2004- 2005

GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT

June 28, 2005

Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION

Forward .................................................................................. 4

Letter from the Foreman ...................................................... 5

Letter from Judge Proud ...................................................... 6

Mission Statement ................................................................. 7

REPORTS

Review of past Grand Jury Reports ..................................... 9

Lack of County Strategic Plan .............................................. 11

Department of Human Services ........................................... 13

Information Technology ........................................................ 16

EID Crawford Ditch .............................................................. 19

Public Buildings and Property ............................................. 22

Board of Trustees, El Dorado Union High School District 27

EID Loan to El Dorado Hills Incorporation Committee ... 30

Ad Hoc Committee - Public Guardian ................................ 32

Commendation Report, Public Schools Facilities ............. 34

ADDENDUM

Letter of Commendation ........................................................ 37

Mid- Session Final Report and BOS Response ..................... 38

Jail Inspections ....................................................................... 44

Members of the Grand Jury .................................................. 45

Acknowledgments ................................................................... 48

Notice to Respondents and BOS Policy A- 11 ........................ 49

Complaint Instructions and Form ........................................ 50

Grand Jury Application ......................................................... 54

Emerald Bay, Lake Tahoe

INTRODUCTION

2004- 2005 Grand Jury Final Report

4

FORWARD

The grand jury is an investigatory body created for the protection of society and the enforcement

of the law. It is an arm of the court and a representative of the public. Although an arm of the

court, it operates independently of direct court supervision. It is a check against governmental

authority, but not a branch of the county government, nor is it answerable to the district attorney.

The grand jury is a group of ordinary El Dorado County citizens who have agreed to perform the

task of inquiring into local government for one year and to report their findings. The resulting

report, speaking for the general population to their government, must be answered by the proper

officials in a timely and correct manner as proscribed by law. If those officials agree with the

grand jury’s finding and recommendations, they must also explain how and when any

recommendations will be implemented. If they disagree, they must state why.

The grand jury is not just speaking for their own membership – they are speaking for the

populace. The government is not answering only those nineteen people – they are responding

publicly to all of their constituents. Serving on the grand jury is the direct involvement of

citizens in their local government. It is a great opportunity as well as a great responsibility. The

grand jury is an example of government by its people.

The grand jury speaks in one voice, as a body. Individual jurors or subcommittees of the jury do

not produce reports or issue statements without the authority of the entire jury. The vote and

work of the individual jurors are concealed. All proceedings are in secret, unlike almost any

other legal proceedings. Secrecy is required to protect jurors from improper pressures and to

encourage witnesses to speak freely without fear of retribution or public disclosure. The

California Penal Code requires secrecy be kept.

THE GRAND JURY DERIVES ITS POWER FROM THE CALIFORNIA

CONSTITUTION, STATUTE AND CASE LAW

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF EL DORADO

495 Main Street

Placerville, California 95667

Department 1( 530) 621- 6451

Fax: ( 530) 622- 5729

June 2, 2005

Dear Grand Jury Members:

I have reviewed the submitted final report of the 2004/ 2005 Grand Jury and wish to express how

personally pleased I am to have been associated with this Grand Jury as Supervising Judge.

This final report is a model of what a grand jury report should look like. The report reflects not

only the tremendous amount of time and effort the committee members expended in responding to

and investigating issues brought before them but also the knowledge, wisdom and professionalism

of the grand jurors.

As you are aware, the main purpose of a grand jury is to assist the public as an independent

investigative body overseeing local and county government. At the completion of the term, the

year- end report is prepared to inform the public and government of the Grand Jury's findings. The

objective is to assist the local government to be more efficient and effective for the benefit of all of

our citizens. You have accomplished that task with distinction. It is my hope that you found the

experience interesting and rewarding.

As the Supervising Judge for 2004/ 2005, I recognize that serving on the Grand Jury requires a

great personal sacrifice. You have taken time away from your families, employment, and usual

interests to perform a very important civic function for the benefit of all that live, work or do

business within El Dorado County.

I wish to thank each of you for your extraordinary work as grand jurors for El Dorado County

during the 2004/ 2005 session. I especially wish to thank you, David Davinroy, for the leadership

and dedication you brought to the position as foreperson. As a direct result of your guidance and

the many hours of work expended by you and your grand jurors, this has been a most successful

and productive session.

Congratulations on a job well done.

DANIEL B. PROUD

Judge of the Superior Court

DBP: hw

2004- 2005 Grand Jury Final Report

7

MISSION STATEMENT

The El Dorado County Grand Jury is a group of dedicated citizens actively working for

responsive government, enhanced community service, and protection of the rights of individuals,

residents, employees and those who conduct business in our county.

The grand jury will complete its task by actively responding to individual complaints and also

conducting investigations in a reasonable, impartial and fair manner. The panel of 19 members

will expose problems of concern to the community and make corrective recommendations. This

grand jury will also recognize those employees, individuals, entities and organizations that are

providing an outstanding service or assistance to the people of El Dorado County.

El Dorado County Lake Tahoe Area

Placerville circa 1851

REPORTS

2004- 2005 Grand Jury Final Report

9

REVIEW OF PAST GRAND JURY REPORTS

AND

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS RESPONSE

GJ 04- 040

Reason for the Report

The 2004- 2005 Grand Jury reviewed the last four years of Grand Jury Final Reports and the

Board of Supervisors Responses. Our investigation revealed that many issues addressed in these

four reports still exist. Recommendations were made by past Grand Juries. The county agreed

with some of the recommendations, stating they would be implemented, but never did so. Each

year significant operational deficiencies of several departments continue to appear before the

Grand Jury, thus causing time and monies to be spent due to lack of timely implementation of

actions that would have remedied the problems. ( example, see GJ04- 043, Lack of Strategic Plan

see page 11) .

Background

The Grand Jury’s primary function is to serve the public by overseeing county and local

government and is an impaneled investigative body mandated to inform the citizens of

El Dorado County to better the function of its government. The Grand Jury Final Report is

published at the end of its term in June with findings and recommendations, is the product of the

investigations that were completed during that year, and is mandated by Penal Code Section 933

( a), of the State of California. The Grand Jury has a duty to review all responses to prior years’

final reports to insure that responses are correctly addressed and initiated as stated.

Findings/ Recommendations

1a. Finding: Final Grand Jury reports from the last four years have addressed several problems

in various departments. Responses to these problems made by the affected departments indicated

acknowledgement of these problems and acceptance of the Grand Jury’s recommendations. The

responses to the reports were “ We agree that the problem exists and that action will be taken in

the near future.” But the problems still exist in many departments today. The department

managers and directors are not implementing the necessary actions required to correct the

recurring situations. The Grand Jury finds that the Board of Supervisors is ultimately

responsible, but has not acted to assure corrective action.

1b. Recommendation: The Grand Jury recommends that a monitoring program be

implemented to assure that acknowledged deficiencies are corrected. The Board of

Supervisors is to be advised by the CAO as to the current progress in complying with the

response to the Grand Jury’s report. The progress report is to be printed in the board’s

agenda minutes at the first board meeting of each month.

2a. Finding: Several responses to recommendations in the 2003- 4 Grand Jury Report stated that

the recommendation has yet to be implemented, but will be in the future. Example: Child

Protective Services response # 2; County Government response # 5; Trust Funds response # 4;

South Lake Tahoe Public Utility District response. These responses are not in compliance with

2004- 2005 Grand Jury Final Report

10

Penal Code Section 933.05( b)( 2) and ( 3) which requires the respondent give a time frame for

implementation of the recommended actions.

2b. Recommendation: The Board of Supervisors when responding to Grand Jury

recommendations must follow Penal Code Section 933.05 ( b) ( 2) and ( 3) and set specific

time frames for accomplishing recommendations which are acknowledged.

A response is required by the Board of Supervisors within ninety ( 90) days. See Table of

Contents, “ Notice to Respondents”.

2004- 2005 Grand Jury Final Report

11

LACK OF COUNTY STRATEGIC PLAN

GJ04- 043

Reason for the Report

The 2001- 2002 Grand Jury with the Board of Supervisors approval, at a cost of about $ 12,325,

contracted for an independent management audit which found the county did not have a long

range strategic plan. The Board of Supervisors agreed with the findings and responded that the

recommendations would be “ implemented in the future.” This Grand Jury found that no

strategic plan has been started or implemented to date.

Scope of the Investigation

People Interviewed

The Chief Administrative Officer

The County Auditor

Documents Reviewed

The 2001- 2002 Grand Jury Report and Responses by the Board of Supervisors

including the report of the independent management audit titled “ Analysis of El

Dorado County’s Budget Process” dated May, 2002.

The Grand Jury Reports for the two subsequent years, 2002- 2003 and 2003- 2004.

The County Budgets for 2003- 2004 and 2004- 2005.

Background

As Satchel Paige said years ago, “ If you don’t know where you want to go, you may wind up

some place else.” If the county does not have a strategic plan, what the county will become may

not be what the citizens want it to be.

The 2002- 2003 Grand Jury report on page 18 describes a strategic plan in these terms:

“ Many organizations, public and private, engage in a strategic planning process to accomplish

the following:

1. Confirm and refine the mission statement of the organization with which all employees

and stakeholders agree.

2. Establish a vision for the future of the organization

3. Develop goals, objectives and action plans to ensure accomplishment of the mission and

vision.

4. Establish a mechanism for measuring and reporting on actual organization performance

relative to the goals, objectives and action plan.

2004- 2005 Grand Jury Final Report

12

“ Generally, strategic plans are multi- year in nature with a five year horizon being fairly typical.

A strategic planning process for El Dorado County should include the following steps:

o Assessing the current state of County operations including resources available and

strengths and weaknesses of the organization.

o Identifying likely future trends that will affect the County ( e. g., population growth in El

Dorado and neighboring counties, changes in State funding formulas, likely incorporation

of cities, impacts of new technology, etc.)

o Identifying likely future service needs and resources available to meet those demands

( i. e., likely revenue streams).

o Establishing service goals and objectives consistent with the mission and vision for the

future.

o Establishing a system for measuring the County’s success in meeting the stated goals and

objectives.”

Facts

1. The CAO stated the county has not started to implement a strategic plan.

2. The CAO has had experience in developing and implementing strategic plans in other

governmental environments and knows the importance of them.

3. The County Auditor states the plan would be difficult to develop and implement due to the

unreliability of state and federal funding for some departments. A strategic plan could by

preemptive planning soften the effects of future shortfalls.

4. Unstable funding for county employee pensions and health care after retirement, the poor

capital expenditures planning, and the recent curtailment of some of the county libraries are

examples of problems that develop due to lack of a long- term strategic plan.

5. The recently voter- approved County General Plan is a planning and land use document and is

not a long- term strategic plan.

FINDINGS/ RECOMMENDATOINS

1a. Finding: The Board of Supervisors agreed in 2003 that a long- term strategic plan would be

beneficial to the county, but has taken no action to implement one.

1b. Recommendation: The Board of Supervisors should take the necessary action to

develop and implement a long- term strategic plan as described in the 2002- 2003

grand jury report.

