long term financing obligations than the long term financings data maintained by the Treasurer’s and the Auditor-Controller’s offices. 11. The 2005 Financial Statements, produced by Gilbert and Associates, were not completed in a timely fashion due primarily to unprofessional behavior by the management and staff of the Butte-County Auditor-Controller’s office. 12. Gilbert and Associates, while accepting the normal maximum payment amount required in a government contract, spent an abnormally large amount of extra hours required to finish the 2004 and 2005 audit report and financial statements. These extra hours were required because of poor training, attendance, and unprofessional behavior by David Houser’s employees. 13. Many of the recommendations and findings of the management letters produced by Gilbert and Associates from 2003 and 2004 have not been fully implemented. The Audit Committee, suggested in the 2003 management letter to the Board of Supervisors, has not produced any minutes or policies for review by the Board of Supervisors or the public. In 2005 and 2006, vacation and furlough were still being approved without prior approval or a formal leave request. A formal fraud policy has not been adopted by the Board of Supervisors as suggested in the management letter.
E-55 THE BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY: 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
14. As of November 11, 2005, Butte County had over $118,000,000.00 in non-voter approved long term financings, of which the principal balance owed was over $110,000,000.00. The Treasurer’s Office and the Auditor’s Office show $4,317,000.00 of this debt is not collateralized. Should a future Board not appropriate funds for this debt, they would still likely owe a debt in conflict with California Constitution Article 18. 15. Butte County Code does not require a review of contracts by the Auditor- Controller, only that all contracts are forwarded to his office. 16. Contracts, such as the solar contract, have been executed without a properly encumbered source of funds or collateralized long term debt. 17. County departments that are connected to the solar panels have had significant increases in utility costs when factoring in ISF transfers to pay for the Treasury “GAP loan.” 18. County departments are frequently not provided final budget detail for review before a final, adopted budget is approved by the Board of Supervisors. A-87 and ISF charges are frequently much higher in the final budget than in the Proposed Budgets. 19. Butte County’s methods for tracking and justifying indirect charges are inconsistent, poorly documented. The methods and tools for tracking charges by A-87 departments vary greatly from department to department. This inconsistency could jeopardize grant funding eligibility due to A-87 requirements for justification and consistency of indirect charges. 20. Butte County’s methods for tracking employees’ time worked and eligible leave is inconsistent. Butte County policy regarding time card tracking has not been fully updated to reflect the demands of the Kronos Workforce Timekeeping system. Additional controls are needed to ensure consistent implementation of County policy and to verify the integrity of the payroll data, at time of payment through the Pentamation system. Current practices create the opportunity for fraud. 21. Account codes used for tracking budget detail in the Pentamation database are unique to Butte County, are poorly documented, and are currently frequently changed without notice. This has created, and will continue to create, many obstacles to Butte County’s employees managing their own department budget detail and expenditures. 22. Current Butte County policy does not require or guarantee any consistent allocations of Proposition 172 funding to be distributed to any single Butte County defined public safety agency. Both County contributions and Proposition 172 contributions to the defined public safety agencies has varied significantly from year to year, making it difficult to build, prioritize and maintain quality public safety programs that are not funded by grants. 23. The current practice of transferring Proposition 172 funds from the public safety account to the General Fund masks the final allocations and expenditures. This practice has created mistrust among departments that receive these funds. County departments have previously requested an accounting of Proposition 172 MOE allocations and have been denied that request.
E-56 THE BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY: 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
24. Policies, procedures, desk manuals, and training have not been adequately kept up to date in all organizational units within the Butte County Auditor-Controller’s office. Existing desk manuals inappropriately contain security pass codes for access to financial information. Documentation prepared for a specific employee in the Cost Section could be construed as harassing or discriminatory. 25. Posting of expenditures and receipts in the Pentamation system has been slow, inaccurate, and inconsistent. Journals of financial transactions have not been consistently available to affected departments in a timely fashion. This has caused difficulty for departments in managing their budgets. 26. Between July 1, 2003 and May 3, 2006, David Houser consumed more than half of the Auditor-Controller’s combined budget units 533 (Memberships) and 543201 (Transportation & Travel/ Outside Purchase) for his memberships, car and cell phone allowance, and trips to conferences. These costs have not been a direct benefit to Butte County or County employees. 27. The majority of the employees of the Auditor-Controller’s office have had no professionally standardized training related to government accounting during their employment by Butte County. Consequently, implementation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles and GASB guidelines have been erratic. Fiscal policies are made by the Auditor’s employees in the moment as the need arises without prior communication to affected County departments. 28. The working conditions found in the Auditor’s office appear to be safety, health, and fire hazards. 29. Many of the responsibilities of the Auditor-Controller are being transferred to other Butte County departments, narrowing the scope of his responsibilities. California Penal Code 927 states, “a grand jury may, and when requested by the Board of Supervisors shall, investigate and report upon the needs for increase or decrease in salaries of the County-elected officials. A copy of such report shall be transmitted to the Board of Supervisors.”