A response by the Board of Supervisors is required within 90 days. See Table of Contents

“ Notice to Respondents.”

2004- 2005 Grand Jury Final Report

13

DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES

AND CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES

GJ 04- 010

Reason for the Report

The Grand Jury received a public complaint that the Human Services and Child Protective

Services Departments are dysfunctional in its current operations. The complaint listed several

cases of emotional stress, repositioning of personnel into untrained positions, senior employees

leaving, and feelings of being “ terrorized”, “ intimidated”, and lack of respect for the Social

Workers and Staff.

Scope of Investigation

People Interviewed

Director of Human Services Supervisor Adoptions, CPS

Director of Child Protective Services Supervisor Emergency Response, CPS

Department of Community Services Supervisor Ongoing Services, CPS

APS/ IHSS Program Manager Supervisor Child Protective Services

Department of Social Services Several CPS and DSS Social Workers

Child Support Services Recently resigned Employees of CPS

Department of Mental Health Chief Administrative Officer

Department of Public Health County Counsel

Program Manager Children Services Human Resources

Documents Reviewed

A preliminary working manual of Board of Supervisors Response to the

current CPS policies. Grand Jury Final Report 1999- 2000

Memos to Social Worker Personnel Board of Supervisors Response to the

from CPS Department Heads Grand Jury Final Report 2000- 2001

Memos of Human Services Personnel Board of Supervisors Response to the

from HS Department Heads Grand Jury Final Report 2001- 2002

Memos to Local # 1 Union from CPS Board of Supervisors Response to the

Personnel Grand Jury Final Report 2002- 2003

Various Articles from the Mountain Board of Supervisors Response to the

Democrat Grand Jury Final Report 2003- 2004

Audit conducted by Harvey Rose, Audit conducted by John Warden,

CPA, 2002 CPA, 2002

Background

The current Grand Jury has reviewed the last five years of Grand Jury Reports and Board of

Supervisors Responses. The investigation revealed that many of the conditions addressed in these

four reports still exist in the Human Services and Child Protective Services Departments. Over the

past four years the Department of Human Services has been re- organized by integrating Welfare

2004- 2005 Grand Jury Final Report

14

Services and Social Services. The new department has had several directors as well as several

resignations of personnel with long- term tenure and experience. Significant deficiencies in

management and training have been identified and continue to exist. The Board of Supervisors in

their micro- management of this county, as mandated by the County Charter, has been delinquent in

establishing a format to follow- through with programs necessary to eliminate the continuing

conditions.

Findings/ Recommendations

1a. Finding: Human Services Management has mandated reorganization and repositioning of

personnel to create a cohesive workplace. Management’s lack of effective, proactive leadership,

cross training, and proper guidelines has allowed both confusion and poor morale to develop and

continue.

1b. Recommendation: The proper training of managerial staff is needed to encourage a

more sensitive approach when dealing with individual caseworkers, and when conducting

staff meetings.

2a. Finding: Management mandated moving experienced long- term caseworkers, with established

client relationships, into new and different positions within the department, caused children and

families in crisis to be subjected to additional stress.

2b. Recommendation: When repositioning personnel a cross- training program needs to be

initiated prior to final reappointment to new positions.

3a. Finding: The head of the department has stated “ a work- in- progress manual, Guidelines for

CPS is currently being written.” A “ California Department of Social Services Manual of Policies

and Procedures: Div. 31 – Child Welfare Services” provides the guidelines which are generally

used day- to- day. Methods to implement the “ work- in- progress manual” have not been established.

Many guidelines proposed within the “ work- in- process manual” are subject to interpretation by the

caseworker. Interpretation of policies has in the past caused confusion and delays in response to a

child in crisis. The department director and managers are not implementing the manual policies and

staff recommendations necessary to make these departments function properly.

3b. Recommendation: Implement a regular open forum round- table meeting with staff,

supervisors, and managers to review day- to- day problems and current policies.

4a. Finding: Positions in the Human Services Department are filled from eligibility lists

established by a State- sanctioned, quasi- public, non- profit, independent authority called

“ Cooperative Personnel Services,” usually referred to as the Merit System. The Merit System

screens and tests applicants and maintains eligibility lists of job categories for several Counties in

the State. Merit System candidates responding to the needs of El Dorado County are selected from

a “ five candidate per opening requirement.”

Other counties having a higher pay scale for the same qualification may have selected

candidates and may deplete the number of candidates available. In the time frame of several weeks

of screening, El Dorado County may not have the opportunity to interview the highest qualified

applicant. Vacancies in the CPS and DSS are prevalent. Positions are remaining vacant for several

2004- 2005 Grand Jury Final Report

15

months, indicating a need to pursue different strategies to acquire the qualified personnel

required for these positions.

4b. Recommendation: Other than the Merit System, establish a more responsive

program to reduce the time frame required to employ candidates. Revise the recruiting

procedure to a more direct contact with colleges and other employment agencies nation-wide.

Adjust salary scales to become competitive in the overall hiring process.

5a. Finding: The Director of Human Services has established an open door policy for

employees to discuss improvements and inadequacies, but is very often not available and out of

the office, which has created frustration on the part of employees.

5b. Recommendation: Establish a calendar with defined times that the director will

definitely be available.

6a. Finding: Interviews with the Board of Education and Marshall Hospital staff indicate a

slow response and follow- up from CPS and APS on crisis calls. We find these departments are

not meeting the state mandated time frame on all crisis calls.

There have been cases where patients with pre- existing conditions of attempted suicide

have been evaluated and sent home from the hospital without further investigation. This action

could lead to tragic results.

6b. Recommendation: Directors, managers, and supervisors need to initiate a more rigid

standard that will insure timely responses to crisis calls and be more informed as to

response times achieved. Mental Health, as well as CPS and APS, must become more

proactive in moving these patients into a more controlled environment.

7a. Finding: In January of 2004, several departments were incorporated under one director

forming the Human Services Department. Over the past four years, Grand Jury Reports

indicated several problems existed that these department managers had acknowledged. The

Grand Jury finds some of these problems still exist. The CAO and the department heads have

indicated that policies are currently not in place to correct these problems.

7b. Recommendation: The Board of Supervisors to review the last five years of Grand

Jury Reports for stated and acknowledged problems that still exist. Establish a proactive

process to assure that those responsible for correcting the problem follow through and

finish the task in a timely manner. Penal Code Section 933 requires a time frame be

stated when responding to all recommendations and findings.

A response is required from the Board of Supervisors within ninety ( 90) days. See Table of

Contents “ Notice to Respondent.”

2004- 2005 Grand Jury Final Report

16

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

GJ04- 026

Reason for the Report

The Grand Jury chose to do a general investigation of the use of information technology in the

county.

Scope of Investigation

People Interviewed

Director of Informational Technologies ( IT) Department

Various Department Directors and their information technology ( IT) staff

County Chief Administrative Officer

Documents Reviewed

El Dorado County Information Technologies Strategic Plan, updated July 2004

El Dorado County Information Technologies Tactical Plans, updated October

2004

El Dorado County computer and Network Resource Usage Policies and Standards

Guide, revised June 2004

County of El Dorado Board of Supervisors Policy A- 10 Information Technology

Steering Committee and Information Technology Acquisition Procedures, revised

November 1999

IT Department draft revision of County of El Dorado Board of Supervisors Policy

A- 10

Draft report “ The Future of El Dorado County Information Technologies and the

Information Technologies Department” prepared by the Information Technologies

Department dated November 1, 2003.

Background

The Grand Jury was interested in the progress the County was making in incorporating the use of

information technology and the use of computers in their business plan.

Facts

1. Twenty- one of the 32 county departments depend on the IT Department for desktop and

departmental application support. The IT Department has twenty- seven ( 27) staff

supporting those departments.

2. The IT Department additionally supports all large enterprise applications, such as,

payroll, property, FAMIS, BPrep, etc. and county- wide computer systems including the

mainframe and network.

3. The IT Department staff occasionally supports the other eleven departments or develops

multi- departmental “ enterprise” applications.

2004- 2005 Grand Jury Final Report

17

4. The eleven departments not supported by IT have 31 employees dedicated to IT

functions.

5. The industry standard for personal computer tech support is approximately 75 personal

computers ( PCs) per tech support employee.

6. IT Department PC tech support is at the 150- 200 PCs per tech support employee. The

average for the eleven departments with their own PC tech support staff is approximately

30 PCs per tech support employee.

7. Not all IT staff in the eleven departments with their own IT section is supervised by an

information technologist or someone with specialized training in the IT field. IT requires

a specialized knowledge base and an on- going need to acquire information about

emerging technologies.

8. The County has adopted a county- wide IT Strategic Plan.

9. The county has adopted IT standards.

10. The county has implemented centralized purchasing of some hardware through the IT

Department.

11. The county has an Information Technology Steering Committee to advise the IT

Department, Board of Supervisors and the County Administration Officer.

Findings/ Recommendations

1a. Finding: IT staff county- wide is not being used as effectively or as efficiently as they could

be. Some departments like the Assessor and District Attorney Offices have excellent IT staff and

appear to be far ahead in their use and integration of computers in their daily routines. Other

departments are lagging. The IT draft document “ The Future of El Dorado County Information

Technologies and the Information Technologies Department” states that the county could save

$ 650,000 per year if the IT functions were more centralized with the IT Department in a

“ federated” or multi- tiered IT personnel configuration model. The Grand Jury believes the

savings could be well over $ 1,000,000 per year.

1b. Recommendation: Conduct a review of the delivery of IT services in the county

with an eye towards reduction in the cost and an increase in efficiency and upgrading of

services. Alternatives should include 1) outsourcing all or some IT services, 2)

centralizing IT services within the IT Department and 3) implementing a federated or

multi- tiered model as proposed in the IT Department’s November 1, 2003 draft report.

The county should seriously think about a review by an outside agency.

2a. Finding: IT staff recommendations per County Policy A- 10 on the purchase of either

software or hardware are routinely ignored. The policy A- 10 as written states that all purchase

requests dealing with information processing shall be reviewed by Information Services for

analysis and recommendation prior to purchase. It does not require their approval before

software or hardware is purchased.

2b. Recommendation: Revise Policy A- 10 to require that all software and hardware

purchases be approved by the IT Department. Exceptions from established county IT

standards would have to be approved by the IT Steering Committee.

2004- 2005 Grand Jury Final Report

18

3a. Finding: Departments acquiring or producing information or data that could be used by

other county departments are sometimes reluctant to freely share that information or data. The

public is not served well by these reluctant departments. As an example, the Building

Department could better coordinate with the Assessor’s Office when blueprint information is

scanned and made available so that the Assessor’s staff can complete their work in a timely

manner.

3b. Recommendation: The Board of Supervisors, elected officials and the CAO shall

empower an individual ( IT Director?) to assure that all departments are sharing data and

information between departments. This will help foster inter- departmental

communication and help eliminate any duplication of data collection.