Recommendations
1. Pursuant to California Penal Code 927, this Grand Jury recommends a decrease in salary for the position of the Butte County Auditor-Controller of 25% of current salary and salary range, at the next legal interval to do so, due to significant portions of departmental responsibility being moved to other County departments. The Butte County Board of Supervisors should, pursuant to California Penal Code 927, request the Grand Jury to reassess this salary decrease in three years by providing data to the Grand Jury related to Butte County audit results, management letters, salaries and compensation of Auditor-Controllers in comparable sized counties, and functional responsibilities of the Auditor-Controller in the comparable sized counties. 2. Upon direction by the Butte County Board of Supervisors, the CAO should contact the audit firm, Gilbert and Associates, and report to the Board what unpaid labor and travel costs may be due so that Butte County employees’ unprofessionalism does not undermine the County’s ability to attract competitive bids.
E-57 THE BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY: 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
3. The adopted Butte County computer use and ethics policy should be reviewed and updated as needed to ensure that it specifically addresses the Pentamation Financial Database. Documenting pass-codes in non-secure locations should be grounds for disciplinary action. Any employee that uses security credentials not assigned to themselves to access or alter financial data should be placed on administrative leave until an investigation is completed and appropriate course of action is decided by recommendation of Butte County’s Department of Human Resources. 4. The outstanding obligations for both the CEC loans for Butte County’s solar panel project and the GAP loan owed to the Butte County Treasurer should be appropriately collateralized. There should be no ambiguity to a future Butte County Board of Supervisors as to the impacts of deciding not to appropriate funds to pay for these long term obligations. 5. The available budget in the Auditor’s office for training, travel, and professional memberships should be increased to a level that each employee can attend needed training. 6. The Audit Committee should review Butte County’s implementation of account codes used in the Pentamation Financial system and develop policy to standardize account codes with the State of California standards as much as possible. A policy standardizing account codes, including a method for appropriately adding or deleting account codes, as well as documenting and communicating those changes, should be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors for their review after review by the Audit Committee. The Grand Jury believes that a log of added and deleted account codes should be kept by those responsible and forwarded quarterly to the Audit Committee for their review. 7. Changes to expenditures and receipts should not be made after closing a fiscal year’s books or July 31 of each year. Errors and omissions should be documented and forwarded to the Butte County CAO and Auditor-Controller for appropriate actions. 8. Uniform accounting policy should be adopted county-wide and relevant documentation should be forwarded to all affected Butte County Department Heads for their distribution. 9. Butte County Code should be updated to require a signature for a legally required review by the Auditor’s Office before a contract is executed. Failure to complete such a review in a County policy defined time window by the Auditor’s office should be grounds for disciplinary action for the assigned employee. 10. Payments, receipts, and journals should be posted accurately within a reasonable number of days defined in Butte County policy. Failure to do so should be grounds for progressive discipline per County policy. 11. A designated member of Butte County Administration should be the primary point of contact for most, or all, facets of the annual Butte County Audit. All relevant communications with the Auditor-Controller or his staff, including email, should include a copy to the designee of Butte County Administration. 12. The Butte County Auditor-Controller should instruct his Internal Auditor, or other qualified employee, to comprehensively audit distributions of Proposition 172 funds and ensure that these funds are allocated and distributed in accordance with
E-58 THE BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY: 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
relevant California codes and regulations. All public safety agencies that receive Prop. 172 monies should be defined as such in Board adopted policy. A report should be prepared and forwarded to all members of the Audit Committee, the Board of Supervisors, the affected public safety agencies, and the Grand Jury. 13. Butte County Administration should spearhead an effort to coordinate with County defined public safety agencies, (defined as required by Proposition 172/ AB2788), to bring forward a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors for an MOU for calculating each public safety agencies’ share of this funding source within the Maintenance of Effort calculations as described earlier in this report. The Board of Supervisors should consider including stipulations in the policy that Proposition 172 funds are never transferred to the General Fund so that full transparency and accountability is always maintained. 14. The Auditor-Controller’s department should be inspected on an ongoing basis by the Fire Marshall and other experts for health and safety problems. 15. An ergonomics assessment should be performed for each staff member and appropriate workstations should be installed in the Auditor-Controller’s office. 16. The Butte County Board of Supervisors should consider allocating additional funding for aggressive audit sampling and review of the following items for a minimum of the next three years (these items need not be completed by the November 30th due date or under the same cover as the normal, annual audit): A. payroll and timekeeping data including, but not limited to, policies and procedures related to billing for indirect costs, proper crediting of accruals and payments of vacation/sick leave/furlough, B. refunds given for Development Services land use or building permits and related impact fees, C. refunds and disbursements given for what are referred to, but not necessarily legally defined as, trust accounts held by Butte County, D. legally defensible collateralization of all financial obligations owed by Butte County that extend beyond a single fiscal year, and a legally defined debt limit that includes authorizing California Codes or Regulations.
Response Required Butte County Auditor-Controller Butte County Board of Supervisors Butte County Chief Administrative Officer Butte County Director of Information Services
E-59 THE BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY: 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
THE BUTTE COUNTY AUDITOR-CONTROLLER PART II: AUDITING THE AUDITOR AND HIS AUDITORS
Index of Exhibits
Exhibit A: Portion of 2003 Management letter by Gilbert and Associates
Exhibit B: Draft 2005 Management Letter addressed to the Board of Supervisors
Exhibit C: Emails between Gilbert and Assoc. forwarding 2005 Management letter and discussing reactions to the letter
Exhibit D: Emails rejecting the 2005 Management letter addressed to the Board
Exhibit E: Pension Obligation Bond Debt Detail
Exhibit F: Gilbert and Associates Letter to the Grand Jury re: Unbilled/unpaid expenses for 2005 audit and Grand Jury subpoenas
Exhibit G: Excerpts from Treasurer’s Long-term debt Financings aggregate
Exhibit H: Long Term Debt statement by Gilbert and Assoc., page 50 2005 Audit report
Exhibit I: David Houser’s explanation of A-87 and indirect costs to Butte County employees
Exhibit J: Email from former Assistant-Auditor Controller re: distribution of Proposition 172 Money
Exhibit K: MOE calculations for sample fiscal years showing variations in distributions
Exhibit L: Ten years of data from the DA’s office presented to the Board of Supervisors in public hearing up to Fiscal Year 2003
Exhibit M: Scope of Examination included in Request for Proposal for audit services for the County of Butte for the next 3 years, including “Separation of Duties” document
E-60 THE BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY: 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
2005/06 Butte County Grand Jury Final Report The Butte County Grand Jury
ISSUES IMPACTING GRAND JURY EFFICIENCY F-2
THE BUTTE COUNTY AUDITOR-CONTROLLER: 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
THE BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY ISSUES IMPACTING GRAND JURY EFFICIENCY
Background
A Grand Jury is empanelled in Butte County to serve for one year as both a civil, citizen watchdog group (to oversee the function of government) and to occasionally serve in a criminal function (to hear evidence presented by the District Attorney that may lead to a felony indictment). In its civil capacity, it is charged with investigating areas of local government, including the County of Butte, its cities, towns, special districts, and joint powers agencies. It is also charged with determining if there are ways these organizations can function better, save money, improve the performance of its staff, and improve the way government conducts business
Report Serving on the Grand Jury requires the rapid development or refinement of research and writing skills, of learning how to investigate and how to ask direct and specific questions of public officials and skilled employees who are very knowledgeable and experienced in their field. Members go through a whirlwind of training and meetings that develop and refine skills, and crash courses in very specific areas of government. For most of us, the chance to learn how our government works and the chance to participate in the process is exciting and rewarding.