A response is required by the Board of Supervisors within 90 days. See Table of Contents,

“ Notice to Respondents”.

2004- 2005 Grand Jury Final Report

19

EID CRAWFORD DITCH

GJ 04- 001

Reason for the Report

The Grand Jury received a complaint regarding the misuse of water resources, over allocation of

water meters and preferential treatment of large landowners and developers by the El Dorado

Irrigation District, hereafter referred to as EID.

Scope of Investigation

People Interviewed

Former member of EID engineering staff

EID Ditch System Supervisor

EID General Manager

Documents Reviewed

EID internal memos, e- mails, newspaper articles, other agency reports, personnel

action records, transcribed interviews and employee personal journals

EID prepared binder with maps, flow data, revenue data, Power Point presentation

transcripts, legal briefs and historical data related to ditch systems and particularly the

Crawford Ditch.

Physical Inspection

EID guided tour of Crawford Ditch showing diversion dam, typical delivery

apparatus to end users and repairs following a major side wall failure.

Background

The Grand Jury found the complaint as filed to be largely a matter of difference of opinion and

perspective. Some of the issues raised were technically valid at one time, but have since been

properly resolved by EID. The one exception is the issue related to the current operation of the

Crawford Ditch.

The Crawford Ditch is an enduring example of Gold Rush era technology. It operates today

much as it did in the 1850’ s. It consists of 21 miles of open earthen ditch winding through the

rugged and remote backcountry of our county.

It begins at a diversion dam on the North fork of the Cosumnes River under a pre- 1914 water

right. Its purpose is to deliver untreated seasonal agricultural water.

2004- 2005 Grand Jury Final Report

20

Facts

1. Revenues from the ditch water customers average around $ 10,000 per year.

2. Costs incurred by EID to keep the ditch operating total over $ 100,000 in a typical year.

3. Sidewall collapses have occurred causing private property and environmental damage

resulting in repairs and mitigation expenses costing EID millions of dollars.

4. Quantification of water diverted, delivered and lost ( seepage, evaporation and theft) is

extremely primitive. Several studies have been attempted with results that are less than

conclusive. These efforts have been characterized by EID as “ educated guesses” at best.

The studies do agree that those losses are high, ranging from 60% to 80%.

5. Due to contaminants picked up from its long journey in an open ditch over agricultural

land, the remaining water can not be economically treated to potable standards. All

efforts to do so ended in the early 1990’ s.

6. Ditch water customers pay a flat rate per season based on the type of apparatus used to

divert ditch water to their property. There is no actual quantification of water used and

therefore no meaningful records.

Findings/ Recommendations

1a. Finding: The Crawford Ditch loses money at roughly a 10 to 1 ratio. This results in the rate

payers at large providing a 90% subsidy to the 44 Crawford Ditch customers.

1b. Recommendation: Adjust the fee schedule to more realistically reflect the cost of the

service.

2a. Finding: Reliable data on water received at the source, water delivered to customers and

water lost ( seepage, evaporation and theft) does not presently exist. See photo on page 21.

2b. Recommendation: Install the metering hardware necessary to accurately quantify the

water appropriated, sold and lost.

3a. Finding: The Ditch itself pollutes the water rendering it useless as a future potable water

source, and the potential remains high for future sidewall failures requiring EID to pay large

damage claims. Also, the lack of quantification, high percentage of loss and outright pollution of

valuable water creates fertile ground for future legal challenges to our current water right.

3b. Recommendation: Embark on a plan to structurally upgrade from an open ditch to

infrastructure consistent with current standards for water conveyance

In Conclusion

With the adoption of a General Plan our county is poised for a large population increase in a very

compressed time frame. This makes our water resources all the more valuable. Any waste of

water is truly undesirable and any loss of water right totally unacceptable.

A response is required by the El Dorado Irrigation District within ninety ( 90) days. See Table of

Contents, “ Notice to Respondents”.

2004- 2005 Grand Jury Final Report

21

Sample of open ditch

2004- 2005 Grand Jury Final Report

22

PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND PROPERTY

GJ04- 042

Reason for the report

The 2004- 2005 Grand Jury, per Penal Code 925, inspected several county buildings, parking

lots, and adjacent grounds. We also followed up on some of the concerns identified by previous

Grand Juries.

Scope of the Investigation

People Interviewed

Prison Staff

Fire Marshall – Placerville/ South Lake Tahoe

Interim Director General Services

Real Estate Manager

Program Coordinators

Senior C. A. D. D. Technician, General Services

Engineering Specialist, Public Works City of Placerville

Engineering Technician, Public Works / Placerville Engineering Department

Risk Manager, County Administrative Office

Director Mental Health Department

Nutrition Services Supervisor

Engineers, Department of Transportation

Field Supervisors, Animal Control

Kitchen Staff, Placerville Senior Center

Sites Visited

Jail – Placerville

Juvenile Hall – Placerville/ South Lake Tahoe

Growlersberg Conservation Camp

Georgetown – Airport / Library

Senior Center – Placerville

Mental Health Buildings & Services – Placerville / South Lake Tahoe

Animal Control – South Lake Tahoe

Department of Transportation – South Lake Tahoe

Documents Reviewed

Placerville topographic map

Risk Management Claim Register / Litigation Report

Risk Management Facility Incident Report

Property Lease Agreements

Grand Jury Final Report / Responses for 2003- 04; 2002- 03; 2001- 02; 2000- 01

2004- 2005 Grand Jury Final Report

23

Background

Mental Health Services, South Lake Tahoe ( SLT) and Georgetown Airport and Library were

chosen for inspection, since they had not been visited in the last four years. The leased facility at

3rd Street, SLT ( a prior residence) has modifications with safety concerns. We requested the

Fire Marshall to inspect several buildings when safety issues were found. Previous Grand

Juries identified potentially hazardous conditions at the Placerville Spring Street Complex and

South Lake Tahoe Animal Control.

MENTAL HEALTH BUILDINGS – South Lake Tahoe

Findings/ Recommendations

1a. Finding: The leased building at 1120 3rd Street has an awkward floor plan. Kitchen area,

offices, and storage areas are inadequate. Although three floors are in use only the first floor is

ADA compliant. A wheel chair lift to the basement is under construction.

1b. Recommendation: Relocate this department to a facility adequate to serve the

clientele, to create a safe work environment for the employees and to meet ADA

requirements.

2a. Finding: Cleanliness is a problem. The bathrooms are potential health hazards. There are

cobwebs in stairwells, bathrooms, and ceiling vents. Several fluorescent lights have been

flickering for months. Staff and clients perform janitorial duties.

2b. Recommendation: Hire a janitorial service.

3a. Finding: The Fire Marshall and the County Building Inspector found the inside stairway

failed to meet required codes. The building inspector has condemned the stairway until it is

rebuilt to code.

3b. Recommendation: Require the landlord to provide a proper inside stairway

4a. Finding: The basement furniture is dirty and worn. This room was a former swimming pool

and has no windows.

4b. Recommendation: Purchase better furniture for the basement.

5a. Finding: Clothing, boxes, bags, suitcases, etc, are stacked in corners and on counter tops.

New tires ( about 12) are stored in the corner of the main meeting room.

5b. Recommendation: Provide lockers or cabinets for clients’ belongings, and store tires

at DOT.

6a. Finding: The front entrance is hazardous in the winter due to melting snow and ice falling

off the roof. The outside basement entrance is a concrete stairwell where ice accumulates. The

rear entrance is icy and uneven. Sign on outside building wall warns of falling ice and snow.

This dangerous condition should not be allowed to exist. See photo on page 26.

6b. Recommendation: Ensure entrances and fire exits are free of ice and snow as

needed ( daily or hourly).

2004- 2005 Grand Jury Final Report

24

7a. Finding: The main door sticks. Pulling/ pushing may result in slipping and/ or falling.

7b. Recommendation: Request landlord to repair front door.

8a. Finding: Wood rot resulting in peeling paint under eaves was evident on the upstairs

balcony.

8b. Recommendation: Request landlord to repair roof and gutter.

9a. Finding: The heating system results in a difference of 10 degrees between the basement and

first floor and a similar difference between the first and second floors. The top floor is too warm

while the basement is too cool. The multi- stage construction of this former private residence has

resulted in inadequate air circulation with inadequate thermostat controls.

9b. Recommendation: Request landlord to improve heat and air circulation.

10a. Finding: The second floor bathroom is under re- construction due to mold abatement.

10b. Recommendation: Ensure mold problems have been eliminated.

MENTAL HEALTH and PUBLIC HEALTH BUILDINGS – Placerville

Findings/ Recommendations

11a. Finding: The building at 344 Placerville Drive has numerous areas where carpet seams

have separated and worn bumpy areas have erupted. Since May 2000 five accidents occurred in

various county buildings due to carpet problems.

11b. Recommendation: Replace “ bumpy/ worn” carpet as soon as possible to

minimize County liability and prevent injury accidents/ lawsuits.

12a. Finding: The Fire Marshall required inappropriate exit signs removed, and proper fire exits

clearly marked. The “ Fire Escape Routes” will be clearly posted.

12b. Recommendation: Inform employees of the necessity to keep Fire Exits clear. The

Fire Marshall should perform unannounced inspections periodically.

13a. Finding: The building at 2808 Mallard Street is sometimes closed and locked during

regular business hours, with no explanation posted on the locked door.

13b: Recommendation: Post hours open/ closed for each day, when they vary from the

regular business hours. This should go into effect immediately.

14a. Finding: The Mallard Street building is generally well maintained. The kitchen area was

cluttered but clean. The office layout, meeting rooms and general traffic flow promote efficient

service to clients.

14b. Commendation: The Grand Jury commends the staff at 2808 Mallard Lane for their

friendly and helpful environment.

2004- 2005 Grand Jury Final Report

25

SENIOR CENTER – Placerville Spring Street Complex

15a. Finding: Access to the Spring Street Complex is via a narrow road, Robin Court.

15a. Recommendation: Construct a proper encroachment on Robin Court per County

specifications.

16a. Finding: Emergency shut- off valves and electrical sub- panels are poorly marked.

16b. Recommendation: Mark emergency shut- off valves and sub- panels.

ANIMAL CONTROL – South Lake Tahoe

17a. Finding: Architectural drawings have been done to remodel the existing buildings, and add

a new building ( per GJ Report 2003- 2004). The County is in the process of purchasing adjacent

land. Needed improvements should be competed by the end of 2005.

17b. Recommendation: Complete improvements as soon as possible.

JUVENILE HALL – Placerville / South Lake Tahoe

18a. Finding: The Placerville Juvenile Hall is well run and functions just under capacity with the

opening of the new facility at South Lake Tahoe. The new facility at South Lake Tahoe is clean,

modern and well run.

18b. Commendation: The Grand Jury commends both staffs for their efficiency.

GROWLERSBERG CONSERVATION CAMP – Georgetown

19a. Finding: Growlersberg is well run and in good condition, however, the woodworking shop,

which offers excellent training to inmates, is not operating due to lack of funds.

19b. Recommendation: Make funds available for the woodwork shop.

A response is required by the Board of Supervisors within 90 days. See Table of Contents,

“ Notice to Respondents”.

2004- 2005 Grand Jury Final Report

26

Front entrance of Mental Health Facility, Third St., South Lake Tahoe.

2004- 2005 Grand Jury Final Report

27

BOARD OF TRUSTEES

EL DORADO UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT

GJ04- 025

Reason for the Report

Upon receiving a complaint that improprieties may have occurred in the choice of a new

superintendent, the Grand Jury decided to investigate the actions taken by the Board of Trustees

in the summer of 2004. This does not reflect in any way on their choice of the new

superintendent, but on the manner in which the board went about making their choice. A possible

violation of The Brown Act during this process is the subject of our investigation.

Scope of the Investigation

People Interviewed

Superintendent of the EDUHSD

Assistant Superintendents of the EDUHSD

Assistant to the Superintendent of the EDUHSD

El Dorado County Deputy District Attorney

El Dorado County Counsel

El Dorado County District Attorney

Leadership Associates Consultant

Member of the Board of Trustees of the EDUHSD

Documents Reviewed

The Brown Act

Minutes of the Board of Trustees from May through August, 2004

Contract between the Board of Trustees and Leadership Associates signed

June 7, 2004

Leadership Associates brochure

Leadership Associates sample timeline

Advertisement placed by Leadership Associates on the internet and in the

periodical of the Association of California School Administrators.

Background

The then- current Superintendent of the EDUHSD in May of 2004 notified the Board of Trustees

that he was leaving for another position at the end of the term. The board began the process to

find a new superintendent who would reflect the values important for the district; which consists

of five high schools, three continuation high schools and one adult school. The board signed a

contract with Leadership Associates, a search organization, to conduct the search and provide

them with applicants who were to be screened by Leadership Associates. The Board of Trustees

was then to make their selection from this pool. The advertisements for the position had not been

posted on the internet, nor print media, when the Board of Trustees announced they had chosen a

2004- 2005 Grand Jury Final Report

28

new superintendent. The board usually meets on Tuesdays in the conference room at the district

headquarters, but may also meet at any of the high schools. The board does not usually meet

during the month of July, and not all of the high schools are open for summer school programs.

Facts

1. The minutes of the Board of Trustees do not reflect the date, time and place of the next

regular meeting.

2. Under The Brown Act both regular and special meetings require 24 hours notice to the

public. Special meetings require only a single agenda item.

3. On June 2nd, Leadership Associates sent a letter to the board with a proposal that they be

selected to conduct the search for a new superintendent.

4. On June 7th the board signed a contract with Leadership Associates to conduct the search. The

sum of $ 24,500.00 was to be paid for this search, and the contract was open- ended with the

goal of the final selection process in November.

5. On June 15th the board voted to place an interim superintendent in the position while the

search for a new permanent superintendent was conducted. They also discussed the contract

parameters and possible candidates during the closed portion of this meeting.

6. On June 22nd the board minutes indicate an approval of an interim superintendent.

7. On Monday, July 12th, a month in which no meetings are usually scheduled, a special meeting

held by the board approved an interim superintendent.

8. On Saturday, July 17th, during a closed session, applicants for the position of superintendent

were discussed and one was selected for the position. The new superintendent was from a

local school district.

9. On Monday, July 19th, the district announced the appointment of a new superintendent. The

search contract with Leadership Associates was then terminated.

10. A bill dated July 20th for $ 12,250.00, half of the sum of the search fee, was sent to the board,

and is marked “ paid in full”. The bill is date- stamped “ July 26th Superintendent’s Office”.

11. No brochures from Leadership Associates were distributed in the district. The advertising on

the internet appeared Wednesday, July 21st; four days after the choice had been made.

12. No completed applications were submitted by Leadership Associates, and the board member

interviewed could not recall any discussed at the July 17th meeting. No application for the

superintendent selected by the board has been produced by the Board of Trustees.

13. The use of the term “ informal meeting” in the minutes of the board meetings on June 8th and

15th and July 12th and 17th is not permitted by definition in The Brown Act.

14. The fact that no completed applications were available from Leadership Associates and the

Board of Trustees indicates that the position had not been adequately publicized. One

qualified employee told us that he would have applied for the position if the applications had

been available.

15. The fact that the advertisements in the ACSA magazine and on the internet came out after the

selection of the superintendent further indicates that the board acted hastily in entering into a

contract for the search.

16. Leadership Associates representatives had attended two, possibly three, community

meetings, met with members of the Board of Trustees twice, produced a brochure and

prepared advertisements that were released after the fact. For this they were paid $ 12,250.00

for approximately 6 weeks of work.

2004- 2005 Grand Jury Final Report

29

Recommendation:

The Grand Jury strongly recommends that, in the future, the Board of Trustees of the EDUHSD

develop a plan for the selection of a candidate for any administrative position and adhere to it.

Entering into a contract and then subverting it by making a selection before the contract had

expired is inproper. While this is not illegal and is the prerogative of the Board of Trustees, the

short period during which this process took place leads the Grand Jury to wonder if the candidate

was “ pre- selected” from the start, which gives the air of impropriety. The EDUHSD Board of

Trustees should promote policies which demonstrate fair and open communication, minimizing

both secrecy and the appearance of favoritism.

The fact that other people have stated that they would have applied if they had known the

position was open indicates that this opportunity was not as widely available as the board has

stated. The lack of any records as to whom and when the notices of the Board of Trustees’

meeting agenda were sent, and whether they were given the required time as mandated in The

Brown Act, indicates a lack of regard for the law and gives the impression of contempt for

teachers and the general public. The EDUHSD Board of Trustees should insure that proper

documentation is kept on file, which indicates total, not selective, compliance with The Brown

Act.

The Board of Trustees is not an entity unto itself, but is supported by the people of El Dorado

County through public taxes, and is therefore to be of service to the public, not the reverse.

A response is required by the Board of Trustees, El Dorado Union High School District within

ninety ( 90) days. See Table of Contents, “ Notice to Respondents”.

2004- 2005 Grand Jury Final Report

30

EID LOAN TO El DORADO HILLS

INCORPORATION COMMITTEE

GJ04- 005- B

Reason for the Report

The Grand Jury received a public complaint that the El Dorado Irrigation District ( EID) Board of

Directors was exceeding their fundamental guidelines by loaning money to the El Dorado Hills

Incorporation Committee and should be stopped from using taxpayer funds to support projects

that are not within their jurisdiction.

Scope of Investigation

People interviewed

LAFCO Executive officer

EID General Counsel

EID General Manager

El Dorado Hills CSD General Manager

Documents reviewed

Letter to LAFCO from EID Board of Directors concerning loan of $ 25,000 to El

Dorado Hills Incorporation Committee

Audio tapes of EID Board of Directors meetings of May 17, 2004 and June 21,

2004

E- mail dated June 22, 2004 between LAFCO and EID Counsel

Director’s Item # 15 of June 21, 2004 EID Board of Directors’ meeting concerning

the El Dorado Hills Incorporation committee loan update.

County of Fresno v Malaga County Water District ( 2002 DJDAR 8663)

January 5, 2005 letter to Grand Jury from EID counsel concerning a promissory

note issued by Grizzly Flats through a Joint Powers Authority.

Background

The Grand Jury identified a fundamental problem with the way the EID Board of Directors

approved an unsecured, no interest loan to an anticipated entity ( the City of El Dorado Hills).

Because the city did not exist at the time of the loan they are not bound to repay the loan. In

essence, the Board of Directors gave the money to LAFCO to benefit the El Dorado Hills

Incorporation Committee with little chance of getting it repaid.

2004- 2005 Grand Jury Final Report

31

Facts

1. At the EID Board of Directors meeting of June 21, 2004 the directors approved by a 3- 2

vote ( Districts 1 and 4 voted no) a $ 25,000 payment for the benefit of the El Dorado Hills

Incorporation Committee to be deposited directly with LAFCO.

2. The payment was accompanied by a statement that the payment be considered a loan to

be repaid by the future city, if formed.

3. Further, it was accompanied with a request that LAFCO condition any incorporation

approval upon such repayment.

4. There was no interest stated for the loan.

5. There was no due date stated.

6. EID had approached the El Dorado Hills CSD to see if they would be the recipient and

guarantor of the loan. The CSD Board rejected EID’s request and challenged the EID

Board to match CSD’s own contribution as a grant to the incorporation effort with no

strings attached.

7. The Board had received several comments from the public that the board should not

support granting money to the incorporation effort.

Findings/ Recommendations:

1a. Finding: The EID Board of Directors gave a $ 25,000 unsecured, no interest loan to the El

Dorado Hills Incorporation Committee to be repaid by the future city of El Dorado Hills

knowing the loan would not be repaid if there was no city formed and knowing that even if El

Dorado Hills were to be incorporated there was nothing but a moral obligation to repay the loan.

EID Board of Directors had three choices: ( 1) granting money to the incorporation effort, ( 2)

granting a loan or ( 3) making no funds available to the incorporation committee. The Board

chose the loan because they felt many of their ratepayers did not support an outright grant. All

the while, the board acknowledged the fact that the loan was to an anticipated entity which even

if it came into existence would have no obligation to repay the loan. In essence, the board gave

the $ 25,000 to the incorporation effort disguised as a loan. If the loan had been presented to the

public in a clear, concise and truthful manner they may have also had the same objections that

they did for the outright grant.

1b. Recommendation: In the future, the EID Board of Directors should, in a clear,

concise and truthful manner fully disclose to their rate payers the full terms and

conditions of loaning the ratepayer’s money, as in this instance, unsecured, with no

interest due, no due date, and to an anticipated entity without the obligation to repay.

2a. Finding: The EID Board has no written policy on loaning the rate payers money.

2b. Recommendation: The EID board should adopt a written loan policy to guide future

loan granting decisions.

A response is required by the El Dorado Irrigation District within ninety ( 90) days. See Table of

Contents, “ Notice to Respondents.”

2004- 2005 Grand Jury Final Report

32

AD HOC COMMITTEE – PUBLIC GUARDIAN

GJ 04- 014

Reason for the Report

A complaint was received requesting the policies and procedures of the Public Guardian’s office

Should be investigated in view of what was perceived as mistreatment of a neighbor who was

taken into conservatorship in 2004.

Scope of the Investigation

People Interviewed

The Public Guardian

The Chief Deputy Public Guardian

Three Deputy Public Guardians

A practicing attorney in the South Lake Tahoe area

Documents Reviewed

After El Dorado County Courts approved Grand Jury access to the Public

Guardian’s confidential files, four active case files were reviewed. The case files

included reports by private investigators hired by the Court, some medical records

including evaluations of the mental and physical conditions of the conservatees,

wills, trusts, court petitions and orders, statement and depositions by witnesses,

notes of interviews by the Deputy Guardians and financial records.

Correspondence by attorneys representing both the conservatees and conservators.

Background

The office of Public Guardian exists in 57 of California’s 58 counties. Their duty is to take into

conservatorship adults who are unable to care for themselves and are being abused by friends,

neighbors, relatives, or others. The County Adult Protective Services, doctors, friends, attorneys,

and bankers make most of the referrals to the Public Guardian. El Dorado County currently has

three Deputy Public Guardians who make preliminary investigations of the referrals and, if

warranted, request County Counsel to petition the Court for conservatorship. The Court usually

hires a private investigator who interviews the person, relatives, acquaintances, etc., to determine

the abilities of the person and whether there is evidence of abuse. The Court, if warranted, then

issues an Order appointing the Public Guardian as conservator. The Guardian’s office takes

control of the finances and the person may be placed in a 24 hour care facility if warranted by

inability to care for themselves and when friends or relatives are unable to adequately care for

the person. When possible, 24 hour care is provided in the person’s home. Expenditures by the

Public Guardian from the estates under conservatorship are controlled by the Court and the

Guardian makes regular financial reports to the Court.

2004- 2005 Grand Jury Final Report

33

Findings/ Recommendations

1a. Finding: The Public Guardian’s actions were warranted by the facts of the four cases the

Grand Jury reviewed. The friends and relatives of the elderly conservatees were abusing them

financially. Examples of the abuse:

The relatives elected to no longer care for their elderly parent with dementia and left him

at the local hospital emergency room after they had changed the title to the parent’s home

into their names.

An attorney and later a neighbor became substantial beneficiaries of various revocable

living trusts executed after an elderly woman with no children developed dementia.

A demented person’s home was very cluttered and people came by offering to pay her

$ 100,000 for her Tahoe lakefront property which was later valued at over $ 2,000,000.

In all four cases reviewed the conservatorship resulted in better care for the elderly persons and

the financial abuse was resolved thereby providing financial and physical security until death.

The Public Guardian charges a nominal conservatorship fee, about $ 150 a month to manage the

finances and oversee the caregivers. In some cases where extraordinary services by the Public

Guardian are required, extra fees are charged to the estate. In cases of poverty, fees are adjusted

downward and sometimes none are collected. Each of the three Deputy Public Guardians is

assigned about 85 conservator cases to work. Some cases require only minimal accounting

services, while others take considerable time.

1b. Commendation: The Grand Jury commends the Public Guardian on the service they

offer to the County.

2a. Finding: The Public Guardian has requested the Board of Supervisors authorize an increase

in staffing of two more Deputies due to the heavy workloads and increasing referrals of elder

abuse.

2b. Recommendation: Due to the high current and projected case loads the Grand Jury

recommends the staff increase as requested by the Public Guardian.

A response is required by the Board of Supervisors within 90 days. See Table of Contents,

“ Notice to Respondents”.

2004- 2005 Grand Jury Final Report

34

COMMENDATION REPORT

PUBLIC SCHOOL FACILITIES

Reason for the Report

The 2004/ 2005 Grand Jury per Penal Code Section 925 inspected several county schools, and

also followed up on concerns identified by previous Grand Juries.

Scope of the Investigation

Sites Visited

Golden Sierra High School

Divide High School

Ponderosa High School

Shenandoah High School

Union Mine High School

Sierra Ridge Middle School

Pine Ridge Elementary School

Emigrant Trail Elementary School

People Interviewed

Superintendent of the County Office of Education

Directors of the County Office of Education

Principals of the various High Schools

Vice Principals

Teachers

Librarian

Kitchen Staff

Maintenance Personnel

Background

County school sites not visited by the Grand Jury in the last four ( 4) years were chosen for

inspection. Ponderosa High School and Indian Diggins School were found by previous Grand

Juries to have potentially hazardous conditions.

Ponderosa High School needs to obtain the necessary funds to build a “ turn out” in the available

space on school property for the safety of the students, to prevent accidents and to reduce

congestion and improve traffic flow.

The Grand Jury requested that the principal at Indian Diggins School have a defective

wheelchair lift repaired and a letter confirming that repairs had been made is in the file.

2004- 2005 Grand Jury Final Report

35

The Grand Jury was requested to investigate why the new Emigrant Trail School in Pollock

Pines was closed and students sent to an older school. We were informed the Emigrant Trail

School ( grades 3- 4) had a population decrease to a point that Pinewood School ( grades K- 4) and

Sierra Ridge Middle School ( grades 5- 8) were able to handle the total K- 8 school population for

the district.

Inspection of the Emigrant Trail School showed good use is being made of the facilities. The

rooms are being used by the Boys and Girls Club, a home school teacher and her students, after-school

care for those students whose parents cannot pick up their children until 5 p. m. or later,

etc. The Fire Department already conducts training programs on part of the land. Further uses are

in the planning stages to make the facilities available to benefit the entire community and to

increase revenue to the school district.

Commendation

Under the current budgetary restraints that all school districts are facing we believe that the staff

and teachers in the schools inspected are being remarkably resourceful in meeting their stated

goals.

The California School Recognition Program honored 192 public schools out of nearly 2,300

applicants from middle and high schools. Four ( 4) El Dorado County schools received the

California Distinguished School Award. These four ( 4) county schools are: Golden Sierra High

School, Sierra Ridge Middle School, Rolling Hills Middle School and Mountain Creek School.

This highly coveted award is based in part on each school’s Academic Performance Index, its

average yearly progress and on community involvement. It is an honor for these schools to

receive this award and reflects highly on the entire El Dorado county educational community.

Corral in Meadow

ADDENDUM

2004- 2005 Grand Jury Final Report

37

LETTER OF COMMENDATION

As Foreman of the 2004- 2005 El Dorado Civil Grand Jury it is my distinct honor to recognize

individuals and organizations that are providing exceptional service to our community. This is by

no means a complete list of those providing outstanding assistance to the community, but ones

that came to our attention due to our mission as a grand jury. This list is not in any particular

order.

To the General Counsel of the El Dorado Irrigation District, Tom Cumpston, for providing

exceptional and thorough documentation and analysis. He was always responsive to our needs.

To Sheriff Jeff Neves and his staff, especially to Correctional Lieutenant Pam Lane and

Lieutenant Randy Peshon for assisting the grand jury with the requirements of touring the

correctional facilities in the county. They were gracious hosts who took the time to ensure all

questions were answered.

To Commander Ken Casler and Chief Kelly Keenan, their respective staff and the inmates of

Growlersberg Conservation Camp who provide fire prevention and fire suppression service

throughout El Dorado and surrounding counties. These services save El Dorado County alone

over $ 200,000 annually.

To the employees of the county’s Information Technologies Department who gave their service

and assistance to the grand jury in an immediate manner.

To Auditor- Controller Joe Harn for availing his services and especially to Analyst Hillary

Coyne for her service to the grand jury. She always worked to resolve our issues correctly,

reimbursed the members of the panel for expenses incurred and expedited our requests.

To Sharon Burch Colombini, Coordinator of Mental Health Day Treatment Center, creates a

welcoming atmosphere for visitors and patrons of the facility. Both Sharon and her staff

demonstrate a desire to do their best assisting those who seek help. We applaud their efforts and

encourage them to continue their good work.

To County Counsel Lou Green and his chief assistant, Ed Knapp, who always responded

promptly to our inquiries. Upon each visit to their offices they spoke to us in a professional yet

personable manner. Their guidance and reassurance made our responsibility that much easier to

complete.

To District Attorney Gary Lacy and his chief assistant, Sean O’Brien, for their assistance and

representation on issues raised during several investigations. Their guidance and support proved

invaluable.

To Chief Administrative Officer Laura Gill who gave continuing support and prompt service to

the grand jury. She made herself available each time we asked.

2004- 2005 Grand Jury Final Report

38

2004- 2005 Grand Jury Final Report

39

Animal Control Division

Reason for the Report

The 2004/ 2005 Grand Jury received a complaint from a citizen regarding her belief that she was

treated unfairly by the Animal Control Division.

Scope of the Investigation

People interviewed

Director, Public Health Department

Chief Animal Control Officer

Complainant

Citizens that adopted complainant’s horses

Documents reviewed

Animal control Policies and Procedures Manual

Crime report for the incident

Veterinary report

Declaration of ( previous Chief Animal Control Officer) in Superior Court Case

P02CRM0653

Copy of P. C. 597.1 ( post seizure hearing) forms served on the complainant

Copy of letter to complainant regarding Hearing Officer’s decision ( also

established an initial billing of $ 2,873.05, payable within 15 days, in order for the

complainant to retain ownership of the horses).

Copies of advertisements in the Mountain Democrat soliciting bids for horses

Copies of bid forms for the horses

Copies of animal adoption receipts ( contracts)

Copies of Superior Court minute order ( jury decision in complainant’s criminal

case)

Copies of the Motion for Return ( of complainants’ horses) and the Courts Ruling

Background

The complainant lives on 118 acres in a remote area of El Dorado County. She states that in

February 2002 she had a total of thirteen horses in a large acreage pasture, which is not within view

of her home. In early February 2002 she realized that three of the horses from the pasture were

missing. Since the fences and gates were all intact, she originally believed the horses had been

stolen. The Sheriff’s Department was contacted and they referred her to Animal Control where,

on 02/ 08/ 02, she located and identified the three horses missing from her pasture.

Animal Control states they seized the three loose horses on 02/ 05/ 02. They refused to return the

horses ( which were underweight) because of their concern that the owner had criminally neglected

them. A chronology of subsequent events is as follows:

2004- 2005 Grand Jury Final Report

40

February 8, 2002 – The complainant was served with a “ Notice of Seizure of Animals”

form and advised she had right to a post seizure hearing ( 597.1PC). The purpose of the

hearing was to determine if the seizure was appropriate and to determine if the animals

would continue to be held. The complainant exercised her right to a hearing.

Note: The Animal Control officer serving the notice observed the complainant’s

remaining ten horses from a distance while he was at her home. He has advised he

did not observe any signs of those ten animals being in danger.

February 13, 2002 – A post- seizure hearing was conducted. Those in attendance included

the complainant and her husband, an attorney from County Counsel, the Kennel

Supervisor, the Chief animal Control Officer and the Hearing Officer. The Hearing Officer

was a Public Health Department employee. The Hearing Officer decided that the seizure

was appropriate and that the horses would be “ held by Animal Control for care and

safekeeping until the matter is adjudicated”.

March 13, 2002 – Correspondence was sent to the complainant stating that the cost of

seizing and boarding the horses currently totaled $ 2,873.05. She had until March 28, 2002

to make payment. If payment was not made, the horses would be deemed to be abandoned

and disposed of by the impounding officer.

March 26 or 27, 2002 – complainant’s husband contacted the Chief Animal Control Officer

at her office for the purpose of paying the bill. Complainant states her husband did not pay

the bill because he was advised he would not get the horses back even if he did.

The Chief Animal Control Officer stated that “ I advised Mr. ( complainant’s husband) that

if he and his wife wanted to maintain their ultimate right to retain the animals, should the

criminal charges be withdrawn or should there be an acquittal at trial, they should pay the

bill presented by the County”.

Out of Context – The current Chief Animal Control Officer advised that if the complainant had

paid the bill it would have preserved their ownership; however, they would have then been liable

for the continuing costs of maintenance for the three horses regardless of the outcome of the

criminal court case. If the complainant had retained ownership of the horses, their total bill would

have exceeded $ 18,000.00 by the time their trial concluded.

June 2002 – The three horses were put up for bid and adopted out.

February 20, 2003 – Jury trial decision – Complainant’s not guilty of cruelty to animals.

April 4, 2003 – Complainant’s Motion for Return of Property ( horses) submitted to the

court.

2004- 2005 Grand Jury Final Report

41

May 30, 2003 – A court hearing denied the Motion for Return and also made a judgment

in favor of El Dorado County for the seizure and care of two horses for $ 1,915.36 ( The

third horse seized did not belong to the complainant.)

June 2, 2003 – animal Control submitted a “ collection referral form” in the amount of

$ 2,873.05 against the complainant.

Note: The status of this collection is unknown to the Grand Jury.

Facts

1. Three of the complainants horses, running loose and significantly underweight, were

seized by Animal Control.

2. Based on the fact that the three horses were loose and underweight, Animal Control

prepared a 597.1PC crime report ( permitting animals to go without care), naming the

owners as suspects. ( Note: The District Attorney’s Office subsequently upgraded the

charge to 597( b)/ PC Cruelty to Animals ( which potentially carries more severe penalties.)

3. The complainant attempted to recover her horses from Animal Control and was denied by

a hearing Officer ( a county employee).

4. Animal Control demanded $ 2,873.05 from the complainant in lieu of forfeiting ownership.

5. The complainant forfeited three horses with a total value of between $ 4,000 and $ 5,000

( complainants estimate).

6. Ownership of complainant’s three horses was transferred for high bids of $ 425.00 and

300.00 and $ 65.00.

7. The complainant and her husband were prosecuted for three counts of 597( b)/ P. C. Cruelty

to Animals. They were found not guilty on all counts by an El Dorado County jury.

8. Animal Control initiated a lien for $ 2,873.05 against the complainant.

9. The complainant believes that ownership of her horses was transferred to county

employees or their friends, and states that rumor exists in the community.

10. The new owners of the horses were contacted and they advised that Animal Control had

conducted follow- ups to insure that the horses were receiving proper care.

Findings

1. Animal Control acted within their statutory and discretionary authority.

Response to Finding 1: The respondent agrees with the finding.

2 The Grand Jury has contacted the current owners of the three horses and finds no evidence

of impropriety in the transfer of ownership.

Response to Finding 2: The respondent agrees with the finding.

3. There is no record of the discussions during the 597.1 hearing. Therefore, there is no

indication that other options for handling this situation were considered.

Response to Finding 3: The respondent agrees with the finding.

2004- 2005 Grand Jury Final Report

42

4. The crime report prepared by Animal Control is extremely brief, making reference to loose

horses and underweight horses. These two elements, standing alone, do not support a

prosecution for cruelty to animals under any concept of fairness.

Response to Finding 4: The respondent disagrees wholly with the finding.

The crime report prepared by an Animal Control Officer references a nationally recognized

Body Condition Scoring System for Horses which rated the horses in question extremely

low in the scale of body condition, a statement by the Kennel Supervisor about the horses’

poor condition, and a statement by the attending veterinarian that the horses were

underweight by approximately 20%. The Officer that prepared the report states that she

was taught the Body Condition Scoring System while attending a Horse Abuse

Investigation School and was trained and knowledgeable in the proper care of horses. The

sum of these observations and assessments were deemed sufficient to present the case to

the District Attorney. Based on the information contained in the crime report, the District

Attorney’s office felt that there was probable cause to warrant a charge and prosecute the

case. The prosecution was conducted referencing the following Penal Codes: PC 597

states “… every person who causes any animal… to be deprived of necessary sustenance…

is, for every such offense, guilty of a crime punishable as a misdemeanor or a felony…”.

And Penal Code 597.1 states “… Every owner… who permits the animal to be in any

street… without proper care … is guilty of a misdemeanor”.

5. The Policy and Procedures Manual for Animal Control is out dated and disorganized.

Response to Finding 5: The respondent agrees with the finding.

6. Animal Control has an adequate process for handling animal adoptions.

Response to Finding 6: The respondent agrees with the finding.

7. Grand Jury’s contacts with Animal Control personnel indicate they are a conscientious and

committed group of employees working in a difficult environment.

Response to Finding 7: The respondent agrees with the finding.

8. There has been no reconciliation between the $ 1,915.36 court judgment for the county and

the $ 2,873.05 collection referral form initiated by Animal Control

Response to Finding 8: The respondent disagrees wholly with the finding.

At the time of the court’s adjudication of the case, the judge ruled that the cost of the

seizure and care should only be attributed to two of the three horses seized. The $ 2,873.05

was the amount identified by Animal Control as owed for three horses ($ 957.69 per horse).

The $ 2,873.05 was reduced by $ 957.69, to $ 1,915.36, to reflect the charge for two horses.

The County Revenue Recovery Division ( County Collections at the time) was informed in

writing ( after the court’s judgment) that the amount of $ 1,915.36 was the amount owed to

the County.

2004- 2005 Grand Jury Final Report

43

Recommendations

1. Develop a formal structured process for determining the reasonableness of returning ( or

not returning) animals to their owner.

Comment: The Grand Jury cannot identify any reasons why these horses, upon

payment of seizure and maintenance charges, should not have been returned to the

owners. A return in an incident such as this could be made contingent on an

agreement that Animal Control be permitted to make inspections. Such an

arrangement would be consistent with stated goals of animal control, such as

reuniting animals with their owners and the education of owners. This arrangement

would of course not be appropriate if overt abuse was suspected, or the owner

simply did not have the means to care for the animals. However, that does not

appear to be the case in this incident.

Response to Recommendation 1: The recommendation has not been implemented, but

will be implemented in the future.

The Chief Animal Control Officer adheres to CA Penal Code 597.1 when making a

determination on whether to return or not return animals to their owners. The Chief

Animal Control Officer consults with the attending veterinarian about the neglect and if the

animal is physically fit. Then they review the case to see if the owner can and will provide

the necessary care if the animal is returned to them. A policy and procedure will be

developed which outlines the specific elements the Chief takes into consideration in

making their decision. This will be completed by July 2005.

2. Use non- county employees as Hearing Officers in 597.1 hearings.

Comment: While the statute allows the use of employees to perform the duties of

hearing Officer, this clearly does not have the appearance of fairness.

Response to Recommendation 2: The recommendation has been implemented.

The Animal Control Division has contracted for a non- county employee to be the hearing

officer for the 597.1 hearings. This person is a local attorney.

3. Prepare a formal record of 597.1 hearings.

Comment: For all practical purposes, the decision of the hearing officer was a

decision to permanently confiscate the property of the complainant. That level of

government action requires documentation.

Response to recommendation 3: The recommendation has been implemented.

Every 597.1 hearing is tape- recorded and the Animal Control Division staff takes

supplemental notes.

4. Provide additional training to Animal Control Officers relative to the preparation of crime

reports and identification of the elements of the crimes they are likely to encounter.

2004- 2005 Grand Jury Final Report

44

Response to recommendation 4: The recommendation has been implemented.

All Animal Control Officers attend training pursuant to CA Penal Code 832 which is an

introductory course prescribed by the Commission of Peace Officer Standards and

Training. This course identifies the elements of a crime and details the powers of arrest.

All Animal Control Officers also attend a two- week Animal Law Enforcement Academy

that includes the preparation of crime reports and evidence collection as well as the

elements of a crime. Additionally, officers attend the Advanced Animal Law Enforcement

Academy or similar training presented by nationally recognized agencies that encompass

all aspects of animal crimes. The Chief Animal Control Officer and Supervising Animal

Control Officer review all crime reports prior to submittal to the District Attorney’s office.

Both have extensive training and experience in writing crime reports.

5. Update and organize the Animal Control Policies and Procedures manual

Response to recommendation 5: The recommendation has not yet been implemented,

but will be implemented in the future.

The Animal Control Division and the Public Health Department are currently in the

process of updating the Policies and Procedures manual and this project will be completed

by July 2005.

6. Animal Control needs to reconcile the Court judgment against the complainant for

$ 1,915.36 and the $ 2,873.05 collection referral form they initiated.

Response to recommendation 6: The recommendation has been implemented.

At the time of the court’s adjudication of the case the judge ruled that the cost of the seizure

and care should only be attributed to two of the three horses seized. The $ 2,873.05 was the

amount for the three horses and the $ 1,915.36 was the amount for the two horses. The

County Revenue Recovery Division ( County Collections at the time) was informed in

writing ( after the court’s judgment) that the amount of $ 1,915.36 was the amount owed to

the County.

2004- 2005 Grand Jury Final Report

45

JAIL INSPECTIONS

Per Penal Code 919( b) select members of the 2004/ 2005 Grand Jury visited the following Jails &

Department of Correction facilities:

1. El Dorado County Jail, Placerville

2. El Dorado County Jail, South Lake Tahoe

3. Juvenile Hall, Placerville

4. Juvenile Hall, South Lake Tahoe

5. California Dept. of Corrections Conservation Camp, Growlersberg, Georgetown

There were no material deficiencies to note.

El Dorado County Court House- basement was former county jail.

2004- 2005 Grand Jury Final Report

46

Members of the

2004- 2005 El Dorado County Grand Jury

David Davinroy, Foreman

Van L. Dossey, Foreman Pro- Tempore

Colleen Young, Recording Secretary

Doug Clough

Peri Curry

David Dalzell

Al Diller

Chad Gilzean

Robert Hanson

Michael Johnson

Ross Johnson

Val Kesler

Floyd Knapp

Patricia Murphy

Lorrainne McLaughlin

Liz Pazdra

David Perez

Joseph Salerno

2004- 2005 Grand Jury Final Report

47

Photo of 2004- 2005 Grand Jury Members

Missing from picture:

Floyd Knapp

Patrica Murphy

Michael Johnson

2004- 2005 Grand Jury Final Report

48

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

To members of the 2004- 2005 El Dorado County Grand Jury who were unable to complete the

prescribed term:

Philip Davis

Richard Lucy

Russell Darnell

C. Warren Wickman

Thank you for the service and time donated to the county.

Photographs provided by:

El Dorado County Chamber of Commerce

El Dorado Irrigation District

Floyd Knapp

Val Kesler

David Davinroy, Foreman

El Dorado County Grand Jury

2004- 2005 Grand Jury Final Report

49

NOTICE TO RESPONDENTS

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

How to Respond to Findings

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

1. That you agree with the finding.

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

specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the

reasons for the disagreement.

How to Respond to Recommendations

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

action on all recommendations in one of four ways:

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

2. The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the fu-ture,

with a timeframe for implementation.

3. The recommendation requires further analysis. If the person or entity reports in this man-ner,

the law requires a detailed explanation of the analysis or study and timeframe not to

exceed six months. In this event, the analysis or study must be submitted to the officer,

director or governing body of the agency being investigated.

4. The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not rea-sonable,

with an explanation therefore.

Time to Respond, Where and to Whom to Respond

Depending on the type of Respondent, Penal Code Section 933.05 provides for two different re-sponse

times and to whom you must respond:

1. Public Agency: The governing body of any public agency must respond within ninety

( 90) days. The response must be addressed to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court.

2. Elective Officer or Agency Head: All elected officers or heads of agencies who are re-quired

to respond must do so within sixty ( 60) days to the Presiding Judge of the Superior

Court, with an information copy provided to the Board of Supervisors.

COUNTY OF EL DORADO, CALIFORNIA

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS POLICY

Policy Number

A- 11

Page Number:

1 of 7

Subject:

RESPONDING TO GRAND JURY REPORTS

Date Adopted:

11/ 5/ 1991

Corrected: 6/ 10/ 1994

Revised Date:

4/ 26/ 2005

49.1

BACKGROUND:

It is the intent of this policy to implement Section 933 ( c) of the Penal Code and to specify a

uniform procedure and a standard format for all departments to follow when responding to the

annual Grand Jury Report. It is anticipated that a uniform procedure and a standard format will

provide the Board of Supervisors with a structurally consistent document, one which will assist

department heads and the Chief Administrative Officer to provide an appropriate draft response,

enable the Board of Supervisors to evaluate the proposed response more effectively, help

ensure continuity in the Grand Jury process from year to year and assist the Grand Jury in

tracking its findings and recommendations.

POLICY:

Section 933 ( c) of the Penal Code shall govern the County response to the Grand Jury report. It

reads as follows:

“ No later than 90 days after the grand jury submits a final report on the operations of any public

agency subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of the public agency shall comment

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

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

for which the grand jury has responsibility pursuant to Section 914.1 shall comment within 60

days to the presiding judge of the superior court, with an information copy sent to the Board of

Supervisors, on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under control of that

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

supervises or controls. In any city and county, the mayor shall also comment on the findings and

recommendations. All of the comments and reports shall forthwith be submitted to the presiding

judge of the superior court who impaneled the grand jury. A copy of all responses to grand jury

COUNTY OF EL DORADO, CALIFORNIA

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS POLICY

Policy Number

A- 11

Page Number:

2 of 7

Subject:

RESPONDING TO GRAND JURY REPORTS

Date Adopted:

11/ 5/ 1991

Corrected: 6/ 10/ 1994

Revised Date:

4/ 26/ 2005

49.2

reports shall be placed on file with clerk of the public agency and the office of the County Clerk,

or the mayor when applicable, and shall remain on file in those offices. One copy shall be placed

on file with the applicable grand jury final report by, and in the control of the currently impaneled

grand jury, where it shall be maintained for a minimum of five years.”

PROCEDURES:

Timelines:

1. Department heads to provide responses to the CAO within 21 days following the

CAO notifying department heads of the required responses.

2. Submittal of the Initial Draft Response for review and comment by the Board, at

least 21 days prior to the Final Draft adoption hearing.

3. Elected officials are required by Section 933( c) of the Penal Code to respond within

60 days. However, the Board of Supervisors encourages them to respond within

21 days from their receipt of the final report.

4. Submittal of the Final Draft response adoption hearing must occur with the legally

specified 90 days response time following the Grand Jury providing a copy of the

Final report to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court.

Format:

1. In order to meet response deadlines the Grand Jury is encouraged to:

a. work with the Chief Administrative Officer to provide a Final Report copy in

a computer format compatible with the County;

COUNTY OF EL DORADO, CALIFORNIA

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS POLICY

Policy Number

A- 11

Page Number:

3 of 7

Subject:

RESPONDING TO GRAND JURY REPORTS

Date Adopted:

11/ 5/ 1991

Corrected: 6/ 10/ 1994

Revised Date:

4/ 26/ 2005

4.

49.3

b. to have all findings and recommendations individually identified in

sequential order.

2. Each Grand Jury Finding and Recommendation should be individually identified in

sequential order. The Response must clearly indicate which Finding and which

Recommendation is being responded to.

3. All responses shall be organized similarly to the Grand Jury’s final report. Each

Finding and Recommendation shall be responded to separately.

4. Finding responses shall follow the format in Section 933.05 ( a) of the Penal Code.

5. Recommendation responses shall follow the format and timelines specified in

Section 933.05 ( b) of the Penal Code.

Initial Draft Response Process:

1. The Chief Administrative Officer ( CAO) receives the Grand Jury Final Report.

2. CAO sends correspondence to all non- county government entities identified in the

Grand Jury report alerting them to their reporting obligation under Section 933 ( c)

of the Penal Code and shall request a courtesy copy of their response. Such

courtesy copies shall be made available for public viewing in the Board of

Supervisors Office. The CAO will send the Board of Supervisors a copy of this

correspondence.

3. CAO provides information to all department heads ( elected and appointed)

regarding the required response format and time frame.

COUNTY OF EL DORADO, CALIFORNIA

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS POLICY

Policy Number

A- 11

Page Number:

4 of 7

Subject:

RESPONDING TO GRAND JURY REPORTS

Date Adopted:

11/ 5/ 1991

Corrected: 6/ 10/ 1994

Revised Date:

4/ 26/ 2005

49.4

4. Appointed department heads must provide a response to the CAO using the format

prescribed by the CAO and this policy, within the timelines specified by the CAO

and outlined in this policy.

5. When Grand Jury findings and recommendations require responses from elected

officials as well as other county officials over which the Board has some

decisionmaking authority, elected officials should provide a response to the CAO

using the format prescribed by the CAO and this policy, within the timelines

specified by the CAO and outlined in this policy.

6. Department responses to the CAO shall be submitted in writing as well as the

computer compatible formats specified by the CAO.

7. The CAO will keep a file of all department head responses so the Grand Jury or

Board of Supervisors may review.

8. Elected department heads must, in addition to the above, provide a written

response to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court within 60 days.

9. The CAO will review all department head responses, for which the Board is

required to respond, for accuracy, appropriateness, investigating and reconciling

discrepancies among responses, etc.

10. The CAO shall compile an Initial Draft Response for Board review.

a. All Responses will be organized in a manner similar to the Grand Jury’s

Final Report.

COUNTY OF EL DORADO, CALIFORNIA

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS POLICY

Policy Number

A- 11

Page Number:

5 of 7

Subject:

RESPONDING TO GRAND JURY REPORTS

Date Adopted:

11/ 5/ 1991

Corrected: 6/ 10/ 1994

Revised Date:

4/ 26/ 2005

49.5

b. The Initial Draft Response shall be submitted for a Public Hearing review

set for a time certain. This public hearing will be not less than 21 days prior

to the 90- day legal response time to the Presiding Judge of the Superior

Court.

c. The CAO will inform the issuing and/ or current Grand Jury Foreman as to

the Board Hearing date and time, transmit a copy of the Initial Draft

response to them at the same time as the Draft goes to the Board Clerk.

The CAO will include a statement in the cover letter to the Board,

accompanying the initial draft, that a copy of the report has been

transmitted to the issuing and/ or current Grand Jury Foreman along with

information regarding the date and time of the Hearing.

d. At the Initial Draft Response public hearing the Board may direct staff to

make changes, establish workshops to explain the issues, schedule

additional hearings, create Board subcommittees, etc.

Final Draft Response:

1. Following the Board review of the Initial Draft Response, and within the 90 day

required response time to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court:

a. The CAO will submit the recommended Final Draft Response to the Board

in a Public Hearing set for a time certain.

b. The CAO will send copies of the Final Draft Response to department heads

with a directive to inform the CAO of any changes that might have occurred

thus making the Final Draft Response out of date. The CAO will review the

COUNTY OF EL DORADO, CALIFORNIA

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS POLICY

Policy Number

A- 11

Page Number:

6 of 7

Subject:

RESPONDING TO GRAND JURY REPORTS

Date Adopted:

11/ 5/ 1991

Corrected: 6/ 10/ 1994

Revised Date:

4/ 26/ 2005

49.6

responses and inform the Board and the Grand Jury, in writing, prior to the

Public Hearing, should changes be required.

c. The Final Draft Response agenda shall include a proposed letter of

transmittal from the Board Chair to the Presiding Judge of the Superior

Court.

d. The Final Draft Response will incorporate any Board approved

modifications from the Initial Draft Response.

e. A letter accompanying the Final Draft Response agenda item will include a

summary of any Board Subcommittee recommendations that may modify

the Final Draft Response.

f. The Final Draft Response will include recommendations as to distribution

and publication ( in addition to Section 4, below).

2. The CAO will inform the issuing and/ or current Grand Jury Foreman as to the

Board Hearing date and time certain, transmit a copy of the Final Draft Response

to them at the same that the Draft goes to the Board Clerk. The CAO will include a

statement in the cover letter to the Board, accompanying the final draft, that a copy

of the report has been transmitted to the issuing and/ or current Grand Jury

Foreman along with information regarding the date and time of the Hearing.

3. At the Public Hearing the Board may direct final modifications of the Final Draft

Response and authorize submittal of the Final Report to the Presiding Judge of the

Superior Court, etc.

COUNTY OF EL DORADO, CALIFORNIA

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS POLICY

Policy Number

A- 11

Page Number:

7 of 7

Subject:

RESPONDING TO GRAND JURY REPORTS

Date Adopted:

11/ 5/ 1991

Corrected: 6/ 10/ 1994

Revised Date:

4/ 26/ 2005

4

49.7

4. The Final Response adopted by the Board shall be sent within ten working days

following approval and within the 90 day required response time, to the Presiding

Judge of the Superior Court, the current Grand Jury, all affected departments and

to each branch of the County’s public library system.

5. The CAO will distribute and publicize the Final Response in accordance with Board

Policy B- 10, “ Grand Jury Annual Report- Publication of Annual Report and Board of

Supervisors Response”.

6. The CAO will have copies of the Final Response available for the public.

Pending Items:

The Board of Supervisor’s Final Response may include plans to implement recommendations in

the future or to complete an analysis on a recommendation. The Chief Administrative Office will

coordinate these pending items and report back to the Board regarding completion status of

implementation plans and analysis results and recommendations for Board review.

Primary Departments: Board of Supervisors, Chief Administrative Office

References: Penal Code Section 933 to 933.05

County Charter Section 703

View from Ice House Road

Grand Jury Complaint Form

2004- 2005 Grand Jury Final Report

50

Grand Jury Citizen’s Complaint

Instructions & Information For Filling Out and Filing

The Civil Grand Jury ( Jury) is an investigatory body created for the protection of society and the

enforcement of the law. It is an arm of the Court and a representative of the public. Although it is an

arm of the Court, it operates independently of direct Court supervision. It is a check against

governmental authority. It is not a branch of the County, nor is it answerable to the District Attorney.

The Jury has oversight responsibility over local government, such as but not limited to: county

government, city government, special districts, local school districts ( financial not curriculum). The

Jury does not have jurisdiction over the Courts, other counties, federal or state governments or

private citizens. Typically the Jury looks at systems and processes. The Jury has no enforcement

authority, it can only make recommendations, through publication of a final report, usually published

at the end of June each year ( See Penal Code 933 & 933.05). The Jury cannot normally resolve or

solve emergency situations. Each complaint the Jury accepts for investigation, must be investigated

thoroughly, seeking out facts, and analyzing the facts prior to writing a- report for publication. This is

a time consuming process and usually takes many months to complete. You may view the Final

Report at http:// co. el- dorado. ca. us/ grandjury/ index. html.

The typical process for the Civil Grand Jury is the following: 1) A complaint is received, 2) a

preliminary investigation is conducted to find out if there is enough information, 3) if the complaint

is valid, if the Jury has jurisdiction, and if warranted, a full investigation may be instituted. Upon

completion of the full investigation, a report is generated and issued as part of the annual Grand Jury

Final Report.

Two Examples

Unacceptable Your neighbor has a barking dog that annoys you. The Grand Jury has no

jurisdiction to investigate your neighbor or to enforce barking dog laws.

Acceptable Your neighbor has a barking dog that annoys you and you have contacted

the appropriate agency, and they have failed to enforce county or city

ordinances. You may file a complaint against the agency and the Jury does

have the jurisdiction to investigate. The Jury does not have the authority to

order the agency to take an action or not to take an action only to

recommend a course of action and to make that recommendation public.

Preparation Instructions For Filing A Complaint

1. This complaint is against:

a. Include name of agency and/ or individual( s) the complaint is against. Ensure correct

spelling.

b. Give the name of the department involved and the supervisor, if known.

2. My complaint about the above:

a. Be clear and concise. Do not use broad statements.

b. Attach copies ( no originals) of all available documentation, receipts, photos, letters

and notes of conversations or observations that support the complaint.

2004- 2005 Grand Jury Final Report

51

c. Number all attachments consecutively and on a separate page, describe each docu-ment

using the corresponding number.

d. Describe all past or pending legal actions, civil or criminal, related to your complaint.

3. Describe the action you wish the Jury to take and why.

a. Keep in mind the Jury's jurisdiction.

4. List all other agencies, officials, attorneys or others you have contacted about this mat-ter.

a. Provide a complete list of all persons contacted.

b. Include the address and/ or telephone number of each.

c. Attach copies of any documents you shared with those contacted.

d. Provide a summary of conversations with those you spoke to, including the date, their

names and telephone numbers.

e. Describe the results of these contacts.

5. About you:

a. Include your name, address, and telephone numbers. Anonymous complaints may not

be investigated.

b. You should sign and date the complaint form. The Jury may not respond to unsigned

complaints.

Do not send originals! Copies will not be returned

Send this complaint along with copies of any documentation to:

El Dorado County Grand Jury P. O. Box 742

Placerville CA 95667

Tel 530/ 621- 7477

Fax 530/ 295- 0763

http:// co. el- dorado. ca. us/ grandjury/ index. html

YOUR CONFIDENTIALITY WILL BE RIGOROUSLY PROTECTED

Singleleaf Vineyards in Fairplay, El Dorado County

` Grand Jury Application

INTRODUCTION TO THE

EL DORADO COUNTY GRAND JURY

The Grand Jury is a body of 19 citizens who are charged and

sworn to investigate county matters of civil concern as well as

inquire into public offenses committed or triable within the county.

SELECTION PROCESS

You are one of a pool of individuals chosen to serve as potential Grand Jury members.

A random drawing of 18 names will be conducted under the direct supervision of the

Supervising Judge of the Grand Jury in the presence of the nominees. The Supervising

Judge chooses the Foreperson from the pool prior to the drawing. These individuals will

comprise the Grand Jury. If a juror is unable to serve, a replacement name is

then drawn. If your name is not drawn, you may be contacted at a later date to serve

as a replacement for a juror who leaves for any reason.

ROLE OF GRAND JURORS

The Grand Jury reviews and evaluates procedures, methods and systems utilized by

local government to determine whether they can be made more efficient and effective. It

may examine any aspect of county government, city government and Special Districts.

The Grand Jury may inquire into written complaints brought to it by the public.

The Penal Code requires the Grand Jury to:

• Inquire into the condition and management of the public prisons within the

county;

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

officers, departments or functions;

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

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

its term to the Supervising Judge of the Superior Court.

COMMITMENT/ OBLIGATION

Service on a Grand Jury requires a significant commitment of time. A Grand Jury

member serves on the Grand Jury for one year. Most Grand Juries meet as a full body

at least two times each month. More active Juries may meet three to five times a month.

In addition to the full Jury meetings, members usually spend several days each week on

Jury Committee meetings and investigations.

The Grand Jury has strict rules on secrecy and maintaining the confidentiality of

witnesses, witness testimony, deliberations of Jurors, meeting minutes, and the raw

evidence collected.

Grand Jury service involves the ability to work with others with very differing educational

and work backgrounds, good listening skills, some writing skills, and the mental ability to

be objective.

ORIENTATION/ TRAINING

There will be orientation and training sessions dedicated to assist you in the

performance of your duties as a Grand Jury member. The Supervising Judge, county

officials and former Grand Jury members will conduct these sessions. THE FIRST

ORIENTATION/ TRAINING SESSION IS USUALLY HELD ON THE FIRST SATURDAY

FOLLOWING THE DATE YOU ARE SWORN INTO OFFICE.

REMUNERATION

Grand Jurors are paid per diem based on actual days worked ( currently maximum

$ 15.00 per day). Mileage is reimbursed for travel between jurors' residences and the

Grand Jury office and for travel on Grand Jury business.

REWARDING EXPERIENCE

If you become a member of the Grand Jury, you will be working with bright, interesting

and vocal people from many different backgrounds, all with a common interest. It will

be a year of hard work and the reward of feeling that you have contributed to making

your community a better place to live. You can look back with pride at the service you

performed on behalf of the citizens in El Dorado County.

EL DORADO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT

2005/ 2006 GRAND JURY APPLICATION AND NOMINATION FORM

Please read the enclosed brochure before completing this questionnaire.

Then, complete all parts of this questionnaire to assist the Court in determining your eligibility

for and any burdens placed upon you if you want to serve from July, 2005, to June, 2006, as a

member of El Dorado County’s Civil Grand Jury. If your answers indicate to the Court that you

are an eligible candidate for Grand Jury service, you will receive a Court notification of the date,

time, and place to appear for the final selection process for next year’s Grand Jury.

Pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 989.3 and the Americans with Disabilities Act

( ADA), the Superior Court of California, County of El Dorado, does not discriminate against

persons with disabilities. Please advise the Office of the Jury Commissioner, ( 530) 621- 7414, if

you require reasonable accommodation to participate in this application process.

Please print in black ink or type.

1. Name: _________________________________________________________________

Last, First, Middle

2. Residence

Address: _______________________________________________________________

Street, City, Zip

3. Home Phone: ( ) ______________________

4. Are you at least 18 years old? Yes _____ No _____

5. Supervisorial District: _____________________

6. Employment Status: Presently employed ____; Not employed ____; Retired ____

If employed, present occupation: _____________________________________________

Name of Employer: _______________________________________________________

Business Address: ________________________________________________________

Street, City, Zip

Business Phone: ( ) _________________________

If not employed or retired, your former occupation: _____________________________

7. Name of Spouse or adult members of your household: ________________________

Occupation/ Employer: ____________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

Page 1 of 4

Grand Jury Application

12- 17- 04

8. Are you, your spouse, or any adult member of your immediate household related to

or closely associated with any elected official or public employee? Yes ____ No ____

If yes, please give name and explain relationship: _______________________________

________________________________________________________________________

9. Are you contemplating any absence from El Dorado County in the fiscal year

2005/ 2006 for more than two weeks, which might interfere with your performance

as a Grand Juror? Yes ____ No ____ If yes, please indicate the period of time.

Departure Date: _____________________ Return Date: ________________________

PLEASE NOTE: An orientation/ training program for the 2005/ 2006 Grand Jury will be

scheduled, pursuant to Penal Code § 914. It is mandatory that each of the selected 19

members and the first three alternates attend.

10. Are you currently an elected public official or county employee? Yes ____ No ____

11. Have you been discharged as a grand juror in any court of this state within one year

of this date? Yes ____ No ____

12. Have you ever been convicted with any of the following?

Malfeasance in Office: Yes ____ No ____

Felony: Yes ____ No ____ Misdemeanor: Yes ____ No ____

If you answered Yes to any of the above, please give details below:

City/ State of Offense: ______________________________________________

Date of Offense: __________________ Penalty: ______________________________

A misdemeanor conviction is not an automatic bar to acceptance of application. Each

case is considered individually and confidentially.

13. Have you ever been suspended, disqualified or disbarred from any public office,

profession, or professional organization? Yes ____ No ____

14. If selected as a grand juror, you will be required to swear or affirm the following.

Have you any objections to taking such an oath or affirmation? Yes ____ No ____

“ I do solemnly sear ( affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and

the State of California, and all laws made pursuant to and in conformity therewith, will

diligently inquire into, and true presentment make, of all public offenses against the

people of this state, committed or triable within this county, of which the Grand Jury

shall have or can obtain legal evidence. Further, I will not disclose any evidence brought

before the Grand Jury, nor anything which I or any other grand Juror may say, nor the

manner in which I or any other grand juror may have voted on any matter before the

Grand Jury. I will keep the charge that will be given to me by the court.”

Page 2 of 4

Grand Jury Application

12- 17- 04

15. Are you a citizen of the United States? Yes ____ No ____

17. Do you read and understand English? Yes ____ No ____

18. Will you have been a resident of the Count of El Dorado for one year prior to May

1, 2005? Yes ____ No ____

19. Are you aware that the Grand Jury is required to publish a final report of issues

they have investigated? Yes ____ No ____

20. Are you willing to investigate and report on the operations, accounts, and records of

the officers, departments or functions of the county or any incorporated city or joint

powers agency located in the county? Yes ____ No ____

21. Will your employer release you to serve in the capacity as a fulltime grand juror for

the entire period that the jury shall be in session? Yes ___ No ___ Not Applicable __

22. Why do you want to serve on the Grand Jury and what contributions would you

hope to make as a member? _______________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

23. Please outline your knowledge and understanding of the role and function of the

Civil Grand Jury and the role and function of county government.

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

24. Would you be interested in the position of Grand Jury Foreperson?

Yes ____ No ____ If yes, why? ________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

Page 3 of 4

Grand Jury Application

12- 17- 04

I am in possession of all my natural faculties, of ordinary intelligence, of sound judgment and

fair character.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the above statements are true and correct.

Executed on _________________ in _____________________________, California.

Date City

________________________________________________

Signature

Page 4 of 4

Grand Jury Application

12- 17- 04

Lake Tahoe, El Dorado County

2004- 2005 Grand Jury Final report

End of Report

2004- 2005 Grand Jury