As Federal and State of California laws become more complex, and Butte County grows, the Grand Jury is finding it more challenging and time consuming than ever before. More than half of the first part of the term is spent preparing for the investigative work that we will accomplish in the last few months. The final result is the assembly and publishing of a final report. By the authority of the California Penal Code, up to ten members of a sitting Grand Jury may carry over to serve a second term providing some continuity from Grand Jury to Grand Jury.
The 2005-2006 Grand Jury has two members that served a second term, the 2004- 2005 Grand Jury had one, and the 2003-2004 Grand Jury had none. Despite having two second-term jurors sitting on this jury, a learning curve still exists for new jurors to learn the required skills and gain knowledge of sufficient aspects of government operations to begin a focused review of a specific area. In a review of a single department of government, it is nearly impossible to review every facet of that department; you must become focused very quickly.
California Penal Code authorizes the Grand Jury as an “arm of the court” and specifies that it is funded out of the General Fund of the County. Up until the late 1990’s, the Court and the County functioned in a coordinated fiscal system where the County funded the Courts as well. With the advent of the Superior Court system, the Courts became an independent entity that is funded by the State of California. The Butte County Superior Court building is still owned by the County, but the State Court system will eventually own the facility.
2 THE BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY: 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
The Grand Jury requires support from both the Court and the County; as the Court and County have separated, it has become more difficult to ascertain the correct separation of duties. Grand Juries typically require very little in the way of support. We do receive $20 Per Diem per day for incidental expenses when we have meetings and mileage (paid at current IRS rates) for travel. Mileage forms are submitted at the courthouse to be authorized by the Presiding Judge. The forms are then forwarded to the County’s Auditor-Controller for payment. We use the Butte County Counsel when we require civil legal advice and confer with the Butte County District Attorney if we discover problems that may be a criminal violation of law. We have a liaison in Butte County Administration to help us with claims for supplies, with needed outside professional services and to prepare a budget for the next Grand Jury.
Now that the Courts and Counties are separating, there are many less common issues that occur where both the Court and the County are unsure of their jurisdictional responsibilities. Currently, the Grand Jury uses a conference room at the Superior Court that is shared with other Court employees. The Grand Jury uses the space for meetings of committees and the full Grand Jury. The conference room is large enough to fit 19 members and an interviewee, but not large enough for office equipment or secure document storage. We have a large, locking filing cabinet for record retention along with two smaller locking cabinets in the back of the courthouse. Out of courtesy to the courthouse staff, the Grand Jury allows only one or two members at a time in the rear, and only two Grand Jury officers have keys to the record storage. The rear of the courthouse is a bustling and crowded secure area; there is no appropriate way for nineteen jurors to be going back frequently for records.
The Butte County Facilities Master Plan documents that some Butte County departments will have grown too large for the facilities at 25 County Center Drive by the year 2015. The County has allocated space for the Grand Jury in that building sometime after that date. Current Grand Jurors and former Grand Jurors believe that 2015 is too long to wait, and there is no guarantee that growth will happen at the rate projected by the study or that funds will be available for county departments to move. The lack of space for record storage causes jurors to carry records home. Many are public records that could be preserved from Grand Jury to Grand Jury and would not need to be reproduced or even secured. Additionally, taking records home means that records must be reproduced for each member to take home, costing time, and generating waste. Many members buy new fax machines that copy or computer scanners/ copiers/ and fax machines to make the work more convenient. Many jurors also purchase digital recorders, toner, pens, highlighters, binders, paper and other supplies that all are paid out of the Per Diem. Long distance telephone calls are also paid for out of pocket.
Many of these costs could be reduced by a centralized, secure office space that contained computer equipment connected to the Internet, a high speed laser printer, and a telephone line with a fax machine. The Grand Jury could maintain public records on open bookshelves and have more room for secure record storage that is accessible
3 THE BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY: 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
to Grand Jury members. Many of the challenges of a Grand Jury could be mitigated by having enough space in that office for small committee meetings and a place where evidence could be centrally located for access for all members.
It is our belief that identifying appropriate office space would require coordination between the Superior Court and the County as part of their regular conversations regarding other issues affecting them both. Much of the Penal Code and case law regarding Grand Jury functionality was written before the separation occurred. Mutually agreed upon policy could easily alleviate much of the vacuum that currently exists and allow Grand Juries to spend more time focused on their penal code authorized duties. Time required to resolve issues of rote performance due to insufficient facilities would be minimized considerably.
Those who support us at the Superior Court, in County Counsel, in the DA’s office, and in the Auditor’s office are always friendly, helpful, and courteous. But, there are many issues to which no one person has an answer and it is up to a juror to find out. Many times there is no right answer to solve a problem or no one person who will take charge of a challenge.
In addition, many former Grand Jurors are willing and able to volunteer to perform community outreach and to donate materials and supplies, including computer equipment and office supplies without becoming involved in the confidential business of a current Grand Jury. They are also willing to provide basic computer training; and assisting with interview skills etc. Many counties in California have informal meetings of former Grand Jurors to support the Grand Jury or more formal chapters of the California Grand Jury Association.
The Grand Jury is aware that the old juvenile building and the Carnegie Library are not being fully utilized at this time. The Juvenile complex currently houses only the Juvenile Court and some storage. The Grand Jury would like to explore this as a possible interim solution until designated facilities are available in 2015 or thereafter.
This Grand Jury believes that a small group of Superior Court and Butte County employees, in conjunction with current and former Grand Jurors, could easily and inexpensively enable future Grand Juries to better perform its duties and reduce out of pocket expenses. Per Diem is paid at a rate of $20 in Butte County and a rate of $50 per day in Los Angeles with an average of approximately $35 per day statewide. Many jurors who serve are retired and have limited income, so out of pocket expenses can quickly become an issue and distract from the primary focus. We believe that a secure space and a reasonable amount of supplies would greatly alleviate that. We also believe that updating the Grand Jury’s policies to include a purchasing/supplies officer or adding those responsibilities to the Grand Jury Secretary would remove the responsibilities that a Foreperson typically performs.
The Grand Jury operates in secret and performs a valuable function in Butte County. In our silence, we believe it is easy for our basic, physical needs to be forgotten.
4 THE BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY: 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
Findings
1. Current Grand Jury facilities limit and affect the Grand Jury’s performance of authorized Penal Code duties. 2. Greater facilitation, coordination, and policy regarding the physical requirements of the Grand Jury are needed between Butte County and the Superior Court. 3. Without violating the confidentiality of the Grand Jury, volunteers can provide support to the Grand Jury by offering skill trainings, by donating equipment, supplies, and by performing public outreach. 4. Current Per Diem does not cover all out of pocket expenses. Waste and inefficiency can be minimized by providing centrally located and secure facilities for office space and record storage.
Recommendations
1. Allow the Grand Jury to utilize appropriate office space in the old Juvenile Hall complex or the old Carnegie Library, or a similar space, provided it can be appropriately secured and climate controlled for the preservation of records until space becomes available at 25 County Center Drive in approximately 2015. 2. Butte County should coordinate with the Superior Court and two (2) current and/or former Grand Jury volunteers to resolve issues of policy and functional responsibility assignments for supplies and facilities until such time as Grand Jury law appropriately reflects the separation of the Superior Courts from the county. This coordination should include regular meetings to ensure good communications. 3. In the short term, Grand Jury office facilities need to be large enough, for the entire Grand Jury to meet. Butte County should designate a point of contact within its administration, for volunteers to coordinate a location with sufficient materials and work area containing a telephone line, fax machine, Internet access, computer equipment, and furniture for record storage. Most of this equipment could be donated or purchased inexpensively from surplus. 4. Butte County should coordinate with the Grand Jury to provide access to basic office supplies. It is very likely that the purchasing power of the County could provide supplies at a much lower price than Jurors pay at a retail store. A rationed allotment of supplies for each Grand Jury term could greatly offset out of pocket expenses. 5. Butte County should pay Per Diem at an average rate of the same counties used in its compensation study for its employees in the 2005/06 fiscal year.
Response Required (Penal Code 933 & 933.05) Butte County Board of Supervisors Butte County Chief Administrative Officer
5 THE BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY: 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
Appendix I Summary of Required Responses
ANIMAL CONTROL IN BUTTE COUNTY Butte County Animal Control City of Chico, Animal Control Town of Paradise Animal Control (Police Department) BUTTE COUNTY FAIR Butte County Fair Association Butte County Fair CEO OLD HUMBOLDT ROAD WAGON TRAIL Chico City Council City of Chico Planning Director DISTRICT SALARIES AND PENSIONS Gridley Unified School District Butte County Office of Education HEALTH CARE IN ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS CUSD Board Of Trustees Superintendent of CUSD Superintendent of CUSD Director Pupil Personnel Services Director Classified Human Resources Manager – Maintenance and Operations DISPOSITION OF SURPLUS EQUIPMENT Chico Unified School District Board Of Trustees Superintendent, Chico Unified School District Director of Fiscal Services, Chico Unified School District Manager–Maintenance and Operations, Chico Unified School District ASSOCIATED STUDENT BODY FUNDS CUSD Board Of Trustees Superintendent of CUSD Assistant Superintendent – Educational Services Director Fiscal Services LAW ENFORCEMENT IN BUTTE COUNTY Butte County Sheriff CHICO POLICE DEPARTMENT Chico Police Department Chico City Council OFFICER INVOLVED SHOOTINGS/CRITICAL Butte County District Attorney INCIDENTS PROTOCOL Butte County Sheriff’s Department Chico Police Department Oroville Police Department Paradise Police Department Gridley-Biggs Police Department Butte Interagency Narcotics Task Force Butte County Probation Department TOWN OF PARADISE Paradise Town Council Paradise Town Manager TOWN OF PARADISE DEVELOPMENT FEES Town of Paradise City Manager PERSONNEL ISSUES / HIRING PRACTICES Oroville City Council Oroville City Attorney Oroville City Administrator
i 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
OROVILLE FIRE DEPARTMENT Oroville City Council Oroville City Administrator Oroville Fire Chief PUBLIC WORKS, PARKS AND TREES DEPARTMENT Oroville City Council Oroville City Administrator Director of Community Development & Public Works FEATHER RIVER RECREATION AND PARKS Feather River Recreation and Park District DISTRICT Board of Directors Oroville City Council Butte County Treasurer Butte County Auditor / Controller PART I--THE OFFICE AND STAFF Butte County Auditor-Controller Butte County Chief Administrative Officer Butte County Board of Supervisors Butte County Director of Human Resources ADDENDUM: BUTTE COUNTY HUMAN RESOURCES Butte County Board of Supervisors Butte County Chief Administrative Officer Butte County Director of Human Resources PART II--AUDITING THE AUDITOR AND HIS Butte County Auditor-Controller AUDITORS Butte County Board of Supervisors Butte County Chief Administrative Officer Butte County Director of Information Services ISSUES IMPACTING GRAND JURY EFFICIENCY Butte County Board of Supervisors Butte County Chief Administrative Officer
ii 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
APPENDIX IV: Comments Regarding Responses to the 2004-2005 Grand Jury Final Report
Effective January 1, 1997, state law requires that all agencies and public officers promptly submit responses to Grand Jury final reports, and to address every finding and recommendation pertaining to that agency or officer. (Penal Code § 933.05, see beginning pages of this Final Report for Penal Code excerpts.)
The 2005/06 Grand Jury received and evaluated all responses requested in the 2004/05 Grand Jury Final Report and determined that all responses met the basic requirements for responding to the findings and recommendations.
The 2005/06 Grand Jury has published the responses to the findings and recommendations of the 2004/05 Grand Jury Final Report and they are available for public review online at the Butte County Website (http://www.buttecounty.net/grandjury/)
The 2005-2006 Grand Jury wishes to thank those who responded to last year’s Final Report and recognizes their contribution to the community and to the Grand Jury process. The time and effort taken to review the 2004-2005 Grand Jury Final Report and to prepare and submit responses to the presiding judge are greatly appreciated.
iii 2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
APPENDIX V: Conflict of Interest
The Grand Jury recognizes that a conflict of interest may arise in the course of its investigations. Individual Grand Jury members are required to abstain from participating and voting on investigations in which they have such conflict.
Reports in which a Grand Juror abstained are: none
2005/06 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT