Home
Grand Jury report
To link to this object, paste this link in email, IM or document
To embed this object, paste this HTML in website
Grand Jury report
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
|
|
2006- 2007
Lake County
Grand Jury Final Report
© 2007 County of Lake, California
Hello
I am Barbara Lee and I am Sandi Damitz
Sandi and I are here from the Lake County Grand Jury.
At the end of each 12 month jury session …. a summary of the years
work is published in an annual report …. and each year the jury holds
a competition for the cover design of the report
For the second year in a row Monica Arevalo’s artwork has been
selected. The end of this month our report will be published and this
will be the beautiful cover!
So on behalf of the Lake County Grand Jury
We would like to present this plaque and a check for 100 dollars to
Monica and thank her from all the members of the 2007 Lake County
Grand Jury for her beautiful design.
Contents
Letter from Judge Hedstrom
Letter from the Jury Foreman
Members of the Jury
The Role of the Grand Jury
BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE REPORTS
Auditor- Controller Department Oversight
Auditor- Controller Payroll Department Oversight
Sheriff’s Office Audit Oversight
Tax Collector- Treasurer Oversight
GOVERNMENT SERVICES COMMITTEE REPORT
Board of Supervisors Oversight
Building and Grounds Department Oversight
Clearlake City Council Meeting Visit
Elder Abuse Complaint
Information Technology Department Oversight
Lakeport City Council Meeting Visit
Marketing and Economic Development Oversight Visit
Personnel Department Oversight
Public Defenders Contract Services Oversight
Purchasing Agent Oversight
Registrar of Voters Oversight
Victim Witness Department Oversight
PLANNING AND PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE REPORTS
Agritourism Oversight
Air Quality Management District Oversight
Cache Creek Dam and Indian Dam and Reservoir Visit
Central Garage Oversight
Clearlake Code Enforcement Complaint
County Sealer of Weights and Measures Presentation
Lake County Lakebed Management Presentation
Middle Creek Project Oversight
Middletown Area Town Hall Advisory Committee Meetings
Spring Valley Water Facility Oversight
Spring Valley Meter Complaint
Taylor Observatory Visit
v
vii
ix
x
3
5
7
9
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
39
41
43
47
49
51
53
55
57
61
65
67
2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report iii
PUBLIC HEALTH and SOCIAL SERVICES COMMITTEE REPORTS
Child Protective Services Complaint
Grievance Review Complaint
Indian Child Welfare Act Compliance
Jail Medical Service Oversight
Redbud Health Care District Oversight
PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE REPORTS
Clearlake Police Department Oversight
Court Holding Facilities Oversight
Hill Road Correctional Facility Oversight
Juvenile Hall Oversight
Kelseyville Fire Station Visit
Konocti Conservation Camp 27 Oversight
Lake County Deputy Sheriff’s Alleged Misconduct Complaint
Lake County Sheriff’s Department Hiring Practices Complaint
Lake County Sheriff’s Visit
Lakeport Police Department Oversight
Lakeport Police Officer’s Alleged Misconduct Complaint
Lucerne Senior Center Delayed Investigation Complaint
Marijuana and Jail Rules of Conduct Complaint
North Shore Joint Power Authority Oversight
Probation Department Oversight
Search and Rescue Visit
Sheriff- Coroner’s Office Oversight
PUBLIC SERVICES COMMITTEE REPORTS
Animal Care and Control Oversight
Collaborative Effort on Gang Related Issues
East and West Lake Resource Conservation District Visit
Emergency Preparedness Point of Distribution Exercise Oversight
Library Employee Complaint
Library Oversight Visits
Lower Lake Cemetery District Oversight
Middletown Cemetery District Oversight
School Administrative Practices Complaint
71
79
81
93
97
103
105
107
111
113
115
117
119
121
123
125
127
129
131
133
135
137
143
145
147
149
151
153
155
157
159
iv 2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report
County of Lake
Grand Jury
PO Box 1078
Kelseyville, California 95451
June 30, 2007
The Honorable Stephen O. Hedstrom, Presiding Judge
Superior Court, County of Lake
7000 A South Center Drive
Clearlake, California
Dear Judge Hedstrom:
In compliance with California Penal Code Section 933, I am pleased to submit to you the 2006-
2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report.
I have now been a member of the Lake County Grand Jury for two years. Initially, as a member
and committee chairman, and in the past year, foreman.
I suspect that I now know more about Lake County and its governing bodies than ninety-percent
of the county population. I have, in all sincerity, been very surprised by so much of what
I have seen and heard.
My contact with various governing bodies within the county has been very positive. The
dedication and quality demonstrated was the rule, not the exception.
In particular, the County Administrative Office, County Counsel, The District Attorney’s Office,
and the Building and Grounds Maintenance crew have all been very helpful and cooperative.
Also, the Sheriff’s Office provided much needed assistance in related matters. The office of
Assistant Director of Public Works/ Water Resources is deserving of special consideration. For
two years now, the Assistant Director has made every effort to make the Grand Jury aware of the
history and ramifications of the momentous Middle Creek Project. Whether it was in the
Assistant Director’s office, in the field, or at the Grand Jury room, we became a well- informed
jury because of him. For this I am truly grateful.
All the help from the aforementioned county departments allowed the Grand Jury to begin
serving the county immediately following their training.
I had the good fortune to serve with a remarkable cast. They met their responsibilities in a
professional manner and, in spite of numerous setbacks, they are arguably the most productive
Lake County Jury in recent history.
The jury’s mantra was: “ What can we do to assist you in making things better for Lake County
residents?” and they did!
I salute the 2006- 2007 Grand Jury members!
Sincerely,
Jim Neil, Foreman
2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury
In our system of government, the grand jury is the only agency free from
possible political or official bias that has an opportunity to see … the
operation of government … on any broad basis. It performs a
valuable public purpose in presenting its conclusions
drawn from that overview …”
California Supreme Court, Monroe v. Garrett ( 1971) Cal. Appl 3rd 280
Members
of the
2006- 2007
Lake County
Grand Jury
Sandi Damitz
Steven Esberg
John Gaffney
Lawrence Grant
Laurel Groshong
Pauline Hauser
James Jackson
David Johnson
Frank “ Bob” Knutson
Barbara Lee
Brondell Locke, Jr
James Mackey
James Neil, Foreman
Ralph Norton
Louise Polhemus
Carol Ripplinger
Martha Steward
Dennis Van Meter, Sr
Middletown
Lakeport
Clearlake
Clearlake Oaks
Lakeport
Kelseyville
Lower Lake
Clearlake
Kelseyville
Lakeport
Hidden Valley Lake
Clearlake
Kelseyville
Glenhaven
Kelseyville
Kelseyville
Lakeport
Nice
The harmony that was apparent in our jury was a wondrous thing. It aided
the nineteen diverse members in completing a highly productive
year. It is the hope that the pursuit of harmony will
have a top spot on the new jury’s agenda.
James Mackey, Grand Jury Committee Chairman
ix
BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE REPORTS
Auditor- Controller Department Oversight
Auditor- Controller Payroll Department Oversight
Sheriff’s Office Audit Oversight
Tax Collector- Treasurer Oversight
2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report 3
Budget and Finance Committee
Auditor- Controller Department Oversight
Summary
This was an annual oversight visit of the Auditor- Controller Depart-ment.
Procedure/ Methodology
The committee met with the Auditor- Controller in January 2007.
There was a discussion of several topics including recruiting, train-ing,
staffing levels, computer software, and general practices within
the department.
Background and Discussion
The Auditor- Controller’s office is responsible for all payroll account-ing
for county employees as well as all disbursement of both county
and grant funding that comes through the Tax Collector- Treasurer’s
office. The work of the Auditor- Controller’s office is similar to a gen-eral
accounting office.
Findings
• There are no slow periods for government accountants.
• Much of the workload of the Auditor- Controller’s employees is la-bor
intensive and also audit- driven.
• The Auditor- Controller’s office has an adequate computer system
that handles basic accounting needs.
• The payroll system is inadequate which causes problems monthly
when time sheets are due.
• External directives result in additional unexpected workload.
• The employees in this office have specialized civil accounting
skills that are not readily available in other county offices or the
current labor pool.
• Classes are currently not available at Lake County high schools
or local community colleges to achieve the specialized skills for
advancement in this department.
• Training in- house and outside the community is necessary to
maintain the current staff skill level.
• On- the- job training programs have been useful and productive in
the past.
Recommendations
1. Efficient processing of payroll needs to be developed to reduce the
monthly stress of county employees and Auditor- Controller staff.
2. Department heads, negotiators, and the Board of Supervisors
should include or consult the Auditor- Controller on projects that
affect staff capability and workload.
4 2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report
Budget and Finance Committee
3. Employees in the Auditor- Controller’s office who have unique job
qualifications should be reclassified.
4. The number of staff accounting positions should be increased to
surpass maximum workload and “ loaned” to assist other depart-ments
during reduced periods and back- fill training vacancies.
5. Staff training incentives should be developed to encourage and
maintain qualified employees who can be promoted from within.
6. Facilitating a work program for high school students or graduates
in combination with a government on- the- job training program
would be beneficial.
Agency/ Department Required to Respond
Board of Supervisors ( within 90- days)
Auditor/ Controller ( within 60- days)
2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report 5
Budget and Finance Committee
Auditor- Controller Payroll Department Oversight
Summary
This is an oversight of the Auditor- Controller Payroll Department..
Procedure/ Methodology
Members of the committee met with the Auditor- Controller in Janu-ary
2007 and reviewed the general practices of the department when
dealing with the county’s employee payroll.
Background and Discussion
The Auditor- Controller’s office is responsible for the disbursements
of both county and grant funding that comes through the Tax Col-lector-
Assessor’s office, as well as auditing and processing all payroll
accounting for county employees. The Auditor- Controller’s office op-erates
as a general accounting office. Much of the payroll work is
audit driven and reactive.
Findings
• The general practices within the department were found not to be
effective, economical, or use the latest technologies.
• The Auditor- Controller’s office does not have a dedicated payroll-processing
department.
• The employee time reporting system is antiquated and causes
problems every month when the time sheets are due.
• There are computer programs available that would provide more
accurate and timely employee reporting of their work hours.
Recommendations
1. A staff dedicated to payroll, of at least two persons, should be
created to process payroll as the primary function. Input, audit,
and maintenance of records should be secondary.
2. The monthly employee time record processing should be auto-mated,
simplified, and relevant.
3. Department heads, negotiators, and the Board of Supervisors
should include or consult the Auditor- Controller about projects
and negotiations that affect payroll capability and workload.
Agency/ Department Required to Respond
Board of Supervisors ( within 90- days)
Auditor- Controller ( within 60- days)
6 2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report
Budget and Finance Committee
2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report 7
Budget and Finance Committee
Sheriff’s Office Audit Oversight
Summary
This was an oversight audit of specific Sheriff’s Department trust ac-counts.
Concerns regarding trust accounts within the Sheriff’s
budget came to the Grand Jury’s attention during the annual
county audit.
Procedure/ Methodology
The Grand Jury’s Financial Services Committee met with the
Sheriff, County Administrator and the Sheriff’s chief accountant.
Background and Discussion
In previous years, under- staffing and lack of a viable computer pro-gram
caused discrepancies in year- end audits.
Findings
• The Homeland Security Grant was reduced significantly from
$ 500,000 to $ 175,000 in 2007.
• For the current fiscal year, the accounts are reconciled and both
the sheriff and his accounting staff are confident that a solution
is in place to correct past discrepancies in these accounts.
• The independent auditor will review these accounts in summer
2007. If necessary, they will be reviewed again in fall 2007.
Recommendations
• The Grand Jury of 2007- 2008 should follow- up on the status of
these accounts.
Agency/ Department Required to Respond
None
8 2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report
Budget and Finance Committee
2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report 9
Budget and Finance Committee
Tax Collector- Treasurer Oversight
Summary
This was an annual oversight meeting with the current Tax Collec-tor-
Treasurer and the newly elected director of the department.
Procedure/ Methodology
The committee was briefed on operations and finished with ques-tions
and answers.
Background and Discussion
The directors were open and receptive to questions and they pro-vided
background information regarding the management of tax
funds received.
Findings
• Deposits are invested with short and mid- range financial goals.
• Interest received on the county deposits is distributed to county
departments.
• Banking costs are minimized.
• This department has a very low employee turnover rate.
• Supplemental Tax Notices are issued sporadically creating confu-sion
for the taxpayers and causes an excessive burden on the de-partment’s
employees.
Recommendations
1. This committee recommends the department institute controls to
issue Supplemental Tax Notices on a weekly or biweekly basis.
2. The Department should include detailed explanations for the ba-sis
of a Supplemental Tax Notice.
3. The public should be provided with information regarding a
broad- based Supplemental Tax Notice release.
Agency/ Department Required to Respond
Lake County Tax Collector- Treasurer ( within 60- days)
10 2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report
GOVERNMENT SERVICES COMMITTEE REPORTS
Board of Supervisors Oversight
Building and Grounds Department Oversight
Clearlake City Council Meeting Visit
Elder Abuse Complaint
Information Technology Department Oversight
Lakeport City Council Meeting Visit
Marketing and Economic Development Department Oversight Visit
Personnel Department Oversight
People Services Incorporated Guest Speaker
Public Defenders Contract Services Oversight
Purchasing Agent Oversight
Registrar of Voters Oversight
Victim Witness Department Oversight
2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report 13
Government Services Committee
Board of Supervisors Oversight
Subject
The committee met with the Board of Supervisors in a closed- door
session in September 2006 to discuss positive changes to benefit the
employees of Lake County.
Summary
This was an annual oversight meeting with specific recommenda-tions
for the board that was based on research done by the commit-tee.
Procedure/ Methodology
The committee presented the board members with specific areas of
concern regarding the current problems with recruitment and reten-tion
as well as specific recommendations for solutions.
Background and Discussion
The Board of Supervisors and the County Administrative Officer ac-knowledged
the persistent problems with retention of current em-ployees.
The reality of the county’s inability to compete in the open
market for quality personnel is clearly evident. This creates an un-tenable
position for most departments.
The Board of Supervisors has responsibility over all county opera-tions
and intends to improve employee benefits this fiscal year.
Findings
• The county has the most expensive health insurance monthly
share- cost for employees of all government employers in the
county. The rates are elevated by the high fee schedule at the
local hospital.
• Recent improvements in retirement benefits for government em-ployees
have not been adopted in Lake County.
• County employees promoted to supervisory positions within their
departments do not receive training in management and motiva-tion
skills.
• The most recent salary survey, contracted by the county, has not
resulted in equivalent wages for county employees.
• If enjoying the rural lifestyle remains the only incentive to attract
qualified individuals, our public services will continue to deterio-rate.
14 2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report
Government Services Committee
Recommendations
1. The Board of Supervisors and Administrative Officer should im-plement
a plan starting in the second half of the 2007- 2008 fiscal
year for all departments in the following order:
− Reduce the hardship of health insurance to an acceptable
level. Less than $ 100 per month for family coverage would
be acceptable, and this would be comparable to the
county’s school district employees.
− Implement the preeminent standards for retirement bene-fits
for all employee classifications.
− Put into practice the use of a professional training program
for all first level supervisors and secondary supervisors,
with the full support of the department heads and elected
officials.
− Publish a three- year plan to be executed in January 2008
incrementally increasing wages first for professional and
accredited positions, then non certified positions, to within
15% of the top of the average salaries in their classification
based on the current wage survey adjusted for inflation.
− Create an incentive program to induce prospective quality
applicants to come to Lake County using hiring bonuses,
relocation expenses, or low- interest loans for down pay-ments
on homes.
Agency/ Department Required to Respond
Board of Supervisors ( within 90- days)
Administrative Officer ( within 60- days)
2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report 15
Government Services Committee
Buildings and Grounds Department Oversight
Subject
This was an annual oversight meeting with the Buildings and
Grounds Superintendent for the County of Lake.
Summary
The Superintendent met with the committee to discuss issues re-lated
to maintenance of county facilities and department staffing re-quirements.
Procedure/ Methodology
This was a factual discussion regarding the number of buildings,
translated into the number of square feet the department is required
to maintain, and the staffing levels allowed by the county.
Background and Discussion
The Buildings and Grounds Department is responsible for the main-tenance
of 285,474 square feet of public buildings. The average age
of these buildings is in excess of 20 years with the oldest building in
service being built in 1877. The department is currently operating
out of an office in the courthouse, with storage and shop space on
loan from the Sheriff’s Department in the lower level of the old
downtown jail.
Findings
• The Buildings and Grounds Department has one supervisor
( Superintendent), four full- time technicians, and one part- time
office person. However, according to The “ Operations and Mainte-nance
Benchmarks Research Report” for 2005 cited the ratio for
maintenance personnel is 1: 30,000 square feet.
• There is no after- hours call- out availability of Buildings and
Grounds personnel.
• The Buildings and Grounds operation has outgrown its current
location.
• The Buildings and Grounds Superintendent spends most of his
time working as a technician.
• A qualified technician with Lake County must be adequately
trained in plumbing, carpentry, electrical, and heating & air con-ditioning,
pneumatics, and computer technologies to fulfill the
job requirements.
• Due to staffing levels, a qualified technician with Lake County
must be able to work independently with minimal guidance.
16 2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report
Government Services Committee
• Construction projects under $ 10,000 are usually handled by
Buildings and Grounds because contractors customarily do not
bid on projects of this size. Some routine maintenance is done
by outside contractors for time efficiency.
• Optional construction projects with available monies are some-times
left undone due to unavailability of staff.
Recommendations
1. The County of Lake should be supported by after hour’s call- out
staff for Buildings and Grounds.
2. The Buildings and Grounds department needs to be relocated to
a facility that is sufficient in size to put all operations under one
roof with room for expansion.
3. The Buildings and Grounds Department needs to be centrally lo-cated
in the greater Lakeport area.
4. Pursuant to the “ Operations and Maintenance Benchmarks Re-search
Report” for 2005, the staff level needs to be substantially
increased. Guideline levels indicate at least eight technicians for
maintenance are needed.
5. A separate staff should be maintained and designated for con-struction
projects.
6. If the staffing cannot be increased for maintenance, then the
budget should be increased for maintenance contracts.
Agency/ Department Required to Respond
Board of Supervisors ( within 90- days)
Public Services Department ( within 60- days)
Bibliography
“ Operations and Maintenance Benchmarks Research Report” ( 2005)
2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report 17
Government Services Committee
Clearlake City Council Meeting Visit
Summary
The Clearlake City Council meets in the evening, twice a month on
the first and third Thursdays.
Procedure/ Methodology
The Government Services Committee attended a meeting of the
Clearlake City Council, in April 2007.
Background and Discussion
None
Findings
• Clearlake City Council and the City’s Redevelopment Agency were
having a joint meeting the evening the committee attended.
• The prepared agenda was followed in an organized manner.
• The public was treated with respect and was allowed ample time
to ask questions and state opinions regarding items voted on by
the council.
• The parking lot outside council chambers has insufficient light-ing.
Recommendations
1. For safety, the lighting in the parking area needs to be improved.
Agency/ Department Required to Respond
Clearlake City Council ( within 60- days)
18 2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report
Government Services Committee
2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report 19
Government Services Committee
Elder Abuse Complaint
Subject
A complaint was received regarding the lack of staff, within the Dis-trict
Attorney’s Office, to handle elder abuse cases.
Summary
The District Attorney’s Office, at the time of this investigation, em-ploys
one part- time investigator to handle elder abuse cases.
Procedure/ Methodology
The complainant declined to appear at a meeting with the committee
to clarify various points in the complaint. The committee contacted
the District Attorney’s office and inquired about the allegations con-tained
in the complaint.
Background and Discussion
None
Findings
• The newly elected District Attorney did not dispute that a need
existed for an increase in staff assigned to elder abuse cases.
• The District Attorney’s Office budget for 2007 includes requests
for one full- time Deputy District Attorney, one full- time investiga-tor
who would assist the present investigator, and one victim ad-vocate
for elder abuse cases.
• The complainant is satisfied with the efforts of the District Attor-ney’s
Office to increase staffing to handle elder abuse cases. The
complainant contacted the State Attorney General’s Office in ad-dition
to the Lake County Grand Jury.
Recommendations
1. The 2007- 2008 Grand Jury needs to follow- up to determine if the
new staff is in place.
Agency/ Department Required to Respond
None
20 2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report
Government Services Committee
2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report 21
Government Services Committee
Information Technology Department Oversight
Subject
This was an annual oversight meeting with the Technical Support
Director for the County of Lake.
Summary
This was an excellent opportunity to review technical support and
the county’s IBM AS/ 400 network.
Procedure/ Methodology
The committee had an open discussion with a question and answer
session.
Background and Discussion
The Technical Support Director was open and receptive to questions,
plus provided background information on technical support. The
committee was not aware of nor understood the problems with the
old systems. The problems included updating the network to voice
over IP ( VoIP), obtaining countywide broadband, and backing up
courthouse data.
Findings
• The Information Technology ( IT) Department needs two additional
staff positions, a programmer analyst and a senior network engi-neer
for high- level design and support.
• Several county departments have old hardware and outdated
software to support the specific demands required for their work.
• High turnover and low pay for technical support staff has created
a problem maintaining well qualified staff for the IT Department.
• The department has outgrown its current location.
Recommendations
1. The IT Department staff should be increased to include two addi-tional
staff positions, a programmer analyst and a senior network
engineer for high- level design and support.
2. All county departments should review their software and hard-ware
and pursue upgrades to the most current version.
3. Incentive pay should be added to base classifications for educa-tion
of staff members in software and network technology.
4. The additional workspace needed should be provided to the IT
Department.
Agency/ Department Required to Respond
Board of Supervisors ( within 90- days)
Technical Support Director ( within 60- days)
22 2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report
Government Services Committee
2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report 23
Government Services Committee
Lakeport City Council Meeting Visit
Summary
The Lakeport City Council meets in the evening, twice a month, on
the first and third Tuesdays.
Procedure/ Methodology
The Government Services Committee attended a meeting of the Lake-port
City Council, in April 2007.
Background and Discussion
None
Findings
• The city council discussed a variety of items listed on the agenda.
• An addition to the agenda was discussed, voted on and approved.
• The agenda was followed meticulously with the only exception be-ing
the public was allowed to speak for more than three minutes
regarding an agenda item.
Recommendations
None
Agency/ Department Required to Respond
None
24 2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report
Government Services Committee
2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report 25
Government Services Committee
Marketing and Economic Development Oversight Visit
Subject
An oversight of the Marketing and Economic Development and Infor-mation
Center for Lake County was conducted by the Government
Services Committee.
Summary
The committee reviewed the marketing and development plans de-signed
to maintain and stimulate business and promote tourism for
Lake County.
Procedure/ Methodology
A PowerPoint presentation was given by the Economic Development
Director of Lake County, followed by a question and answer session.
Background and Discussion
A new business and marketing summary plan was implemented
with a newly designed brochure and flyers that cater to specific in-terests.
Findings
• The brochures are professionally published. They cover a wide
range of interest that provide an opportunity for visitors to find
and locate activities while exploring many of Lake County's hid-den
treasures.
• The Government Services committee is concerned that the poten-tial
sale or closure of Konocti Harbor Resort and Spa, a featured
destination for tourism, could create a loss of revenue and mar-keting
potential for the county.
Recommendations
None
Agency/ Department Required to Respond
None
26 2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report
Government Services Committee
2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report 27
Government Services Committee
Personnel Department Oversight
Subject
The committee reviewed the function of the Personnel Department
and its relationship with the other county departments.
Summary
This was an annual oversight meeting to gather information.
Procedure/ Methodology
Members of the committee met with the Director of Personnel at his
office in August 2006. There was an open discussion regarding the
underlying causes of resignations of county employees and recruit-ing
problems faced by all county agencies. The director explained the
duties of his staff. The Personnel Department processes all termina-tion
paperwork and related employee files.
Background and Discussion
The Personnel Department administers the personnel policies of the
county. The number of staff is limited and it does not contain a Hu-man
Resources division. It is involved in several aspects of county
employment including health benefits, retirement benefits, training
programs, and overseeing the county’s personnel rules. The Person-nel
Department has identified four primary causes for employees to
leave voluntarily; the high cost of health insurance, poor supervision
and motivation, low salary, and deficient retirement compensation.
The county doubled the Personnel Department’s training budget this
year, but that only affects the employees that work in the Personnel
Office.
Findings
• The employees in the Personnel Department are dedicated and
caring people who want to provide the best opportunities for the
employees of Lake County.
• Knowing the major causes for losing employees and not being
able to affect change in those areas is frustrating to the Personnel
Department.
• The training of first line supervisors throughout the county is in-consistent.
• Other government agencies in the county, such as the school dis-tricts,
pay much less for health insurance.
• County employee retirement benefits are historically low and out-dated.
28 2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report
Government Services Committee
Recommendations
1. Work with the Board of Supervisors and the Administrative Offi-cer
to develop a plan to improve the ability of all departments to
maintain current employees and recruit quality employees for the
county.
2. Mandate professional training programs for all first level supervi-sors.
The full support of the department heads and elected offi-cials
is needed.
3. All Department training should be consolidated and handled
through the Personnel Department.
4. Research health insurance possibilities to attain an acceptable
employee share cost. A possibility would be a program similar to
the county’s school district employees.
5. Review retirement benefits for all employee classifications.
Agency/ Department Required to Respond
Board of Supervisors ( within 90- days)
Personnel Director ( within 60- days)
2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report 29
Government Services Committee
Public Defender Contract Services Oversight
Subject
This was an oversight of the annual contract for Public Defender
Services with Lake Legal Defense Services ( LLDS).
Summary
It was an excellent opportunity to review court procedures and how
LLDS handles the public defender caseload with the contracted at-torneys
and the service contract between Lake County and LLDS.
Procedure/ Methodology
The committee held a question and answer session.
Background and Discussion
The administrator of LLDS was open and receptive to questions and
provided background information.
Findings
• LLDS is continuously seeking new attorneys.
• To the detriment of LLDS inexperienced attorneys occasionally
use LLDS for training and experience before moving to private or
deputy DA practice.
• LLDS uses the slower pace of Lake County to solicit experienced
attorneys who wish to enjoy a more relaxed environment. This
approach seems to be working.
• There is no private consultation room for LLDS at the Lakeport
courthouse.
• The current system for checking financial eligibility for public de-fender
services is being improved.
• There is a pre- entry access security screening measures at the
Lake County courthouse in Clearlake, but not in Lakeport .
Recommendations
1. A consulting room should be provided at the Lakeport court-house.
2. Improvements should continue to be made to the process of
credit and financial eligibility checks for clients seeking free pub-lic
defender service. This would prevent abuse of the county
funds that provide these services for free.
3. The courthouses needs to be secured.
30 2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report
Government Services Committee
4. Implement a single source system reporting on all assigned cases
to verify contractual obligations to the client and to LLDS for
quality assurance.
Agency/ Department Required to Respond
Board of Supervisors ( within 90- days)
Lake Legal Defense Service ( within 60- days)
2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report 31
Government Services Committee
Purchasing Agent Oversight
Subject
This was an annual oversight visit with the Purchasing Agent for
Lake County
Summary
This was an excellent opportunity to review the purchasing proce-dures
for all county departments. Support and training is provided
for the staff, including forms and legal language necessary to re-quest
material and office equipment.
Procedure/ Methodology
There was a discussion of department policies with the Lake County
Purchasing Agent.
Background and Discussion
The Purchasing Agent was knowledgeable in his position responsi-bilities,
open and receptive to questions, and provided background
information we requested.
Findings
• Currently, county purchasing operations are handled by each in-dividual
department.
• Some departments do not have their staff trained in purchasing
procedures.
• Personnel changes sometimes leave departments without staff
trained in purchasing.
• Staff unfamiliar with purchasing could result in the loss of sav-ings
by failing to: buy in bulk, negotiate service contracts, and
identify surpluses. In addition, they could have difficulty manag-ing
the budget.
• The Purchasing Agent is seeking to reorganize the processes and
bring control over the spending by centralizing the purchasing
and service contracts for equipment and supplies.
Recommendations
1. The county should facilitate training workshops for the staff. This
would provide a thorough understanding of the legal terms and
county requirements for completing the request forms and deal-ing
with business agents.
2. Centralizing purchasing procedures would insure price and avail-ability
of supplies, product and service quality, and provide better
budget control.
32 2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report
Government Services Committee
3. A consolidated purchasing department could better control short-ages
and surpluses.
4. Two new positions should be added to support purchasing and
auditing functions and cross- train replacement personnel for key
positions.
Agency/ Department Required to Respond
Board of Supervisors ( within 90- days)
Purchasing Agent ( within 60- days)
2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report 33
Government Services Committee
Registrar of Voters Oversight
Subject
This was an annual oversight meeting with the Registrar of Voters.
Summary
The committee met with the staff of the Registrar of Voters in Janu-ary
2007 at their offices in the Lakeport courthouse.
Procedure/ Methodology
The Registrar of Voters discussed the duties of the office, compli-ance
with state and federal laws, new voting machines, permanent
staff and temporary election staff.
Background and Discussion
The Registrar of Voters is responsible for supplying a fully trained
staff and functional Americans with Disabilities Act ( ADA) approved
voting site in every district involved in each election. The Office of
the Registrar of Voters has the responsibility to facilitate a minimum
of one election somewhere in Lake County every year, with the most
being four elections in one year since 2000. To comply with the new
laws passed, the county purchased an electronic voting machine for
each district.
Findings
• The Office of the Registrar of Voters has a dedicated year- round
staff of two full- time people and a recent addition of one perma-nent
part- time person.
• Prior to each election, there is a paid training class for persons
staffing the polling places.
• With the advent of electronic voting machines, additional training
and incentive pay were implemented.
• Persons staffing the polling places are paid.
• The campaign to register people to vote is ongoing. High schools
in Lake County have elected not to participate.
• Although there were 46,859 people eligible to vote in Lake
County prior to the 2006 election, only 31,564 were registered to
vote.
• During the November 2006 election, polling place ballots received
were 9,445 ( 14.9% of those registered).
• During the November 2006 election, absentee ballots received
were 10,316 ( 16.2% of those registered absentee).
34 2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report
Government Services Committee
• The following statistics represent the vote in Lake County in
November 2006:
Total Total Total Total Total
County Eligible Precinct Absentee Votes
Est. pop. Adults Ballots Ballots Cast
Cast Cast
63,500 46,859 9,445 10,316 19,761
100 % 73.8% 14.9% 16.2% 31.1%
Percentages are based on total county population
• Every vote counts. Based on these results to make a majority, for
each 10 people in the county, it only takes 2 votes to determine
the outcome of the local election.
• The county paid approximately $ 600,000 out of contingency
funds for the electronic voting machines mandated by law.
• Five voters used electronic machines in Lake County in November
2006.
• The State of California and the federal government are to reim-burse
the county for the purchase of the voting machines. This
has not occurred to date.
• The electronic voting machines purchased by the Registrar of
Voters meets all ADA accessibility standards and were an excep-tional
decision in saving the county money, otherwise two ma-chines
per polling place would have been required.
• The Registrar of Voters shares office space in the Lakeport court-house
with the Auditor- Controller. The office space is grossly in-adequate
for the daily staff and storage, and has no room for ex-pansion
during elections.
• Absentee ballots are counted at the time they are received and
are reported in the initial election returns.
Recommendations
1. The permanent year- round staff should be increased to three full
time positions.
2. The office of the Registrar of Voters should be doubled in size and
a separate attached storage and election- handling space needs to
be allocated.
Agency/ Department Required to Respond
Board of Supervisors ( within 90- days)
Registrar of Voters ( within 60- days)
Bibliography
American Forces Press Service
2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report 35
Government Services Committee
Victim Witness Department Oversight
Subject
This was a review of the function of the Victim Witness department
of the Lake County District Attorney’s Office.
Summary
This is an annual oversight informational gathering meeting.
Procedure/ Methodology
The committee met at the Victim Witness offices during Domestic
Violence Awareness month in October 2006, met the staff on duty,
held an open discussion with the Victim Witness Director, and re-viewed
the facility and budgetary constraints.
Background and Discussion
Victim Witness is a department within the District Attorney’s Office
that directly benefits crime victims in Lake County. The base fund-ing
is received from state and federal grants with very little monetary
support from the county.
Findings
• The department is currently housed in a 1950’ s era former resi-dence
with few upgrades.
• The Victim Witness Director is diligent in locating available grant
money to support operations.
• Some grant money is shared with other law enforcement agen-cies.
• The staff has created a supportive environment for the comfort,
consolation, and education of crime victims using their services.
• The caseload has risen considerably in the last few years; how-ever,
their ability to staff the office and to obtain grant money has
not kept pace with the demand.
Recommendations
1. The office should stay at the current location. For the comfort of
the staff and the clients, the central cooling and heating system
should be upgraded.
2. The county needs to underwrite the Victim Witness division
budget to maintain and meet the needs of its clients.
Agency/ Department Required to Respond
Lake County District Attorney ( within 60- days)
Lake County Administrative Officer ( within 60- days)
36 2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report
2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report 39
Planning and Public Works Committee
Agritourism Oversight
Subject
This was an oversight visit to a Lake County business that is an ex-ample
of agritourism.
Background and Discussion
The Planning and Public Works committee visited a retail agriculture
business located in Scotts Valley that is an example of agritourism.
A University of California Extension agent for Lake County accompa-nied
the committee on this visit.
Findings
• Lake County Board of Supervisors has not completed the long-overdue
General Plan Update.
• Lake County is trying to stimulate economic development by en-couraging
agritourism.
• The owner of the business that the committee visited described a
number of frustrations while establishing his business. These
issues were generally related to the retail permit process and to
the fact that the business is located in close proximity to an area
consisting of intensively farmed commercial orchards and vine-yards.
Recommendations
1. The county needs to complete the General Plan Update ( GPU).
2. Planning Department staff has a well- defined set of guidelines
with which to evaluate projects in the agritourism sector.
3. Critical among the issues that the GPU should address is the
need for physical buffers between commercial agricultural uses
and non- agricultural uses such as, residential areas, retail busi-nesses
( including agritourism businesses), casinos, and other en-terprises
which cater to the general public.
Agency/ Department Required to Respond
Board of Supervisors ( within 90- days)
40 2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report
Planning and Public Works Committee
2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report 41
Planning and Public Works Committee
Air Quality Management District Oversight
Subject
This was an oversight of the Lake County Air Quality Management
District ( LCAQMD).
Background and Discussion
The Director of LCAQMD made an annual presentation to the Lake
County Grand Jury, Planning and Public Works Committee.
Findings
• The Director of LCAQMD maintains the clean air in the Lake
County Air Basin, which is within the boundaries of Lake
County.
• Funding of $ 350,000 a year comes from local fines, and federal
and state money. No county general funds are used.
• Lake County continues to enjoy the cleanest air in California.
LCAQMD monitors carbon, lead and nitrogen oxides produced
from automobile exhaust, agriculture burning and wood fire-places.
Hydrogen sulfide is monitored at the Geysers.
• The LCAQMD produces an assortment of brochures for the pub-lic’s
education.
Recommendations
None
Agency/ Department Required to Respond
None
42 2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report
Planning and Public Works Committee
2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report 43
Planning and Public Works Committee
Cache Creek Dam and Indian Valley Dam and Reservoir Visit
Subject
The Grand Jury did an oversight visit of the Cache Creek Dam and
Indian Valley Dam and Reservoir relative to the relationship that ex-ists
between the Lake County Department of Public Works ( County)
and the Yolo County Flood Control & Water Conservation District
( District).
Summary
As a Grand Jury, our duty to the County is not only to do oversight
of the County government but also to inform our Citizens about is-sues
in the County. This report has that very purpose in mind.
There are misconceptions about Yolo County, Cache Creek Dam,
Clear Lake, water rights and the effects on flooding in our County
that need to be corrected.
Procedure/ Methodology
In November 2006, the Grand Jury met the District personnel along
with the County personnel to tour Cache Creek Dam and Indian Val-ley
Dam and Reservoir. The District encouraged our questions, ob-servations
and wanted us to understand the program developed and
agreed to by both counties so any misunderstandings might be cor-rected
or dispelled. Several of the Grand Jury members were privi-leged
to observe a beautiful bald eagle sitting in a tree near the Dam,
otters playing in the pool below the dam and other wildlife.
Background and Discussion
Clear Lake belongs to the State of California not to Lake County, and
the State gives Lake County the right to manage and maintain the
lake. Contrary to popular belief, Lake County has never owned the
water of Clear Lake. Persons owning land adjacent to the lake or
lake water sources have riparian rights to take water from these
sources. Riparian rights are a hold over from English Law.
The history for the first to claim water from Cache Creek goes back
to 1854 when the Moore Ditch Company in Yolo County began
preparations to take water from Cache Creek for irrigation purposes.
In 1871, the Cachville Ditch Company disputing Moore’s water claim
filed a suit against Moore. A court decision against Moore was ap-pealed
and reversed to establish his claim. The appropriation law,
where Yolo County secured their claim to Clear Lake water, was en-acted
in 1873 establishing the right of the first to file for water.
About 1908, a Lake County resident, Mr. Highland spent $ 10,000
44 2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report
Planning and Public Works Committee
on a plan to dam Kelsey Creek to supply water to farmers of that
area but there was no interest so the idea was dropped. Later, when
Yolo County was preparing to construct the Cache Creek dam, they
approached the Lake County Board of Supervisors, asking if Lake
County was interested in the lake water.
Based on Mr. Highland’s experience, the answer was no, so the
Moore interests, which had been in the Moore family for nearly fifty
years, during which time they had acquired several ditch companies
that passed into the hands of the Yolo Water and Power Company.
This latter company made application for water from Cache Creek,
naming Clear Lake and all the streams flowing into the lake. The
application was recorded in the Lake County Recorder’s office on
May 28, 1912. Through some oversight, Lake County never applied
for water so the rights to the water passed to Yolo County. In sum-mary,
an Appropriative Water Right is based on the “ first in time –
first in right” doctrine, diligent pursuit and beneficial use.
Clear Lake has over 100 miles of shoreline and a surface area of just
more than 68 square miles. The majority of the lake bottom’s depth
ranges from 20 to 50 feet, with an average depth of only 26 feet and
a maximum depth of 45 feet.
Having the water rights to Clear Lake did not provide enough water
for farmers during dry years, hence the construction of Indian Valley
Dam and Reservoir in 1974- 75. The 3,800- acre lake ( six miles long
and one mile wide) is located in the chaparral- covered hills on the
eastern edge of Lake County off Highway 20 via a 9.4 mile graded
gravel road that provides long- term irrigation storage as well as re-ductions
of flash flooding in Cache Creek. The dam also includes a
hydroelectric power plant and on occasions this power generating
facility is able to sell excess power to PG& E.
Indian Valley Dam and Reservoir is strictly for fishing with a 10-
mph speed limit on the entire lake. There are two boat ramps, one
at the dam ( south end) and another at the north end. There is a pri-vately
owned small store and campground at the south end near the
dam with toilets, showers and electricity.
Findings
• Approximately 1.5 miles from Clear Lake, a rock ledge called
Grigsby Riffle crosses Cache Creek. This Riffle is located at the
confluence of Cache and Seigler Creeks near Lower Lake and is
at a narrow point in the creek. The Grigsby Riffle is a natural
limitation of water flow that controls the outflow from Clear Lake.
In 1872, Captain Rumsey established the low point of the ledge
as “ Zero Rumsey” and all subsequent lake measurements are
2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report 45
Planning and Public Works Committee
based on this elevation – Zero Rumsey is equivalent to 1318.256
feet.
• There are two decrees, or laws, governing how the level of Clear
Lake will be handled.
− The Gopcevic Decree regulates winter water levels by set-ting
a lake stage below which water may not be released
and above which water must be released to reduce flood-ing.
As actual lake level approaches the level indicated in
the schedule for that date, conditions are taken into ac-count
so that the dam operation will minimize flooding,
while allowing the lake to fill to 7.56 Rumsey. There are
two exceptions: When the lake is filling rapidly, water may
be released from the dam when the actual lake level is
within one- half foot below the level indicated in the sched-ule.
When the lake is falling and no rain is anticipated, the
dam may be closed when the actual lake level is within
one- half foot above the level indicated in the schedule.
− The Solano Decree regulates summer water levels by estab-lishing
the allowable release based on the spring water
level, however, if the lake does not reach a level above 3.22
feet Rumsey on May 1, then no water can be released.
• The Yolo Water District was created in 1951 to serve the needs of
the local community by managing water resources for farming
while stabilizing groundwater for other uses, and this results in
pro- active water planning to everyone’s benefit.
• In 1967, Yolo’s District purchased the privately owned Clear Lake
Water Company and the Cache Creek Dam giving them rights to
store water in Clear Lake.
• Costs incurred for maintenance and improvements to the Cache
Creek Dam and Indian Valley Dam and Reservoir are the respon-sibility
of the District.
• Flow tests have been conducted to determine what would happen
if there was not a dam on Cache Creek and to determine the opti-mum
lake levels and flows at given times of the year so the best
use of water is maintained. These testing results clearly demon-strate
that the Dam does not cause flooding of Clear Lake. An-other
set of flow tests were done to determine the optimal level for
the lake to maximize the release of water through the dam and to
minimize plugging of the floodgates by floating debris.
• Indian Valley Dam and Reservoir not only manages the floodwa-ters,
which reduces some of the flood risk in Lake County and
improves Yolo County’s ground water, but also stores and re-leases
water for recreational and environmental uses in Lake and
Yolo Counties.
The District manages the water in the reservoir by releasing as
46 2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report
Planning and Public Works Committee
• The District manages the water in the reservoir by releasing— as
needed- through the dam.
• The County is notified whenever there are adjustments to the ex-isting
arrangement, for instance, whenever the Cache Creek Dam
is opened or closed during rains or to maintain the level of Clear
Lake for summer recreation.
Recommendations
1. The committee recommends maintaining the excellent relation-ship
that has developed between the two governmental entities
so everyone continues to benefit.
Agency/ Department Required to Respond
None
References
• Clear Lake water rights history. Retrieved 1/ 19/ 2007 from
www. lakecounty. com
• Yolo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
Handout. Received 11/ 20/ 2006
• Yolo County water rights history, Clear Lake levels, watershed &
Lake characteristics. Retrieved 12/ 22/ 2006 and 1/ 14/ 2007
from Lake County Water Resources Division web site:
http:// watershed. co. lake. ca. us
• Indian Valley/ Walker Ridge. Retrieved 12/ 25/ 2006 from
www. blm. gov
• Indian Valley Reservoir. Retrieved 12/ 25/ 2006 from
www. fishingandhuntingnews. com and www. fishsniffer. com
2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report 47
Planning and Public Works Committee
Central Garage Oversight
Subject
The committee made a site visit to the Lake County Central Garage.
Summary
Central Garage personnel facilitate the cost- effective maintenance of
county vehicles. In addition, they are involved in cost management
in regards to the purchase of new equipment and vehicles.
Procedure/ Methodology
The committee met with the Director of Public Works and the Fleet
Maintenance Supervisor in October 2006. A presentation was pro-vided
to the committee followed by a question/ answer session and a
tour of the facilities.
Background and Discussion
None
Findings
• Central Garage is funded via the billing of various county depart-ments
for rental and maintenance on vehicles and equipment.
• Inspections are done on a rotating basis every 90- days so that all
vehicles and equipment meet Department of Transportation
( D. O. T.) requirements.
• The Fleet Maintenance Supervisor has devised a “ cost per hour”
system for equipment and a “ cost per mile” system for vehicles.
This system is highly efficient in determining when a vehicle
needs to be rotated out and replaced.
• The Lake County Board of Supervisors currently suggests re-placement
mileage for vehicles is 130,000. However, the Fleet
Maintenance Supervisor can replace a vehicle at lower mileage, if
it is determined to be cost- effective.
• Currently there are 123 road maintenance vehicles and 350 vehi-cles
in the county fleet.
• Although most vehicles are maintained at Central Garage, those
that are not cause difficulty in adhering to D. O. T. inspection
schedules.
• The current South Main Street location for Central Garage is an
area that has seen tremendous growth over the years. The traffic
in front of its current location is continually increasing. This not
only presents a potential hazard to the community, it also makes
maneuvering equipment to and from the garage difficult.
48 2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report
Planning and Public Works Committee
Recommendations
1. The suggested mileage for vehicle rotation should be reduced
from 130,000 miles to 90,000 miles.
2. All county vehicles should be maintained at Central Garage
making it easier to adhere to D. O. T. inspection schedules and
allowing for more efficient and accurate record keeping.
3. A new location for Central Garage would be beneficial to the
community and to the county.
Agency/ Department Required to Respond
Board of Supervisors ( within 90- days)
Central Garage ( within 60- days)
2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report 49
Planning and Public Works Committee
Clearlake Code Enforcement Complaint
Subject
The Grand Jury received a complaint alleging lot line infringement
and inadequate code enforcement.
Summary
The property in question is divided property with a shared driveway.
The complaint alleged that a “ cabaña” constructed by one party on
their own property encroached within the legal distance or “ set- back”
required from the lot line boundary. The complaint was filed by a
neighbor and not from either party sharing the driveway in question.
Procedure/ Methodology
The code enforcement officer in question come to the jury room and
discussed with the committee the allegations contained in the com-plaint.
Background and Discussion
The property was classified as legal non- conforming when the City of
Clearlake incorporated in 1980.
Findings
• The party constructing the “ cabaña” on his property obtained all
permits necessary for legal construction.
• The lot line in question is not a property boundary but rather a
public access road. Therefore, the lot line boundary code does
not apply.
Recommendations
None
Agency/ Department Required to Respond
None
50 2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report
Planning and Public Works Committee
2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report 51
Planning and Public Works Committee
County Sealer of Weights and Measures Presentation
Subject
The Agriculture Commissioner- County Sealer of Weights and Meas-ures
made a presentation in September 2006 to the Lake County
Grand Jury.
Summary
This is an annual oversight of county department.
Procedure/ Methodology
The commissioner provided informative literature related to his pres-entation
followed by a question and answer period.
Background and Discussion
Approximately 17% of the Lake County Agriculture Department’s
work time is spent overseeing, testing, and certifying the various
scales and measurement devices in Lake County. Consumers are
encouraged to report any inaccuracies in devices to the Sealer of
Weights and Measures.
Findings
• Four inspectors, two seasonal workers, and one clerical person
oversee the county’s 726 fuel pumps ( used for motor vehicles,
boats, and aircraft), as well as scales at grocery stores, packing
sheds, wineries, and vendors of manufactured homes.
• The majority of errors encountered on weighing/ measuring de-vices
that are certified by the Sealer arise out of honest operator
mistakes.
• Occasionally devices can malfunction due to mechanical prob-lems
that arise from wear and tear from normal use. These are
infrequent and are usually caught by the Sealer during normal
certification appointments.
• All weighing/ measuring devices are required to be inspected an-nually,
at a minimum.
Recommendations
None
Agency/ Department Required to Respond
None
52 2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report
Planning and Public Works Committee
2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report 53
Planning and Public Works Committee
Lake County Lakebed Management Presentation
Subject
A representative from Lake County Lakebed Management gave a
presentation to the Planning and Public Works Committee regarding
lakebed management.
Background and Discussion
Lakebed Management regulates all structures ( docks, walls, etc.)
that are on Clear Lake. They also maintain boating and swimming
areas, control aquatic weeds, and monitor water quality.
Findings
• As the nutrient levels in Clear Lake have reduced over the past
decade, the algae have also diminished. This process has encour-aged
the growth of aquatic weeds.
• Lakebed Management maintains an ongoing program to control
aquatic weeds. These weeds choke- off boating and swimming ac-cess
to the lake.
• The California Department of Pesticide Regulation regulates all
herbicides used in this program.
• Permits for private use of pesticides may be obtained from the
Lake County Agriculture Commissioner.
Recommendations
None
Agency/ Department Required to Respond
None
54 2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report
Planning and Public Works Committee
2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report 55
Planning and Public Works Committee
Middle Creek Flood Damage Reduction and Ecosystem
Restoration Project Oversight
Subject
This is an oversight of the progress of the Middle Creek Project.
Summary
The purpose of the Middle Creek Flood Damage Reduction and Eco-system
Restoration Project is to restore the Middle Creek flood plain
to its natural wetland ecosystem and provide flood damage reduc-tion
for certain areas in the flood plain. In doing so, the major nu-trient
flow from Middle Creek and Scotts Creek will be deposited in
the newly restored basin, thus providing much cleaner water to the
main body of the lake.
Procedure/ Methodology
A question and answer session was held with the Assistant Lake
County Director of Public Works/ Water Resources. In addition, cor-respondence
with various government agencies and consultants was
reviewed.
Background and Discussion
The project will cause the urgently needed removal of an aging and
failure– prone levee system, built in the early 1900’ s, that poses sig-nificant
risk of harm to life and property. The project will require an
exchange of like- title for replacement lands for property owners
within the project area. Furthermore, the project has two primary
benefits that are significant from both a public safety and an envi-ronmental
perspective.
It will eliminate the current flood risk by removing substandard
leeves. These levees were never constructed to proper standards and
have deteriorated over time, making them most prone to failure dur-ing
a major flood event. Evacuation of the area was required in
1983, 1986, and 1988 with evacuation imminent in 1995. It is in
the best interest of the county and those living behind the levees to
have the project move forward without delay.
It will allow the project area to be reclaimed as a functional wetland,
thereby improving the watershed health and the water quality of
Clear Lake. The restored wetland will also increase habitat for fish
and wildlife, greatly improving the bird nesting habitat and increas-ing
the available spawning habitat for fish. The downstream benefits
of the cleaner water flowing into and through Clear Lake will be felt
as far away as the Sacramento Delta and San Francisco Bay. These
56 2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report
Planning and Public Works Committee
benefits cannot be measured at this time, but they must be recog-nized.
Findings
• The project has secured authorization in both the House-
Committee passed Water Resource and Development Act ( WRDA)
H. R. 2864 and the Senate- committee passed WRDA legislation,
S. B. 728. Missing from these authorizations is a crucial mitiga-tion
factor.
• Several parcels in the project area are held by the United States
in trust status for the Robinson Rancheria band of Pomo Indians.
A county led effort has identified a plan to allow the trust title to
be transferred to another similarly sized parcel owned by the
tribe. This is a mutually agreeable plan for all parties and the
county most strongly seeks language in the WRDA to allow for
this exchange. Without congressional approval for equivalent re-placement
lands, the project simply cannot move forward as
planned. If allowances are not made for the Indian Land Trust in
the final WRDA, the project can continue, but at a much greater
cost to Lake County. As of this writing, the sitting House & Sen-ate
have sent legislation to a congressional conference commit-tee.
Prospect for passage appears positive, but three issues re-main
to be resolved. They are:
− the previously discussed Indian Trust Land Exchange
− responsibility for the costs of Highway 20 relocation within
the project area
− responsibility for the costs of the power- poles relocation
within the project area
Recommendations
1. The 2006- 2007 Lake County Civil Grand Jury recommends, in
the strongest possible terms, maintaining the language authoriz-ing
the equivalent replacement lands. This is an essential ele-ment
to a project that will benefit the entire population of Lake
County and downstream areas for generations to come.
Agency/ Department Required to Respond
Department of Public Works ( within 60- days)
2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report 57
Planning and Public Works Committee
Middletown Area Town Hall Advisory Committee Meetings
Subject
The Planning and Public Works Committee attended several Middle-town
Area Town Hall ( MATH) meetings.
Summary
The Grand Jury saw the newly organized and approved MATH Advi-sory
Group concept as a possible resolution for the bigger problem
areas around Lake County. The Grand Jury decided to look at the
MATH Advisory Group to see if the same idea could work in other
unincorporated Lake County communities.
The first official meeting of the group now known as MATH occurred
in April 2006 with about 70 people attending. Over the next few
months, the MATH name was selected from several suggestions. A
purpose statement was also adopted based on the state code. It
reads:
“ The MATH shall advise the Board of Supervisors on such matters
relating to the Middletown area concerning services which are or
may be provided to the area by the county or other local governmen-tal
agencies, including but not limited to advice on matters of public
health, safety, welfare, public works and planning as authorized by
Government Code section 31010.”
Procedure/ Methodology
Beginning with the January 2007 meeting, the Grand Jury’s Plan-ning
and Public Works Committee attended several monthly meet-ings
of MATH.
Background and Discussion
The idea for the formation of some type of local advisory group be-gan
when several Middletown residents and business owners dis-cussed
problems facing the town, such as blighted properties and
rapid development. A resident remembered a 2002 article in the
Press Democrat about a non- profit group called the Forestville Plan-ning
Association that was formed to address issues in that unincor-porated
community.
In October 2005, one of the organizers of the Forestville group spoke
at the Middletown Luncheon Club describing the group’s begin-nings.
Members of the Luncheon Club expressed interest in dis-cussing
this further and a return visit was set for an evening meet-ing.
58 2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report
Planning and Public Works Committee
In 1971, the state legislature enacted legislation authorizing munici-pal
advisory councils, citing several reasons for such councils in un-incorporated
areas:
− The need for community influence over land use decisions in the
area
− Inadequate resources to support incorporation
− Distance from the county seat that inhibits citizens from taking
part in decisions affecting the community
− Need to unify a group of neighboring small communities with
common problems
The Board of Supervisors unanimously approved the resolution on
December 12, 2006. MATH meets the second Thursday of each
month at 7 pm in the multi- use room of the Middletown school. All
residents of the South Lake County Fire Protection district are mem-bers
and may vote at any meeting. The mailing address is: PO Box
185, Middletown, CA 95461. The email address is: mathtown-hall@
gmail. com to request agenda items or express concerns. A
website is in the works.
Findings
• There are needs in this county that are more complex than small
communities can resolve. Solutions could come from larger
group participation of several entities working together.
• The MATH governing board itself makes no decisions. All deci-sions
and recommendations are made by a vote of the entire
group attending the meetings. Board members run the meetings,
keep the records, obtain information required for agenda items,
and handle other administrative issues.
• The precise boundaries of MATH are set within the South Lake
County Fire Protection District, and the number of Board mem-bers
are as follows:
− “ Middletown Proper” is described as that area located south
of Grange Road, north of Rancheria Road, west of Loconomi
Road, and east of Anderson Springs Road – 3 members
− South ( Twin Pines Casino) is south of Rancheria Road to
the county line – 1 member
− West ( Cobb Region) is west of Anderson Springs Road – 1
member
− East ( Butts Canyon) is east of Loconomi Road to the county
line – 1 member
− North ( Coyote Valley) is north of Grange Road – 1 member
• The District 1 Supervisor has supported the formation of such a
body from the beginning.
• Distance from the county seat and the daytime meetings of the
2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report 59
Planning and Public Works Committee
• Distance from the county seat and the daytime meetings of the
Board of Supervisors and the Planning Commission inhibit citi-zen
participation in county decisions that affect Middletown.
• The Middletown area’s recent growth is creating unique concerns
that are not within county jurisdiction, such as a heavily traveled
state highway through the downtown area.
• The MATH meeting format is very loose and open. The beginning
of each meeting has public input.
• MATH is currently focusing on:
− Traffic
− Youth activity
− Design and placement of new street lighting
− Downtown parking
− A museum
− Visitor center
− Downtown park
− Economic development
− Affordable housing
− Growth impact
• Unincorporated communities are encouraged to visit MATH to de-termine
if this concept might be useful in other areas of Lake
County.
Recommendations
1. The 2006- 2007 Grand Jury recommends that the 2007- 2008
Grand Jury follow- up on the progress of MATH.
Agency/ Department Required to Respond
None
60 2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report
Planning and Public Works Committee
2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report 61
Planning and Public Works Committee
Spring Valley Water Facility Oversight
Summary
County Service Area No. 2 ( CSA No. 2), Spring Valley Lakes water
system currently services 412 active users as of September 2006.
The Spring Valley water system is comprised of a treatment plant,
two pump stations, approximately 66,600 feet of distribution pipe,
and one 241,000- gallon water storage tank. On September 5, 2006,
the Board of Supervisors passed an emergency ordinance limiting
the amount of water used per single- family dwelling. In addition,
the filling of swimming pools or hot tubs with system water is for-bidden
and no new service connections are allowed while the ordi-nance
is in place. This ordinance is also a building moratorium.
Procedure/ Methodology
The committee met with two Special Districts Representatives, in-cluding
the Special Districts Administrator and the Facility Mainte-nance
Supervisor in November 2006. The Maintenance Supervisor
provided an in- depth and informative tour of the facility. Following
the tour, the committee was presented with a report detailing pro-posed
upgrades. The Special Districts Administrator briefly ex-plained
what was in the report and answered questions asked by
the committee.
Background and Discussion
CSA No. 2 is currently operating under a permit issued by the Lake
County Environmental Health Department on June 16, 1982. In
1984, regulatory jurisdiction was transferred to the State Depart-ment
of Health Services. At that time the system was nearing 200
connections.
Findings
• The ordinance placed into effect in September was amended to
remain in effect for a year. At the end of 2006, the Board of Su-pervisors
could continue it for another year.
• After two years, the moratorium could be extended indefinitely by
the California Department of Health Services, Drinking Water
Branch. Two previous moratoriums in the mid- 1980’ s and 1990’ s
were imposed by the state and removed when necessary repairs
were made.
• The current moratorium is based primarily on the many ques-tions
related to the systems delivery system. The Yolo County
Flood Control District is the agency contractually responsible for
delivery of the North Fork of Cache Creek water. The Special
62 2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report
Planning and Public Works Committee
District’s Administration stated that the delivery system is anti-quated
and leaking badly. The Lake County Special Districts De-partment,
the agency representing the Spring Valley Water
Board, commissioned a water engineer to determine what the
problems were and possible resolutions. This was completed in
September 2006. His report indicated that water loss did exist,
but that the existing antiquated meters were providing erroneous
information. Until agreement and resolution are forthcoming the
moratorium will in all likelihood remain.
• Approximately 400 building sites remain and once the morato-rium
is removed, house construction may continue. Because the
rate of growth in Spring Valley is substantially greater than most
county areas, another problem arises. At the current rate of
growth and allowing for the moratorium, the current water allot-ment
from the Yolo County Flood Control District will be ex-ceeded
by demand between 2018 and 2020. At that point the
Board of Supervisors, sitting as the Board of Directors of CSA
No. 2, will have to seek an additional water allotment from the
above named Yolo County agency. The added cost will be solely
the responsibility of the Spring Valley water users.
• The current filtration system is aged and simple, but effective
with minimal maintenance costs.
• The current system has reached its capacity in both on- demand
water availability and filtration.
• Upgrades to the facility are necessary to allow any new service
connections.
• Two plans are proposed for upgrading the facility:
− The first plan includes additional sand- filtration units and a
continual upgrade of the current system. This plan is sched-uled
to be done in three phases with completion being 2026 at
an estimated total cost of $ 2,958,000. The first phase would
be completed in 2008 at an initial cost of just over
$ 1,500,000.
− The second plan is for expansion using a more advanced mi-cro-
filtration technology. This plan would also be completed
in three phases. The cost projections are estimated to total
$ 4,700,000 with completion of phase three in 2026. The ini-tial
phase cost would be just over $ 2,700,000 and would be
scheduled for completion in 2008.
• The more advanced micro- filtration plan’s initial cost is more ex-pensive;
however, the continuing maintenance costs are subse-quently
lower.
• Financing for the upgrades is currently the major issue. The
Special Districts Administrator has made proposals to the prop-erty
owners in the area.
2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report 63
Planning and Public Works Committee
• When the water facility responsibility in Spring Valley was as-signed
to Special Districts, the maintenance for the roads and
bridges was also included.
• Given the potential for further growth in this area of the county,
upgrades to the CSA No. 2 water facility will be fiscally beneficial
in the long term for both the area and the county.
Recommendations
1. Questions concerning the distribution system in Spring Valley
must be resolved and remediation undertaken as a first step.
2. Upgrading the CSA No. 2 water facility needs to begin as soon as
possible.
3. Responsibility for road and bridge maintenance in Spring Valley
should be transferred to Public Works.
Agency/ Department Required to Respond
Board of Supervisors ( within 90- days)
Public Works ( within 60- days)
Special Districts ( within 60- days)
64 2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report
Planning and Public Works Committee
2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report 65
Planning and Public Works Committee
Spring Valley Water Meter Complaint
Summary
This was an investigation into a complaint regarding the billing prac-tices
of Spring Valley Water District.
Procedure/ Methodology
In March 2007, the Planning and Public Works Committee received a
complaint alleging fraudulent billing practices of the Spring Valley
Water District, County Service Area No. 2. ( CSA No. 2).
Upon receiving the complaint the committee contacted the Special
Districts Administrator ( SDA) and arranged a meeting to discuss the
issues listed in the complaint. In the meeting the SDA discussed
various aspects of CSA No. 2 and the ongoing improvement efforts of
that district. A list of accounts was given to the SDA who investi-gated
the alleged inaccurate meter readings and then sent a report
to the committee with his findings.
Background and Discussion
CSA N0.2 is in the initial stages of a vast upgrade to their water sys-tem.
The Planning and Public Works Committee performed a site
visit earlier in the year and the details of the upgrade are listed in
the previous report titled, Spring Valley Water Facility Oversight.
Findings
• In addition to upgrades to the water system mentioned in the
committee’s site visit report, new meters are being installed at
every unit in Spring Valley. The District’s consulting engineer,
The California Rural Water Association and the Rural Community
Assistance Corporation, recommended the meters. The new me-ters
will be read by the use of an electronic “ wand” that will
transfer the information into a portable computer box. At the end
of the day the information from the portable computer is trans-ferred
to the Special District’s computer for billing. The upgrade
process is over 60% complete.
• The meters listed in the complaint have not yet been upgraded
and are manual- read meters. The meter reader erroneously
typed meter readings into the “ handheld” unit. This resulted in
inaccurate bills. Immediately after being made aware of the er-rors
by the customers, the Administrative Manager of Special Dis-tricts
extended apologies to the customers involved. New read-ings
were taken and the bills were corrected. The customers in-volved
in this complaint are satisfied with the corrective actions of
the Special Districts office. After installation of the new meters,
human error will be minimized.
66 2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report
Planning and Public Works Committee
Recommendations
None
Agency/ Department Required to Respond
None
2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report 67
Planning and Public Works Committee
Taylor Observatory Oversight Visit
Summary
Taylor Observatory, 5725 Oak Hill Lane, is located directly behind
the high school in Kelseyville. They have been in operation since
1980. The planetarium opened in 1985. Major renovations took
place in 2004 courtesy of the Kelseyville Rotary. The observatory
website is www. taylorobservatory. org.
Procedure/ Methodology
The Grand Jury visited the observatory and was given a PowerPoint
presentation followed by a question and answer session. After the
initial information was presented, the Grand Jury watched a show
in the planetarium and looked at several objects in the night sky
through the telescopes.
Background and Discussion
None
Findings
• The Taylor Observatory is unfortunately a well- kept secret that pro-vides
valuable service and information to the county.
• The goal of the observatory is to encourage and promote awareness
and interest in astronomy.
• The observatory has a 16- inch computerized telescope housed un-der
a dome capable of viewing 140,000 celestial objects. In addi-tion
they have an 8- inch portable computerized telescope, an 8-
inch portable solar telescope, and a 2- inch portable solar telescope.
• Science and math scores among high school students in the United
States are lower than several other countries. The observatory pro-vides
an excellent opportunity to interest children in science
through astronomy.
• In 2005, the observatory was awarded a grant to develop curricu-lum
for high school level classrooms. The grant has been renewed
for next year.
• Starting in the 2007/ 2008 school year, astronomy classes will be
offered at local high schools courtesy of the observatory. The
classes will be presented throughout the county’s high schools us-ing
videoconferencing.
• Currently, the observatory information is available at the Visitor’s
Center but not included in the press package sent out by the mar-keting
department of Lake County.
68 2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report
• Public events are held one Saturday a month including a class-room
presentation, planetarium show and telescope viewing. Pri-vate
events are held by appointment.
• The number of events has more than doubled in the last two
years along with the number of people served. As the number of
patrons continues to grow, more equipment will be needed.
• Recruitment of people to work at the observatory is an ongoing
process.
• The Friends of the Observatory was created to work primarily in
fundraising efforts.
Recommendations
1. The Committee recommends that the Marketing and Economic
Development Department include the Observatory information in
marketing materials sent out by the county.
Agency/ Department Required to Respond
Board of Supervisors ( within 90- days)
Community Economic Development ( within 60- days)
PUBLIC HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES COMMITTEE REPORTS
Child Protective Services Complaint
Grievance Review Complaint
Indian Child Welfare Act Compliance
Jail Medical Service Oversight
Redbud Health Care District Oversight
2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report 71
Public Health and Social Services Committee
During the tenure of both the 2005-
2006 and the 2006- 2007 Grand
Jury, the Public Health and Social
Services Committee has received,
and attempted to investigate, nu-merous
complaints of child abuse
and neglect and the alleged unsatis-factory
performance of Lake County
CPS, a division of Lake County DSS.
Child Protective Services Complaint
Summary
While this report originated with investigations of specific child abuse
and neglect and the performance of CPS, it has grown into a question
of oversight of one of the largest and most important departments in
Lake County. Many significant findings and recommendations are
contained in this report; however, it should be read as a work in pro-gress.
This year’s jury session came to an end June 30, 2007. At
that time, this Committee was in the long- drawn- out process of re-petitioning
the courts for the CPS records that are necessary to com-plete
a thorough and fair investigation. This committee will hand over
the investigation to next year’s Grand Jury with the hopes that they
will be granted permission by the court to access the needed records
and continue to investigate the complex issues involving CPS.
Procedure/ Methodology
In the course of this investigation, the Committee interviewed li-censed
day- care workers, health- care professionals, concerned
members of the community, and organizations involved with the
welfare of children -- all who have routine contact with Lake County
CPS. California DSS staff and Lake County CPS staff, including the
Director, Deputy Director of Adult and Children’s Services, and Pro-gram
Manager of Children’s Services, a former social worker newly
promoted to supervisor, and a social worker responsible for
“ Emergency Response” were also interviewed. The Committee con-sulted
with County Counsel and the District Attorney to obtain legal
advice. The Committee interviewed the Chairman and members of
the 2005- 2006 Grand Jury Public Health and Social Services Com-mittee.
The Committee met frequently with complainants and wit-nesses.
In addition, court petitions were prepared and filed with the
Juvenile Court to obtain access to the needed Lake County CPS
Committee
CPS
DSS
CASA
- Public Health and Social
Services Committee
- Child Protective Services
- Department of Social
Services
- Court Appointed Special
Advocates
Acronyms
72 2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report
Public Health and Social Services Committee
records. The results of the petitions was a hearing in April 2007 be-fore
the Juvenile Court Judge. At this hearing, access was not
granted. Amended petitions are being filed.
Background and Discussion
The history of this investigation began with last year’s Grand Jury
and will continue with next year’s Grand Jury. Following the much-publicized
abuse of two young Lake County children in November
2005, last year’s Grand Jury received a complaint charging Lake
County CPS with neglect and was contacted by a state assembly
member regarding the pending investigation of that abuse. For most
of last year’s session of the Grand Jury, that Committee attempted
unsuccessfully to access the records of Lake County CPS. While
Lake County CPS cooperated within the bounds of the child confi-dentiality
laws that govern them, that Committee was unable to ac-cess
all the records needed to corroborate or deny the validity of the
complaints. Last year’s Grand Jury decided further investigation
was needed and voted not to publish their report, but rather to “ roll-over”
the complaint to this year’s Grand Jury.
The Committee learned that Lake County CPS was investigated by
the State beginning in late 2005. The Committee contacted the Cali-fornia
DSS in mid- September 2006 to inquire about the state’s in-vestigation.
Three months later the Committee received information,
which included correspondence between the federal, state, and Lake
County DSS agencies and the actions that resulted. The Federal
agency had tracked the much- publicized events between November
and December 2005 regarding the abuse of two young brothers in
Lake County. Facts from this horrific case, as well as an erroneous
statement made by the Deputy Director of Lake County CPS regard-ing
local CPS protocol, prompted the Federal agency to raise ques-tions
about Lake County CPS and request the investigation. The
Federal request was to:
“ investigate the processes used to investigate the referrals
of abuse and neglect in this case, determine whether Lake
County’s CPS responded in accord with State policies and
procedures and provide a report to the Administration for
Children and Families ( ACF) Regional Office within 30
days from the date of this letter.”
The California DSS conducted both an on- site and online review of
the Lake County Child Welfare Services program in January 2006.
As a result, the California Children’s Services Operations Bureau
and Lake County CPS jointly developed a “ Corrective Action Plan” to
strengthen the deficiencies found during the State’s investigation.
2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report 73
Public Health and Social Services Committee
This plan focused on training and assessment procedures and pro-vided
written clarification on the statutory authority of the local
agency to remove children. As a result, an official Memorandum of
Understanding was recorded between Lake County CPS and all Lake
County law enforcement.
The committee was surprised to find that at the conclusion of the
State’s onsite visit, a letter from the Lake County DSS Director to
the State dismissed the gravity of the visit and refers to it as an ordi-nary
“ technical assistance review” that other counties would also
routinely receive rather than the urgent request from the Federal
Department of Health and Human Services.
This Committee maintains that the only way to complete a balanced
investigation and answer the allegations posed by the complainants
is to access the CPS records in question. At the advice and assis-tance
of County Counsel and the District Attorney, the Committee
initiated the necessary steps in October 2006 to prepare the peti-tions.
However, between the District Attorney’s schedule and the
Committee’s ongoing investigation with another Lake County CPS
related complaint, the Committee was not able to complete the peti-tions
until March 2007 ( See the Committee’s report, Indian Child
Welfare Act Compliance, p. 83). The Committee then met with the
District Attorney who agreed to file the petitions and represent the
Grand Jury before the Juvenile Court.
A hearing date was scheduled in April 2007 and at this hearing, the
Juvenile Justice Judge determined that the Jury’s request for re-cords
was too broad, lacking specificity. Counsel who represented
Lake County DSS at the hearing argued that the California DSS was
responsible for monitoring Lake County DSS’ performance and the
Grand Jury need not be involved. However, this Committee contin-ues
to receive additional complaints into May 2007, even with the
California DSS oversight of Lake County DSS.
In May 2007, the Committee spoke with the California DSS Chil-dren’s
Services Operations Bureau Chief who was one of three policy
people responsible for reviewing all county Self Improvement Plans
and following up on matters requiring additional action. The Cali-fornia
DSS was specifically looking at the “ assessment of the refer-ral”
( the emergency response action) and the “ recurrence rate” ( was
this an additional or first- time referral?). The most recent follow- up
by California DSS was in December 2006, which resulted in no
74 2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report
Public Health and Social Services Committee
additional written report, only a final review. Their summation was
that things seemed satisfactory, there was “ no radar alert” and noth-ing
negative had been recently “ heard” about Lake County. The
Committee also spoke with the Chief of the Children’s Services Op-erations
& Evaluation Branch of California DSS for an update on
Lake County who confirmed the Bureau Chief’s information above.
Revised petitions have been prepared following the Judge’s sugges-tions
made at the April hearing and are in the process of being filed.
This Grand Jury session will end on June 30, 2007, which leaves
insufficient time to include the outcome of the pending hearing on
the revised petition in this report. Since this Committee has not
been allowed access to the confidential records, it cannot determine
if Lake County DSS operations are in fact satisfactory and in accor-dance
with Federal and State policies and procedures, or unsatisfac-tory,
as the numerous complaints received by the Grand Jury allege.
Findings
• Grand Juries in other counties have been given access to CPS
files while investigating complaints or performing oversight. The
Solano County Grand Jury filed a petition and gained access to
all files for a 6- month period just 2 years ago. There are similar
situations throughout California in the past several years relative
to Grand Jury access.
• California DSS investigated Lake County CPS at the request of
the Federal Department of Health and Human Services. The fol-lowing
are some of the operational procedures jointly developed
by the California DSS and Lake County DSS:
− Implement plan for better documentation to support decision-making
process.
− Establish a uniform process for ongoing provider feedback.
− Work with Regional Training Academy to identify staff training
needs for Emergency Response and Family Maintenance, develop
a training plan, and provide training.
− Plan and implement Structured Decision Making software. ( This
creates a link for decision- making based on a standardized
safety assessment model).
− Provide administrative oversight to assure uniform standard of
practice in Emergency Response.
− Reinforce the policy and procedures for Child Welfare Services
authority to place children into protective custody for physical
and sexual abuse.
− Clarify, with staff, agency role in responding to physical and sex-ual
abuse referrals.
• Since this Committee is still unable to access confidential files,
the committee only has the “ word” of the California DSS that
these operational procedures have been corrected.
2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report 75
Public Health and Social Services Committee
• Even after Lake County CPS/ DSS received a review and com-pleted
a Corrective Action Plan from California DSS, this Grand
Jury continues to receive complaints about Lake County CPS
into May 2007.
• Lake County CPS appears to be self- governing with minimal over-sight
from the State but ultimately, the Director of DSS answers
to the Board of Supervisors.
• Staffing is an ongoing problem. Management and supervisory
positions consume much of the manpower and budget leaving
critical staff vacancies chronically empty. As of the writing of this
report, the Children’s Services Program was budgeted for 21 so-cial
workers, but there were currently 8 vacancies. However,
there was a Director, a Deputy Director of Adult and Children’s
Services, a Program Manager of Children’s Services, and two su-pervisors
in this division. The department staffing appears dis-proportionate.
• The Chief of the California Children’s Services Operations and
Evaluation Branch thought there was a huge pay gap between
Lake County social workers and its administration. In fact, the
Chief stated Lake County is “ at the top of the worst” for social
workers as far as compensation is concerned. A Social Worker I
requires a bachelor’s degree and receives compensation from
$ 2,192.00 to $ 2,664.00 per month. A Social Worker IV requires
a master’s degree and receives compensation from $ 2,937.60 to
$ 3,571.20. The Director of DSS, on the other hand, receives
compensation from $ 7,120.31 to $ 8,654.78 per month ( figures
from the 2006- 2007 Lake County Final Budget).
• Lake County CPS recently implemented “ Structured Decision
Making,” software designed to improve risk assessment.
• Earlier this year, it was proposed to the Board of Supervisors that
Lake County work to re- establish the CASA ( Court Appointed
Special Advocates) Program. Approval was granted to proceed
with the first phase of the process, applying for a Planning and
Development grant for $ 10,000. At the writing of this report, the
application was on track to be filed by the July 6, 2007 deadline
( Additional information about CASA is available at
www. nationalcasa. org).
• Revised petitions have been submitted to the District Attorney for
refilling using the suggestions of the Juvenile Judge.
• Many California counties employ a paid ombudsman for DSS.
The ombudsman can be contacted by individuals or agencies who
are having difficulty reaching CPS or require assistance with un-derstanding
CPS policies and procedures. Many complainants /
witnesses this committee met with may have initially had their
complaint resolved had there been such a mediator.
76 2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report
Public Health and Social Services Committee
• This committee was constantly advised by individuals and agen-cies
that calls to CPS were not returned in a timely manner.
Recommendations
1. This Committee recommends that the 2007- 2008 Grand Jury
continue this investigation.
2. This Committee recommends creating a paid ombudsman posi-tion
for Lake County CPS. This person should be objective, unbi-ased
and not and employee of the Lake County DSS. The om-budsman’s
contact information should be on all documents and
notices to families, or other involved agencies.
3. This Committee recommends creating an independent Advisory
Board to oversee Lake County CPS. This Advisory Board can de-termine
if Lake County’s CPS is providing for the children in the
system, receive complaints and provide a place for fair hearings.
This Advisory Board should include a County Supervisor, the
county ombudsman, representation from the Children’s Council,
licensed day care providers, child care associations ( Easter Seals,
etc.), and other consumers of the agency.
4. This Committee recommends that the Board of Supervisors face
head- on the staffing and management problems at Lake County
CPS. It is ultimately the Board of Supervisors’ responsibility to
ensure that the Lake County CPS is performing efficiently, and
that children at risk in this county are receiving the help they de-serve.
This Committee encourages the Board of Supervisors to
take this responsibility seriously and not assume that everything
is being done from within the department or that the state is ef-fectively
overseeing Lake County CPS.
5. This Committee recommends that Lake County CPS management
monitor and assure that implementation of Structured Decision
Making software is successful without resulting in the loss of the
human element, which is critical when helping at risk children.
6. This Committee fully supports the development of a CASA Pro-gram
in Lake County. It is a community based volunteer organi-zation
that will provide a voice for the best interest of the chil-dren
in our court system.
7. Lake County must fill the vacant social worker positions. A real-istic
pay scale is required to attract qualified individuals.
8. Lake County DSS needs to engage in “ active recruitment” for va-cant
positions. Some suggestions are:
• Lake County DSS could contact local high schools and commu-nity
colleges encouraging students to consider social work.
• Lake County DSS could pursue cooperative relationships with
the community colleges and the Lake County Office of Education
to ensure the appropriate college classes are offered locally.
These classes could assist current Lake County DSS employees
in career advancement.
2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report 77
Public Health and Social Services Committee
• Assist current employees with tuition and/ or time off to
take the appropriate classes for social worker eligibility.
• Provide a “ signing bonus” for hard to fill positions.
• Be open to creative hiring practices, such as part- time or
job sharing as approved by the State.
9. This Committee recommends social workers personally answer
their telephones. If an answering machine is used, the worker
should have time set aside each day for a callback period.
10. Lake County CPS has an after hours “ hotline” for emergencies.
The call is not answered by an individual but uses the
“ answering tree” system. The answering machine advises the
caller to select from a number of choices. The Committee be-lieves
that most people who call that number in an emergency
would hang up given the current message. The message
should be rearranged to inform of the emergency access imme-diately
instead of taking several minutes to get to that part of
the message.
Agency/ Department Required to Respond
Board of Supervisors ( within 90- days)
Lake County Department of Social Services ( within 60- days)
References
• California Rules of Court, ( 2006, September 22), www. leginfo. ca. gov.
• California Codes, Penal Code, ( 2006, September 22),
www. leginfo. ca. gov.
• California Rules of Court, Welfare and Institution Code, ( 2006, Septem-ber
22), www. leginfo. ca. gov.
• California Manual of Policies and Procedures, Child Welfare Services
Program, ( 2005, February 16).
• Disclosure of Confidential Child Abuse and Neglect Records: Summary of
State Laws, National Clearinghouse on Child Abuse Information, ( 2006,
October 06), www. nccanch. acf. hhs. gov.
• History of the CASA Movement, ( 2007, May 30), www. nationalcasa. org.
• Lake County Record Bee articles:
− $ 100,000 bail for suspect in 4- year- old’s vicious beating, ( 2005, Novem-ber
22),
− Suspect in boy’s beating faces 12 years in prison, ( 2005, November 26),
− Tragic story of abused boys, ( 2005, December 1)
− Abuse case raises questions, ( 2005, December 17)
− Child abuse case resumes Jan. 30, ( 2005, November 26)
− Man accused of child abuse pleads guilty, ( 2006, February 22)
• Structured Decision Making – An Overview, ( 2007, April 4),
www. neglected- deliquent. org.
• Structured Decision Making: Background, ( 2007, April 10), Juvenile Jus-tice
Bulletin, www. ncjrs. gov.
• Structured Decision Making, ( 2007, April 10), Children and Family Ser-vices
Division, www. dss. cahwnet. gov.
78 2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report
Public Health and Social Services Committee
2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report 79
Public Health and Social Services Committee
Grievance Review Complaint
Subject
In August 2006, this committee received a complaint regarding the
decision of a Lake County Department of Social Services review.
Summary
The complainant, an approved day care and foster care provider,
had been advised in the fall of 2005 by Social Services personnel
that she was a candidate for adoption of a child in the Child Protec-tive
Services ( CPS) system. The complainant was later advised in
December 2005 that the adoption proceedings had been terminated
because the complainant and the complainant’s mother had partici-pated
in negative publicity regarding the operations of the Depart-ment
of Social Services. The above communications were verbal,
and not written. The complainant believes this action by CPS was
unjust retaliation because of participation in the negative publicity.
The complainant was unable to locate the Department of Social Ser-vices’
written decision in this matter.
Procedure/ Methodology
The committee interviewed the complainant to obtain information
regarding the issue. In September 2006, the committee contacted
the Director of the Department of Social Services to attempt to ob-tain
information and/ or a copy of the Department’s decision, which
is a matter of public record. In October 2006, the committee also
requested a copy of the Department’s decision from both the District
Attorney’s office and the County Counsel’s office. In March 2007,
the committee again contacted the County Counsel’s office for assis-tance
in this matter. In that same month, the committee finally re-ceived
a copy of the decision that the complainant received in Janu-ary
2006.
Findings
• The Department of Social Services’ decision in this grievance was
mailed to the complainant on January 30, 2006.
• The “ Reasons for Decision” of the Department were accurately
made in accordance with the Welfare and Institutions code
306.5.
• There is no reason to indicate why this decision, a matter of pub-lic
record, could not have been made available by the Department
of Social Services to the Grand Jury in a more timely manner.
80 2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report
Public Health and Social Services Committee
Recommendation
1. Responses to Grand Jury requests for public record information
must be provided in a timely fashion to avoid unnecessary delays
in time and resources.
Agency/ Department Required Respond
Lake County Department of Social Services ( within 60- days)
2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report 81
Public Health and Social Services Committee
It was designed to promote the stability and security of Indian tribes
and families, and provide assistance to tribes in the operation of
children and family services programs ( see Appendix A). The pas-sage
of ICWA is the result of over a decade of national effort. This
effort was by those concerned with the large number of Indian chil-dren
that were removed by county welfare officials from their family
homes and placed into non- Indian settings. This was done without
consultation with either tribal officials or the Indian community re-sulting
in emotional injury and cultural loss to the child, and dam-age
to the integrity of tribal survival.
AODS -
CDSS -
CILS -
CPS -
CWDA -
GAO -
ICWA -
LCDSS -
LCJC -
LCOE -
Peer TA -
Indian Child Welfare Act Compliance by the Lake County
Department of Social Services and Child Protective Services
Summary
CPS and court compliance with ICWA is mandatory. In 2006, Cali-fornia
passed and signed into law SB678, a bill that further
strengthens the language of the federal law and acts to codify ICWA.
This was necessitated by the fact that the federal law in many cases
was being ignored. A report issued from the United States GAO af-firms
that states, including California, struggle with complying with
ICWA.
While investigating a complaint re-garding
a Lake County CPS case, the
Committee discovered the case met
with ICWA criteria. This federal act
was created to stem the dispropor-tionate
number of Indian children
placed and adopted out of their In-dian
communities, without input
from their tribe. In 1978, the U. S.
Congress passed the Indian Child
Welfare Act ( PL 95- 608) for the pur-pose
of protecting the best interests
of American Indian children.
Acronyms
Alcohol and Other Drugs Services
California Dept of Social Services
California Indian Legal Services
Child Protective Services
California Welfare Director Association
Government Accountability Office
Indian Child Welfare Act
Lake County Department of Social
Services
Lake County Juvenile Court
Lake County Office of Education
Peer Technical Assistance ( Casey
Family Programs)
82 2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report
Public Health and Social Services Committee
Procedure/ Methodology
This Committee conducted extensive research ( see references) and
interviewed numerous individuals during the course of this investi-gation.
Interviews were conducted with Lake County CPS, a division
of Lake County DSS, ICWA Representatives from Lake County Indian
tribes, CILS, and the California DSS ICWA Administration Special-ists.
The Committee also attended monthly ICWA Round Table
meetings in Lake County and a quarterly California DSS ICWA work
group meeting in Sacramento.
Background and Discussion
According to Lake County DSS, the following are some significant
Lake County statistics regarding the local Native American popula-tion:
• The American Indian and Alaskan Native population is 1,772 of
58,309, or 3% of the county’s population ( per Census 2000).
• The Lake County CPS caseload that meets ICWA criteria or pend-ing
tribal verification is 9.3% ( as of 12/ 06).
• ICWA children in foster care are 9.8% ( as of 12/ 06).
ICWA provides minimum federal standards for state child custody
court proceedings, which include voluntary and involuntary foster
care placements, termination of parental rights, and pre- adoptive
and adoptive placements involving Indian children. Key elements of
these standards include, but are not limited to:
• Before removing Indian children from their homes, attempts must
first be made to prevent the breakup of Indian families through
active efforts to provide rehabilitation and remedial services.
• The Indian child’s parent( s), Indian custodian, and the child’s
tribe must be properly notified of pending custody proceedings.
Child custody cases cannot proceed to a hearing until at least ten
court days after receipt of the notice. Notice to a child’s tribe
must be sent to the tribe’s chairperson or its designated agent for
service of process.
• Proper notice must be written in clear and understandable lan-guage.
• Clear and convincing evidence, including testimony from a quali-fied
expert witness as defined by ICWA, is required for removal of
an Indian child from his or her parent( s) or Indian custodian.
2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report 83
Public Health and Social Services Committee
Findings
This Committee learned of multiple resources available to assist
Lake County CPS social workers in performing their job duties. They
include:
• ICWA Monthly Round Tables - monthly meetings that are hosted
on a rotating basis by the seven Lake County tribes at the various
tribal headquarters around the county. In addition to tribal repre-sentation,
other social and legal service agencies ( AODS, LCOE,
Easter Seals, CILS, LCJC attorneys etc.) also attend. Ideas are
shared and issues are addressed in a non- confrontational man-ner.
Although it appears Lake County CPS attended in the past,
there was a period when Lake County CPS was not represented,
or that information disseminated at these meetings was not
shared with all the social workers. This Committee is gratified to
see that Lake County CPS Administrative Staff is now attending
these Round Table meetings and bilateral conversations are oc-curring.
However, it would be beneficial if the employees/
supervisors who are responsible for the implementation of these
mandated duties also be allowed to attend the Round Tables.
• The California DSS has established two ICWA specialist positions.
These positions are the point of contact for ICWA issues. As a
major resource for county child welfare, Indian tribes and tribal
organizations, they provide technical assistance and clarification
regarding the importance of compliance with ICWA. They also fa-cilitate
the ICWA Quarterly Work Groups.
• ICWA Quarterly Work Groups - meetings facilitated by the Cali-fornia
DSS ICWA Administration and held at the California DSS
headquarters in Sacramento. Counties and tribes throughout the
state are invited to attend. ICWA issues are discussed and infor-mation
is shared regarding new procedures and upcoming train-ing.
This Committee was advised that Lake County DSS does not
attend.
• State ICWA Training – formal, comprehensive training is available
to social workers at the UC Davis Regional Training Academy.
Ongoing formal training can be developed to meet individual
county needs. Technical assistance is always available, but must
be requested. The California DSS training unit will come to coun-ties
to provide training at no cost to the county, if requested. For-mal
or individualized training is provided. A Handbook on ICWA,
which includes sources of information and support to aid in the
implementation of ICWA, was developed as a resource guide that
is provided to all training participants.
84 2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report
Public Health and Social Services Committee
• Casey Family Programs Peer TA - a technical assistance ap-proach
that rapidly disseminates information about successful
practices, policies, and tools related to a defined issue, con-cern,
or challenge. Peer TA is solution- focused and occurs
through a process of joint problem- solving between a team of
individuals who is requesting assistance and a team of peer
consultants who has first- hand experience related to the tar-geted
issue. Peer TA teams are brought to the program re-questing
assistance at no cost ( see Appendix B). Lake County
tribes have indicated to this Committee that they are enthusi-astic
about participating in this program with the county.
• Directors’ Meetings - information regarding these and other
available resources is distributed at monthly CWDA meetings.
County Welfare Directors and other administrative personnel
are encouraged to attend these meetings. The California DSS
ICWA Administrator, who spoke with the Grand Jury Commit-tee,
does not recall Lake County DSS attending these meetings
on a regular basis. By not taking advantage of these meet-ings,
the state administrator felt that it leaves Lake County so-cial
workers at a disadvantage and results in Lake County’s
isolation and uninformed disinterest in the ICWA mandate.
• Currently, Lake County DSS has a working procedural document
when handling ICWA cases. We found this document to be in-adequate,
and it does not provide the necessary services to com-ply
with ICWA.
• Although ICWA is the federal and state law and must be complied
with, the Committee learned this is not the case in numerous In-dian
child custody cases in Lake County and in California.
• According to the interviews with the Tribal ICWA Representatives,
the required 10- day notice for Indian child custody proceedings is
routinely ignored by Lake County DSS. Tribal ICWA workers
generally receive last minute telephone notification, not the ten-day
written notice as stipulated in the law, and in the Lake
County DSS Operations Manual.
• This Committee has been attending the monthly ICWA Round Ta-bles
for the past six months. The same issues, particularly where
“ notice” is concerned, are brought to the attention of all parties.
The tribal ICWA Representatives repeatedly have advised the
Lake County CPS administrators that the law is not being fol-lowed.
• CPS was attending the Round Tables at the beginning of this year
after a lengthy absence; however, they have missed the last sev-eral
meetings.
2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report 85
Public Health and Social Services Committee
• Attending each Round Table has been the Deputy Director for
Adult and Children’s Services and the Program Manager for Chil-dren’s
Services. At each meeting both indicate they will return to
their agency and “ kick- around” these issues. At the February
2007 Round Table, these individuals indicated they were unsure
of the notice process themselves, but thought the Lake County
CPS supervisors who manage the employees who perform this
function, were aware of it. These procedures are definitively out-lined
in the California DSS CWS Manual/ ICWA Special Require-ments.
• According to both ICWA Representatives and the legal counsel
from CILS, the use of “ expert witnesses” does not appear to be
taken seriously by the Lake County DSS. In some cases, a Lake
County DSS social worker acted as the expert witness, rather
than the Indian agent for the tribe, as the law requires.
• It was discovered that most Lake County DSS social workers
were not familiar with ICWA requirements. When questioned, the
Lake County DSS Deputy Director and Program Manager were
not aware if ICWA training was included in the core training that
all social workers attend.
• While interviewing both ICWA Representatives and the clients in-volved,
this Committee learned that social workers did not always
follow a particular case to the end; instead, there could be a
number of Lake County DSS social workers assigned to the same
ICWA case— some understood, but some did not, the nature of
the law. This not only created inconsistencies, but also resulted
in workers having to “ catch up” or learn about the ICWA law, so
they could proceed with the case.
Recommendations
1. To reach ICWA compliance, Lake County DSS should update
their working protocol. Since CILS is in the process of updating
their working protocol, we strongly recommend that Lake County
DSS work closely with them as a valuable resource in this proc-ess.
2. This Committee recommends full compliance with ICWA policies
and procedures by Lake County DSS, as mandated by state and
federal law, and stipulated in the California Child Welfare Ser-vices
Program Manual, ICWA provisions.
86 2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report
Public Health and Social Services Committee
3. This Committee recommends that all Lake County social workers
be given appropriate ICWA training.
4. This Committee recommends that the following ICWA resources
be taken advantage of:
• ICWA Round Table Monthly Meetings should be attended
by social workers and supervisors as well as administrative
staff. Information from these meetings should be shared
with all Lake County DSS staff.
• California DSS Work Group Quarterly Meetings in Sacra-mento
should be attended and information from the meet-ings
should be distributed to all Lake County DSS staff.
• Ongoing training for all pertinent staff.
• Consider Peer TA provided by the Casey Family Programs.
• Lake County DSS Management should attend and share
information distributed at the CWDA meetings.
5. This Committee firmly recommends that one or two specific so-cial
workers be assigned to follow ICWA cases— as ICWA special-ists.
We are gratified that this appears to be the direction taken
by current Lake County CPS Administration. We also commend
Lake County CPS for initiating a local work group that will work
with representatives from the Lake County tribes to assist in the
resolution of ICWA issues. However, this Committee recently
learned from the ICWA Representatives that this “ local work
group” has lost its credibility; in fact, attendance has fallen off
drastically because meeting times are moved around haphazardly
and the group’s direction no longer follows the original intent.
6. This Committee recommends that future Grand Juries continue
to monitor compliance with ICWA.
7. All efforts should be taken and all resources used to keep the
county’s Indian children out of the Lake County CPS system.
8. This Committee strongly recommends that a consolidated effort
be taken by all seven of the Lake County Tribal Councils to insist
that ICWA be complied with by Lake County DSS, as mandated
by federal and state law. It is also the responsibility of tribal ad-ministration
to insure that Lake County DSS has current tribal
and ICWA contact information. This will facilitate official notifi-cation
and communication between the county and the tribes.
We recommend that the newly organized Intertribal Leadership
Council make ICWA compliance a top priority.
Agency/ Department Required to Respond
Board of Supervisors ( within 90 days)
Lake County Department of Social Services ( within 60 days)
2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report 87
Public Health and Social Services Committee
Appendix A
What is the “ ICWA?”
Congress’ authority to enact laws singling Indians out for unique treat-ment
– like the ICWA – has been consistently upheld by the United States
Supreme Court. Recognizing that Indian tribes have a unique legal status
under federal law and that the Constitution gives Congress plenary power
to treat Indians as a separate people, the Court has characterized such
distinctions as being of a political rather than racial nature when they tar-get
Indians as members of “ quasi- sovereign tribal entities” rather than In-dians
as a racial group.
Additionally, the Federal Government has a unique trust or fiduciary re-sponsibility
toward the American Indian tribes and, their interests and as-sets,
as a result of treaties that stressed services such as education,
health, etc. in exchange for land.
In the mid- 1970s, a Congressional investigation revealed that approxi-mately
25% - 35% of all Indian children were removed from their families
by state child welfare agencies and state courts and placed in foster or
adoptive homes and institutions, and that the majority of these placements
were in off- reservation, non- Indian homes. In California, Indian children
were eight times more likely to be removed from their families than non-
Indian children and more than 90% were placed in non- Indian homes.
Congress determined that Indian children who had been placed for adop-tion
into non- Indian homes frequently suffered serious adjustment prob-lems
during adolescence.
The federal ICWA was enacted in 1978 to remedy this situation and to
“ protect the best interests of Indian children and to promote the stability
and security of Indian tribes and families.” In doing so, Congress ex-pressly
recognized that the states “ often failed to recognize the essential
tribal relations of Indian people and the cultural and social standards pre-vailing
in Indian communities and families” and that the removal of Indian
children was “ often unwarranted.”
These rules are designed to keep Indian children connected to their fami-lies
and tribes. Maintaining this connection serves the best interests of In-dian
children and also promotes the stability and security of Indian tribes
and families. Social Service agencies are required to make special efforts
to keep Indian families together. These agencies must provide services
that reflect the current social and cultural standards of the family’s Indian
community.
88 2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report
Public Health and Social Services Committee
Following are some problems ICWA addresses:
• Large numbers of Indian children were being removed from their
families by state courts and county social service agencies; most of
these children ended up in non- Indian homes and institutions.
• Indian children who were cut off from their tribal communities and
cultures often later had behavioral and emotional problems.
• State and county officials often did not understand, ignored, or re-jected
the cultural or social customs of the child’s tribal commu-nity.
Membership in an Indian tribe is dependent upon the tribe’s membership
laws; enrollment may or may not be necessary for the child to be consid-ered
a member. As defined by ICWA, an Indian child is:
• Unmarried and under the age of 18.
• A member of a federally recognized Indian tribe or eligible for mem-bership
in a federally recognized Indian tribe.
• The biological child of a member of a federally recognized Indian
tribe.
Under ICWA, parents or Indian custodians have rights that focus on main-taining
the culture and beliefs of that tribe. In fact, the major difference
between usage of the CPS procedures for Indian children and non- Indian
children is a strong undercurrent to favor and look for the Indian culture
and social customs in every step of the CPS process.
A higher standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, along with testi-mony
of an expert witness ( usually a Tribal Representative), is required be-fore
parental rights are terminated. Adoption is against tribal beliefs.
Tribal family structure is such that a sister, aunt, grandmother, etc. is
viewed no differently than the biological mother.
The Indian tribe has rights under ICWA as well. In fact, these rights are
almost equal to those of the parents or Indian custodian. For example, the
Tribe:
• Has the right to participate in custody cases of its Indian children.
• Has the right to “ exercise” “ tribal jurisdiction” which refers to which
court – tribal or state – will hear a case.
• Has the right to see records kept by the State on placement of
tribal children and look at documents about the case that the court
has on file.
• Has the right to apply certain tribal laws or customs to the custody
case and these include, but are not limited to, laws defining “ Indian
custodian” or “ extended family” for example.
2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report 89
Public Health and Social Services Committee
The CILS provides a complete spectrum of ICWA- related services for
Indians and tribes, including the following:
• The education of juvenile courts, juvenile dependency attorneys,
and state social workers about ICWA, the policies behind its enact-ment,
and ensuring ICWA compliance in their daily caseloads.
• Challenging guardianships illegally obtained in violation of ICWA
on behalf of Indian parents and Indian custodians.
• Explaining the role of expert witnesses in ICWA cases to courts, so-cial
workers, and other attorneys, and helping these players obtain
proper expert witnesses.
SB 678, the new state bill, took effect January 1, 2007 with the goal
of strengthening Federal ICWA.
90 2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report
Public Health and Social Services Committee
Appendix B
Casey Family Programs
Established by United Parcel Service founder Jim Casey, the Casey Foun-dation
is a philanthropic Seattle- based national operating foundation that
has served children, youth and families
Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.
Description
| Rating | |
| Title | Grand Jury report |
| Subject | California. Grand Jury (Lake County)--Periodicals.; Lake County (Calif.)--Politics and government--Periodicals. |
| Description | Description based on: 2004/2005; title from opening screen of web site.; Harvested from the web on 10/30/07 |
| Creator | California. Grand Jury (Lake County) |
| Publisher | Lake County Grand Jury] |
| Type | Text |
| Identifier | http://digitalarchive.oclc.org/request?id%3Doclcnum%3A144566468; http://co.lake.ca.us/generalinformation/grandjury/lcgrandjury.asp |
| Language | eng |
| Title-Alternative | Final report... Lake County Grand Jury |
| Format-Extent | 1 web site : digital, HTML, PDF files. |
| Relation-Requires | Mode of access: Internet.; System requirements: Adobe Acrobat Reader. |
| Transcript | 2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report © 2007 County of Lake, California Hello I am Barbara Lee and I am Sandi Damitz Sandi and I are here from the Lake County Grand Jury. At the end of each 12 month jury session …. a summary of the years work is published in an annual report …. and each year the jury holds a competition for the cover design of the report For the second year in a row Monica Arevalo’s artwork has been selected. The end of this month our report will be published and this will be the beautiful cover! So on behalf of the Lake County Grand Jury We would like to present this plaque and a check for 100 dollars to Monica and thank her from all the members of the 2007 Lake County Grand Jury for her beautiful design. Contents Letter from Judge Hedstrom Letter from the Jury Foreman Members of the Jury The Role of the Grand Jury BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE REPORTS Auditor- Controller Department Oversight Auditor- Controller Payroll Department Oversight Sheriff’s Office Audit Oversight Tax Collector- Treasurer Oversight GOVERNMENT SERVICES COMMITTEE REPORT Board of Supervisors Oversight Building and Grounds Department Oversight Clearlake City Council Meeting Visit Elder Abuse Complaint Information Technology Department Oversight Lakeport City Council Meeting Visit Marketing and Economic Development Oversight Visit Personnel Department Oversight Public Defenders Contract Services Oversight Purchasing Agent Oversight Registrar of Voters Oversight Victim Witness Department Oversight PLANNING AND PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE REPORTS Agritourism Oversight Air Quality Management District Oversight Cache Creek Dam and Indian Dam and Reservoir Visit Central Garage Oversight Clearlake Code Enforcement Complaint County Sealer of Weights and Measures Presentation Lake County Lakebed Management Presentation Middle Creek Project Oversight Middletown Area Town Hall Advisory Committee Meetings Spring Valley Water Facility Oversight Spring Valley Meter Complaint Taylor Observatory Visit v vii ix x 3 5 7 9 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 39 41 43 47 49 51 53 55 57 61 65 67 2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report iii PUBLIC HEALTH and SOCIAL SERVICES COMMITTEE REPORTS Child Protective Services Complaint Grievance Review Complaint Indian Child Welfare Act Compliance Jail Medical Service Oversight Redbud Health Care District Oversight PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE REPORTS Clearlake Police Department Oversight Court Holding Facilities Oversight Hill Road Correctional Facility Oversight Juvenile Hall Oversight Kelseyville Fire Station Visit Konocti Conservation Camp 27 Oversight Lake County Deputy Sheriff’s Alleged Misconduct Complaint Lake County Sheriff’s Department Hiring Practices Complaint Lake County Sheriff’s Visit Lakeport Police Department Oversight Lakeport Police Officer’s Alleged Misconduct Complaint Lucerne Senior Center Delayed Investigation Complaint Marijuana and Jail Rules of Conduct Complaint North Shore Joint Power Authority Oversight Probation Department Oversight Search and Rescue Visit Sheriff- Coroner’s Office Oversight PUBLIC SERVICES COMMITTEE REPORTS Animal Care and Control Oversight Collaborative Effort on Gang Related Issues East and West Lake Resource Conservation District Visit Emergency Preparedness Point of Distribution Exercise Oversight Library Employee Complaint Library Oversight Visits Lower Lake Cemetery District Oversight Middletown Cemetery District Oversight School Administrative Practices Complaint 71 79 81 93 97 103 105 107 111 113 115 117 119 121 123 125 127 129 131 133 135 137 143 145 147 149 151 153 155 157 159 iv 2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report County of Lake Grand Jury PO Box 1078 Kelseyville, California 95451 June 30, 2007 The Honorable Stephen O. Hedstrom, Presiding Judge Superior Court, County of Lake 7000 A South Center Drive Clearlake, California Dear Judge Hedstrom: In compliance with California Penal Code Section 933, I am pleased to submit to you the 2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report. I have now been a member of the Lake County Grand Jury for two years. Initially, as a member and committee chairman, and in the past year, foreman. I suspect that I now know more about Lake County and its governing bodies than ninety-percent of the county population. I have, in all sincerity, been very surprised by so much of what I have seen and heard. My contact with various governing bodies within the county has been very positive. The dedication and quality demonstrated was the rule, not the exception. In particular, the County Administrative Office, County Counsel, The District Attorney’s Office, and the Building and Grounds Maintenance crew have all been very helpful and cooperative. Also, the Sheriff’s Office provided much needed assistance in related matters. The office of Assistant Director of Public Works/ Water Resources is deserving of special consideration. For two years now, the Assistant Director has made every effort to make the Grand Jury aware of the history and ramifications of the momentous Middle Creek Project. Whether it was in the Assistant Director’s office, in the field, or at the Grand Jury room, we became a well- informed jury because of him. For this I am truly grateful. All the help from the aforementioned county departments allowed the Grand Jury to begin serving the county immediately following their training. I had the good fortune to serve with a remarkable cast. They met their responsibilities in a professional manner and, in spite of numerous setbacks, they are arguably the most productive Lake County Jury in recent history. The jury’s mantra was: “ What can we do to assist you in making things better for Lake County residents?” and they did! I salute the 2006- 2007 Grand Jury members! Sincerely, Jim Neil, Foreman 2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury In our system of government, the grand jury is the only agency free from possible political or official bias that has an opportunity to see … the operation of government … on any broad basis. It performs a valuable public purpose in presenting its conclusions drawn from that overview …” California Supreme Court, Monroe v. Garrett ( 1971) Cal. Appl 3rd 280 Members of the 2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Sandi Damitz Steven Esberg John Gaffney Lawrence Grant Laurel Groshong Pauline Hauser James Jackson David Johnson Frank “ Bob” Knutson Barbara Lee Brondell Locke, Jr James Mackey James Neil, Foreman Ralph Norton Louise Polhemus Carol Ripplinger Martha Steward Dennis Van Meter, Sr Middletown Lakeport Clearlake Clearlake Oaks Lakeport Kelseyville Lower Lake Clearlake Kelseyville Lakeport Hidden Valley Lake Clearlake Kelseyville Glenhaven Kelseyville Kelseyville Lakeport Nice The harmony that was apparent in our jury was a wondrous thing. It aided the nineteen diverse members in completing a highly productive year. It is the hope that the pursuit of harmony will have a top spot on the new jury’s agenda. James Mackey, Grand Jury Committee Chairman ix BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE REPORTS Auditor- Controller Department Oversight Auditor- Controller Payroll Department Oversight Sheriff’s Office Audit Oversight Tax Collector- Treasurer Oversight 2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report 3 Budget and Finance Committee Auditor- Controller Department Oversight Summary This was an annual oversight visit of the Auditor- Controller Depart-ment. Procedure/ Methodology The committee met with the Auditor- Controller in January 2007. There was a discussion of several topics including recruiting, train-ing, staffing levels, computer software, and general practices within the department. Background and Discussion The Auditor- Controller’s office is responsible for all payroll account-ing for county employees as well as all disbursement of both county and grant funding that comes through the Tax Collector- Treasurer’s office. The work of the Auditor- Controller’s office is similar to a gen-eral accounting office. Findings • There are no slow periods for government accountants. • Much of the workload of the Auditor- Controller’s employees is la-bor intensive and also audit- driven. • The Auditor- Controller’s office has an adequate computer system that handles basic accounting needs. • The payroll system is inadequate which causes problems monthly when time sheets are due. • External directives result in additional unexpected workload. • The employees in this office have specialized civil accounting skills that are not readily available in other county offices or the current labor pool. • Classes are currently not available at Lake County high schools or local community colleges to achieve the specialized skills for advancement in this department. • Training in- house and outside the community is necessary to maintain the current staff skill level. • On- the- job training programs have been useful and productive in the past. Recommendations 1. Efficient processing of payroll needs to be developed to reduce the monthly stress of county employees and Auditor- Controller staff. 2. Department heads, negotiators, and the Board of Supervisors should include or consult the Auditor- Controller on projects that affect staff capability and workload. 4 2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report Budget and Finance Committee 3. Employees in the Auditor- Controller’s office who have unique job qualifications should be reclassified. 4. The number of staff accounting positions should be increased to surpass maximum workload and “ loaned” to assist other depart-ments during reduced periods and back- fill training vacancies. 5. Staff training incentives should be developed to encourage and maintain qualified employees who can be promoted from within. 6. Facilitating a work program for high school students or graduates in combination with a government on- the- job training program would be beneficial. Agency/ Department Required to Respond Board of Supervisors ( within 90- days) Auditor/ Controller ( within 60- days) 2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report 5 Budget and Finance Committee Auditor- Controller Payroll Department Oversight Summary This is an oversight of the Auditor- Controller Payroll Department.. Procedure/ Methodology Members of the committee met with the Auditor- Controller in Janu-ary 2007 and reviewed the general practices of the department when dealing with the county’s employee payroll. Background and Discussion The Auditor- Controller’s office is responsible for the disbursements of both county and grant funding that comes through the Tax Col-lector- Assessor’s office, as well as auditing and processing all payroll accounting for county employees. The Auditor- Controller’s office op-erates as a general accounting office. Much of the payroll work is audit driven and reactive. Findings • The general practices within the department were found not to be effective, economical, or use the latest technologies. • The Auditor- Controller’s office does not have a dedicated payroll-processing department. • The employee time reporting system is antiquated and causes problems every month when the time sheets are due. • There are computer programs available that would provide more accurate and timely employee reporting of their work hours. Recommendations 1. A staff dedicated to payroll, of at least two persons, should be created to process payroll as the primary function. Input, audit, and maintenance of records should be secondary. 2. The monthly employee time record processing should be auto-mated, simplified, and relevant. 3. Department heads, negotiators, and the Board of Supervisors should include or consult the Auditor- Controller about projects and negotiations that affect payroll capability and workload. Agency/ Department Required to Respond Board of Supervisors ( within 90- days) Auditor- Controller ( within 60- days) 6 2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report Budget and Finance Committee 2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report 7 Budget and Finance Committee Sheriff’s Office Audit Oversight Summary This was an oversight audit of specific Sheriff’s Department trust ac-counts. Concerns regarding trust accounts within the Sheriff’s budget came to the Grand Jury’s attention during the annual county audit. Procedure/ Methodology The Grand Jury’s Financial Services Committee met with the Sheriff, County Administrator and the Sheriff’s chief accountant. Background and Discussion In previous years, under- staffing and lack of a viable computer pro-gram caused discrepancies in year- end audits. Findings • The Homeland Security Grant was reduced significantly from $ 500,000 to $ 175,000 in 2007. • For the current fiscal year, the accounts are reconciled and both the sheriff and his accounting staff are confident that a solution is in place to correct past discrepancies in these accounts. • The independent auditor will review these accounts in summer 2007. If necessary, they will be reviewed again in fall 2007. Recommendations • The Grand Jury of 2007- 2008 should follow- up on the status of these accounts. Agency/ Department Required to Respond None 8 2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report Budget and Finance Committee 2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report 9 Budget and Finance Committee Tax Collector- Treasurer Oversight Summary This was an annual oversight meeting with the current Tax Collec-tor- Treasurer and the newly elected director of the department. Procedure/ Methodology The committee was briefed on operations and finished with ques-tions and answers. Background and Discussion The directors were open and receptive to questions and they pro-vided background information regarding the management of tax funds received. Findings • Deposits are invested with short and mid- range financial goals. • Interest received on the county deposits is distributed to county departments. • Banking costs are minimized. • This department has a very low employee turnover rate. • Supplemental Tax Notices are issued sporadically creating confu-sion for the taxpayers and causes an excessive burden on the de-partment’s employees. Recommendations 1. This committee recommends the department institute controls to issue Supplemental Tax Notices on a weekly or biweekly basis. 2. The Department should include detailed explanations for the ba-sis of a Supplemental Tax Notice. 3. The public should be provided with information regarding a broad- based Supplemental Tax Notice release. Agency/ Department Required to Respond Lake County Tax Collector- Treasurer ( within 60- days) 10 2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report GOVERNMENT SERVICES COMMITTEE REPORTS Board of Supervisors Oversight Building and Grounds Department Oversight Clearlake City Council Meeting Visit Elder Abuse Complaint Information Technology Department Oversight Lakeport City Council Meeting Visit Marketing and Economic Development Department Oversight Visit Personnel Department Oversight People Services Incorporated Guest Speaker Public Defenders Contract Services Oversight Purchasing Agent Oversight Registrar of Voters Oversight Victim Witness Department Oversight 2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report 13 Government Services Committee Board of Supervisors Oversight Subject The committee met with the Board of Supervisors in a closed- door session in September 2006 to discuss positive changes to benefit the employees of Lake County. Summary This was an annual oversight meeting with specific recommenda-tions for the board that was based on research done by the commit-tee. Procedure/ Methodology The committee presented the board members with specific areas of concern regarding the current problems with recruitment and reten-tion as well as specific recommendations for solutions. Background and Discussion The Board of Supervisors and the County Administrative Officer ac-knowledged the persistent problems with retention of current em-ployees. The reality of the county’s inability to compete in the open market for quality personnel is clearly evident. This creates an un-tenable position for most departments. The Board of Supervisors has responsibility over all county opera-tions and intends to improve employee benefits this fiscal year. Findings • The county has the most expensive health insurance monthly share- cost for employees of all government employers in the county. The rates are elevated by the high fee schedule at the local hospital. • Recent improvements in retirement benefits for government em-ployees have not been adopted in Lake County. • County employees promoted to supervisory positions within their departments do not receive training in management and motiva-tion skills. • The most recent salary survey, contracted by the county, has not resulted in equivalent wages for county employees. • If enjoying the rural lifestyle remains the only incentive to attract qualified individuals, our public services will continue to deterio-rate. 14 2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report Government Services Committee Recommendations 1. The Board of Supervisors and Administrative Officer should im-plement a plan starting in the second half of the 2007- 2008 fiscal year for all departments in the following order: − Reduce the hardship of health insurance to an acceptable level. Less than $ 100 per month for family coverage would be acceptable, and this would be comparable to the county’s school district employees. − Implement the preeminent standards for retirement bene-fits for all employee classifications. − Put into practice the use of a professional training program for all first level supervisors and secondary supervisors, with the full support of the department heads and elected officials. − Publish a three- year plan to be executed in January 2008 incrementally increasing wages first for professional and accredited positions, then non certified positions, to within 15% of the top of the average salaries in their classification based on the current wage survey adjusted for inflation. − Create an incentive program to induce prospective quality applicants to come to Lake County using hiring bonuses, relocation expenses, or low- interest loans for down pay-ments on homes. Agency/ Department Required to Respond Board of Supervisors ( within 90- days) Administrative Officer ( within 60- days) 2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report 15 Government Services Committee Buildings and Grounds Department Oversight Subject This was an annual oversight meeting with the Buildings and Grounds Superintendent for the County of Lake. Summary The Superintendent met with the committee to discuss issues re-lated to maintenance of county facilities and department staffing re-quirements. Procedure/ Methodology This was a factual discussion regarding the number of buildings, translated into the number of square feet the department is required to maintain, and the staffing levels allowed by the county. Background and Discussion The Buildings and Grounds Department is responsible for the main-tenance of 285,474 square feet of public buildings. The average age of these buildings is in excess of 20 years with the oldest building in service being built in 1877. The department is currently operating out of an office in the courthouse, with storage and shop space on loan from the Sheriff’s Department in the lower level of the old downtown jail. Findings • The Buildings and Grounds Department has one supervisor ( Superintendent), four full- time technicians, and one part- time office person. However, according to The “ Operations and Mainte-nance Benchmarks Research Report” for 2005 cited the ratio for maintenance personnel is 1: 30,000 square feet. • There is no after- hours call- out availability of Buildings and Grounds personnel. • The Buildings and Grounds operation has outgrown its current location. • The Buildings and Grounds Superintendent spends most of his time working as a technician. • A qualified technician with Lake County must be adequately trained in plumbing, carpentry, electrical, and heating & air con-ditioning, pneumatics, and computer technologies to fulfill the job requirements. • Due to staffing levels, a qualified technician with Lake County must be able to work independently with minimal guidance. 16 2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report Government Services Committee • Construction projects under $ 10,000 are usually handled by Buildings and Grounds because contractors customarily do not bid on projects of this size. Some routine maintenance is done by outside contractors for time efficiency. • Optional construction projects with available monies are some-times left undone due to unavailability of staff. Recommendations 1. The County of Lake should be supported by after hour’s call- out staff for Buildings and Grounds. 2. The Buildings and Grounds department needs to be relocated to a facility that is sufficient in size to put all operations under one roof with room for expansion. 3. The Buildings and Grounds Department needs to be centrally lo-cated in the greater Lakeport area. 4. Pursuant to the “ Operations and Maintenance Benchmarks Re-search Report” for 2005, the staff level needs to be substantially increased. Guideline levels indicate at least eight technicians for maintenance are needed. 5. A separate staff should be maintained and designated for con-struction projects. 6. If the staffing cannot be increased for maintenance, then the budget should be increased for maintenance contracts. Agency/ Department Required to Respond Board of Supervisors ( within 90- days) Public Services Department ( within 60- days) Bibliography “ Operations and Maintenance Benchmarks Research Report” ( 2005) 2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report 17 Government Services Committee Clearlake City Council Meeting Visit Summary The Clearlake City Council meets in the evening, twice a month on the first and third Thursdays. Procedure/ Methodology The Government Services Committee attended a meeting of the Clearlake City Council, in April 2007. Background and Discussion None Findings • Clearlake City Council and the City’s Redevelopment Agency were having a joint meeting the evening the committee attended. • The prepared agenda was followed in an organized manner. • The public was treated with respect and was allowed ample time to ask questions and state opinions regarding items voted on by the council. • The parking lot outside council chambers has insufficient light-ing. Recommendations 1. For safety, the lighting in the parking area needs to be improved. Agency/ Department Required to Respond Clearlake City Council ( within 60- days) 18 2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report Government Services Committee 2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report 19 Government Services Committee Elder Abuse Complaint Subject A complaint was received regarding the lack of staff, within the Dis-trict Attorney’s Office, to handle elder abuse cases. Summary The District Attorney’s Office, at the time of this investigation, em-ploys one part- time investigator to handle elder abuse cases. Procedure/ Methodology The complainant declined to appear at a meeting with the committee to clarify various points in the complaint. The committee contacted the District Attorney’s office and inquired about the allegations con-tained in the complaint. Background and Discussion None Findings • The newly elected District Attorney did not dispute that a need existed for an increase in staff assigned to elder abuse cases. • The District Attorney’s Office budget for 2007 includes requests for one full- time Deputy District Attorney, one full- time investiga-tor who would assist the present investigator, and one victim ad-vocate for elder abuse cases. • The complainant is satisfied with the efforts of the District Attor-ney’s Office to increase staffing to handle elder abuse cases. The complainant contacted the State Attorney General’s Office in ad-dition to the Lake County Grand Jury. Recommendations 1. The 2007- 2008 Grand Jury needs to follow- up to determine if the new staff is in place. Agency/ Department Required to Respond None 20 2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report Government Services Committee 2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report 21 Government Services Committee Information Technology Department Oversight Subject This was an annual oversight meeting with the Technical Support Director for the County of Lake. Summary This was an excellent opportunity to review technical support and the county’s IBM AS/ 400 network. Procedure/ Methodology The committee had an open discussion with a question and answer session. Background and Discussion The Technical Support Director was open and receptive to questions, plus provided background information on technical support. The committee was not aware of nor understood the problems with the old systems. The problems included updating the network to voice over IP ( VoIP), obtaining countywide broadband, and backing up courthouse data. Findings • The Information Technology ( IT) Department needs two additional staff positions, a programmer analyst and a senior network engi-neer for high- level design and support. • Several county departments have old hardware and outdated software to support the specific demands required for their work. • High turnover and low pay for technical support staff has created a problem maintaining well qualified staff for the IT Department. • The department has outgrown its current location. Recommendations 1. The IT Department staff should be increased to include two addi-tional staff positions, a programmer analyst and a senior network engineer for high- level design and support. 2. All county departments should review their software and hard-ware and pursue upgrades to the most current version. 3. Incentive pay should be added to base classifications for educa-tion of staff members in software and network technology. 4. The additional workspace needed should be provided to the IT Department. Agency/ Department Required to Respond Board of Supervisors ( within 90- days) Technical Support Director ( within 60- days) 22 2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report Government Services Committee 2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report 23 Government Services Committee Lakeport City Council Meeting Visit Summary The Lakeport City Council meets in the evening, twice a month, on the first and third Tuesdays. Procedure/ Methodology The Government Services Committee attended a meeting of the Lake-port City Council, in April 2007. Background and Discussion None Findings • The city council discussed a variety of items listed on the agenda. • An addition to the agenda was discussed, voted on and approved. • The agenda was followed meticulously with the only exception be-ing the public was allowed to speak for more than three minutes regarding an agenda item. Recommendations None Agency/ Department Required to Respond None 24 2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report Government Services Committee 2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report 25 Government Services Committee Marketing and Economic Development Oversight Visit Subject An oversight of the Marketing and Economic Development and Infor-mation Center for Lake County was conducted by the Government Services Committee. Summary The committee reviewed the marketing and development plans de-signed to maintain and stimulate business and promote tourism for Lake County. Procedure/ Methodology A PowerPoint presentation was given by the Economic Development Director of Lake County, followed by a question and answer session. Background and Discussion A new business and marketing summary plan was implemented with a newly designed brochure and flyers that cater to specific in-terests. Findings • The brochures are professionally published. They cover a wide range of interest that provide an opportunity for visitors to find and locate activities while exploring many of Lake County's hid-den treasures. • The Government Services committee is concerned that the poten-tial sale or closure of Konocti Harbor Resort and Spa, a featured destination for tourism, could create a loss of revenue and mar-keting potential for the county. Recommendations None Agency/ Department Required to Respond None 26 2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report Government Services Committee 2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report 27 Government Services Committee Personnel Department Oversight Subject The committee reviewed the function of the Personnel Department and its relationship with the other county departments. Summary This was an annual oversight meeting to gather information. Procedure/ Methodology Members of the committee met with the Director of Personnel at his office in August 2006. There was an open discussion regarding the underlying causes of resignations of county employees and recruit-ing problems faced by all county agencies. The director explained the duties of his staff. The Personnel Department processes all termina-tion paperwork and related employee files. Background and Discussion The Personnel Department administers the personnel policies of the county. The number of staff is limited and it does not contain a Hu-man Resources division. It is involved in several aspects of county employment including health benefits, retirement benefits, training programs, and overseeing the county’s personnel rules. The Person-nel Department has identified four primary causes for employees to leave voluntarily; the high cost of health insurance, poor supervision and motivation, low salary, and deficient retirement compensation. The county doubled the Personnel Department’s training budget this year, but that only affects the employees that work in the Personnel Office. Findings • The employees in the Personnel Department are dedicated and caring people who want to provide the best opportunities for the employees of Lake County. • Knowing the major causes for losing employees and not being able to affect change in those areas is frustrating to the Personnel Department. • The training of first line supervisors throughout the county is in-consistent. • Other government agencies in the county, such as the school dis-tricts, pay much less for health insurance. • County employee retirement benefits are historically low and out-dated. 28 2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report Government Services Committee Recommendations 1. Work with the Board of Supervisors and the Administrative Offi-cer to develop a plan to improve the ability of all departments to maintain current employees and recruit quality employees for the county. 2. Mandate professional training programs for all first level supervi-sors. The full support of the department heads and elected offi-cials is needed. 3. All Department training should be consolidated and handled through the Personnel Department. 4. Research health insurance possibilities to attain an acceptable employee share cost. A possibility would be a program similar to the county’s school district employees. 5. Review retirement benefits for all employee classifications. Agency/ Department Required to Respond Board of Supervisors ( within 90- days) Personnel Director ( within 60- days) 2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report 29 Government Services Committee Public Defender Contract Services Oversight Subject This was an oversight of the annual contract for Public Defender Services with Lake Legal Defense Services ( LLDS). Summary It was an excellent opportunity to review court procedures and how LLDS handles the public defender caseload with the contracted at-torneys and the service contract between Lake County and LLDS. Procedure/ Methodology The committee held a question and answer session. Background and Discussion The administrator of LLDS was open and receptive to questions and provided background information. Findings • LLDS is continuously seeking new attorneys. • To the detriment of LLDS inexperienced attorneys occasionally use LLDS for training and experience before moving to private or deputy DA practice. • LLDS uses the slower pace of Lake County to solicit experienced attorneys who wish to enjoy a more relaxed environment. This approach seems to be working. • There is no private consultation room for LLDS at the Lakeport courthouse. • The current system for checking financial eligibility for public de-fender services is being improved. • There is a pre- entry access security screening measures at the Lake County courthouse in Clearlake, but not in Lakeport . Recommendations 1. A consulting room should be provided at the Lakeport court-house. 2. Improvements should continue to be made to the process of credit and financial eligibility checks for clients seeking free pub-lic defender service. This would prevent abuse of the county funds that provide these services for free. 3. The courthouses needs to be secured. 30 2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report Government Services Committee 4. Implement a single source system reporting on all assigned cases to verify contractual obligations to the client and to LLDS for quality assurance. Agency/ Department Required to Respond Board of Supervisors ( within 90- days) Lake Legal Defense Service ( within 60- days) 2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report 31 Government Services Committee Purchasing Agent Oversight Subject This was an annual oversight visit with the Purchasing Agent for Lake County Summary This was an excellent opportunity to review the purchasing proce-dures for all county departments. Support and training is provided for the staff, including forms and legal language necessary to re-quest material and office equipment. Procedure/ Methodology There was a discussion of department policies with the Lake County Purchasing Agent. Background and Discussion The Purchasing Agent was knowledgeable in his position responsi-bilities, open and receptive to questions, and provided background information we requested. Findings • Currently, county purchasing operations are handled by each in-dividual department. • Some departments do not have their staff trained in purchasing procedures. • Personnel changes sometimes leave departments without staff trained in purchasing. • Staff unfamiliar with purchasing could result in the loss of sav-ings by failing to: buy in bulk, negotiate service contracts, and identify surpluses. In addition, they could have difficulty manag-ing the budget. • The Purchasing Agent is seeking to reorganize the processes and bring control over the spending by centralizing the purchasing and service contracts for equipment and supplies. Recommendations 1. The county should facilitate training workshops for the staff. This would provide a thorough understanding of the legal terms and county requirements for completing the request forms and deal-ing with business agents. 2. Centralizing purchasing procedures would insure price and avail-ability of supplies, product and service quality, and provide better budget control. 32 2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report Government Services Committee 3. A consolidated purchasing department could better control short-ages and surpluses. 4. Two new positions should be added to support purchasing and auditing functions and cross- train replacement personnel for key positions. Agency/ Department Required to Respond Board of Supervisors ( within 90- days) Purchasing Agent ( within 60- days) 2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report 33 Government Services Committee Registrar of Voters Oversight Subject This was an annual oversight meeting with the Registrar of Voters. Summary The committee met with the staff of the Registrar of Voters in Janu-ary 2007 at their offices in the Lakeport courthouse. Procedure/ Methodology The Registrar of Voters discussed the duties of the office, compli-ance with state and federal laws, new voting machines, permanent staff and temporary election staff. Background and Discussion The Registrar of Voters is responsible for supplying a fully trained staff and functional Americans with Disabilities Act ( ADA) approved voting site in every district involved in each election. The Office of the Registrar of Voters has the responsibility to facilitate a minimum of one election somewhere in Lake County every year, with the most being four elections in one year since 2000. To comply with the new laws passed, the county purchased an electronic voting machine for each district. Findings • The Office of the Registrar of Voters has a dedicated year- round staff of two full- time people and a recent addition of one perma-nent part- time person. • Prior to each election, there is a paid training class for persons staffing the polling places. • With the advent of electronic voting machines, additional training and incentive pay were implemented. • Persons staffing the polling places are paid. • The campaign to register people to vote is ongoing. High schools in Lake County have elected not to participate. • Although there were 46,859 people eligible to vote in Lake County prior to the 2006 election, only 31,564 were registered to vote. • During the November 2006 election, polling place ballots received were 9,445 ( 14.9% of those registered). • During the November 2006 election, absentee ballots received were 10,316 ( 16.2% of those registered absentee). 34 2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report Government Services Committee • The following statistics represent the vote in Lake County in November 2006: Total Total Total Total Total County Eligible Precinct Absentee Votes Est. pop. Adults Ballots Ballots Cast Cast Cast 63,500 46,859 9,445 10,316 19,761 100 % 73.8% 14.9% 16.2% 31.1% Percentages are based on total county population • Every vote counts. Based on these results to make a majority, for each 10 people in the county, it only takes 2 votes to determine the outcome of the local election. • The county paid approximately $ 600,000 out of contingency funds for the electronic voting machines mandated by law. • Five voters used electronic machines in Lake County in November 2006. • The State of California and the federal government are to reim-burse the county for the purchase of the voting machines. This has not occurred to date. • The electronic voting machines purchased by the Registrar of Voters meets all ADA accessibility standards and were an excep-tional decision in saving the county money, otherwise two ma-chines per polling place would have been required. • The Registrar of Voters shares office space in the Lakeport court-house with the Auditor- Controller. The office space is grossly in-adequate for the daily staff and storage, and has no room for ex-pansion during elections. • Absentee ballots are counted at the time they are received and are reported in the initial election returns. Recommendations 1. The permanent year- round staff should be increased to three full time positions. 2. The office of the Registrar of Voters should be doubled in size and a separate attached storage and election- handling space needs to be allocated. Agency/ Department Required to Respond Board of Supervisors ( within 90- days) Registrar of Voters ( within 60- days) Bibliography American Forces Press Service 2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report 35 Government Services Committee Victim Witness Department Oversight Subject This was a review of the function of the Victim Witness department of the Lake County District Attorney’s Office. Summary This is an annual oversight informational gathering meeting. Procedure/ Methodology The committee met at the Victim Witness offices during Domestic Violence Awareness month in October 2006, met the staff on duty, held an open discussion with the Victim Witness Director, and re-viewed the facility and budgetary constraints. Background and Discussion Victim Witness is a department within the District Attorney’s Office that directly benefits crime victims in Lake County. The base fund-ing is received from state and federal grants with very little monetary support from the county. Findings • The department is currently housed in a 1950’ s era former resi-dence with few upgrades. • The Victim Witness Director is diligent in locating available grant money to support operations. • Some grant money is shared with other law enforcement agen-cies. • The staff has created a supportive environment for the comfort, consolation, and education of crime victims using their services. • The caseload has risen considerably in the last few years; how-ever, their ability to staff the office and to obtain grant money has not kept pace with the demand. Recommendations 1. The office should stay at the current location. For the comfort of the staff and the clients, the central cooling and heating system should be upgraded. 2. The county needs to underwrite the Victim Witness division budget to maintain and meet the needs of its clients. Agency/ Department Required to Respond Lake County District Attorney ( within 60- days) Lake County Administrative Officer ( within 60- days) 36 2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report 2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report 39 Planning and Public Works Committee Agritourism Oversight Subject This was an oversight visit to a Lake County business that is an ex-ample of agritourism. Background and Discussion The Planning and Public Works committee visited a retail agriculture business located in Scotts Valley that is an example of agritourism. A University of California Extension agent for Lake County accompa-nied the committee on this visit. Findings • Lake County Board of Supervisors has not completed the long-overdue General Plan Update. • Lake County is trying to stimulate economic development by en-couraging agritourism. • The owner of the business that the committee visited described a number of frustrations while establishing his business. These issues were generally related to the retail permit process and to the fact that the business is located in close proximity to an area consisting of intensively farmed commercial orchards and vine-yards. Recommendations 1. The county needs to complete the General Plan Update ( GPU). 2. Planning Department staff has a well- defined set of guidelines with which to evaluate projects in the agritourism sector. 3. Critical among the issues that the GPU should address is the need for physical buffers between commercial agricultural uses and non- agricultural uses such as, residential areas, retail busi-nesses ( including agritourism businesses), casinos, and other en-terprises which cater to the general public. Agency/ Department Required to Respond Board of Supervisors ( within 90- days) 40 2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report Planning and Public Works Committee 2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report 41 Planning and Public Works Committee Air Quality Management District Oversight Subject This was an oversight of the Lake County Air Quality Management District ( LCAQMD). Background and Discussion The Director of LCAQMD made an annual presentation to the Lake County Grand Jury, Planning and Public Works Committee. Findings • The Director of LCAQMD maintains the clean air in the Lake County Air Basin, which is within the boundaries of Lake County. • Funding of $ 350,000 a year comes from local fines, and federal and state money. No county general funds are used. • Lake County continues to enjoy the cleanest air in California. LCAQMD monitors carbon, lead and nitrogen oxides produced from automobile exhaust, agriculture burning and wood fire-places. Hydrogen sulfide is monitored at the Geysers. • The LCAQMD produces an assortment of brochures for the pub-lic’s education. Recommendations None Agency/ Department Required to Respond None 42 2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report Planning and Public Works Committee 2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report 43 Planning and Public Works Committee Cache Creek Dam and Indian Valley Dam and Reservoir Visit Subject The Grand Jury did an oversight visit of the Cache Creek Dam and Indian Valley Dam and Reservoir relative to the relationship that ex-ists between the Lake County Department of Public Works ( County) and the Yolo County Flood Control & Water Conservation District ( District). Summary As a Grand Jury, our duty to the County is not only to do oversight of the County government but also to inform our Citizens about is-sues in the County. This report has that very purpose in mind. There are misconceptions about Yolo County, Cache Creek Dam, Clear Lake, water rights and the effects on flooding in our County that need to be corrected. Procedure/ Methodology In November 2006, the Grand Jury met the District personnel along with the County personnel to tour Cache Creek Dam and Indian Val-ley Dam and Reservoir. The District encouraged our questions, ob-servations and wanted us to understand the program developed and agreed to by both counties so any misunderstandings might be cor-rected or dispelled. Several of the Grand Jury members were privi-leged to observe a beautiful bald eagle sitting in a tree near the Dam, otters playing in the pool below the dam and other wildlife. Background and Discussion Clear Lake belongs to the State of California not to Lake County, and the State gives Lake County the right to manage and maintain the lake. Contrary to popular belief, Lake County has never owned the water of Clear Lake. Persons owning land adjacent to the lake or lake water sources have riparian rights to take water from these sources. Riparian rights are a hold over from English Law. The history for the first to claim water from Cache Creek goes back to 1854 when the Moore Ditch Company in Yolo County began preparations to take water from Cache Creek for irrigation purposes. In 1871, the Cachville Ditch Company disputing Moore’s water claim filed a suit against Moore. A court decision against Moore was ap-pealed and reversed to establish his claim. The appropriation law, where Yolo County secured their claim to Clear Lake water, was en-acted in 1873 establishing the right of the first to file for water. About 1908, a Lake County resident, Mr. Highland spent $ 10,000 44 2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report Planning and Public Works Committee on a plan to dam Kelsey Creek to supply water to farmers of that area but there was no interest so the idea was dropped. Later, when Yolo County was preparing to construct the Cache Creek dam, they approached the Lake County Board of Supervisors, asking if Lake County was interested in the lake water. Based on Mr. Highland’s experience, the answer was no, so the Moore interests, which had been in the Moore family for nearly fifty years, during which time they had acquired several ditch companies that passed into the hands of the Yolo Water and Power Company. This latter company made application for water from Cache Creek, naming Clear Lake and all the streams flowing into the lake. The application was recorded in the Lake County Recorder’s office on May 28, 1912. Through some oversight, Lake County never applied for water so the rights to the water passed to Yolo County. In sum-mary, an Appropriative Water Right is based on the “ first in time – first in right” doctrine, diligent pursuit and beneficial use. Clear Lake has over 100 miles of shoreline and a surface area of just more than 68 square miles. The majority of the lake bottom’s depth ranges from 20 to 50 feet, with an average depth of only 26 feet and a maximum depth of 45 feet. Having the water rights to Clear Lake did not provide enough water for farmers during dry years, hence the construction of Indian Valley Dam and Reservoir in 1974- 75. The 3,800- acre lake ( six miles long and one mile wide) is located in the chaparral- covered hills on the eastern edge of Lake County off Highway 20 via a 9.4 mile graded gravel road that provides long- term irrigation storage as well as re-ductions of flash flooding in Cache Creek. The dam also includes a hydroelectric power plant and on occasions this power generating facility is able to sell excess power to PG& E. Indian Valley Dam and Reservoir is strictly for fishing with a 10- mph speed limit on the entire lake. There are two boat ramps, one at the dam ( south end) and another at the north end. There is a pri-vately owned small store and campground at the south end near the dam with toilets, showers and electricity. Findings • Approximately 1.5 miles from Clear Lake, a rock ledge called Grigsby Riffle crosses Cache Creek. This Riffle is located at the confluence of Cache and Seigler Creeks near Lower Lake and is at a narrow point in the creek. The Grigsby Riffle is a natural limitation of water flow that controls the outflow from Clear Lake. In 1872, Captain Rumsey established the low point of the ledge as “ Zero Rumsey” and all subsequent lake measurements are 2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report 45 Planning and Public Works Committee based on this elevation – Zero Rumsey is equivalent to 1318.256 feet. • There are two decrees, or laws, governing how the level of Clear Lake will be handled. − The Gopcevic Decree regulates winter water levels by set-ting a lake stage below which water may not be released and above which water must be released to reduce flood-ing. As actual lake level approaches the level indicated in the schedule for that date, conditions are taken into ac-count so that the dam operation will minimize flooding, while allowing the lake to fill to 7.56 Rumsey. There are two exceptions: When the lake is filling rapidly, water may be released from the dam when the actual lake level is within one- half foot below the level indicated in the sched-ule. When the lake is falling and no rain is anticipated, the dam may be closed when the actual lake level is within one- half foot above the level indicated in the schedule. − The Solano Decree regulates summer water levels by estab-lishing the allowable release based on the spring water level, however, if the lake does not reach a level above 3.22 feet Rumsey on May 1, then no water can be released. • The Yolo Water District was created in 1951 to serve the needs of the local community by managing water resources for farming while stabilizing groundwater for other uses, and this results in pro- active water planning to everyone’s benefit. • In 1967, Yolo’s District purchased the privately owned Clear Lake Water Company and the Cache Creek Dam giving them rights to store water in Clear Lake. • Costs incurred for maintenance and improvements to the Cache Creek Dam and Indian Valley Dam and Reservoir are the respon-sibility of the District. • Flow tests have been conducted to determine what would happen if there was not a dam on Cache Creek and to determine the opti-mum lake levels and flows at given times of the year so the best use of water is maintained. These testing results clearly demon-strate that the Dam does not cause flooding of Clear Lake. An-other set of flow tests were done to determine the optimal level for the lake to maximize the release of water through the dam and to minimize plugging of the floodgates by floating debris. • Indian Valley Dam and Reservoir not only manages the floodwa-ters, which reduces some of the flood risk in Lake County and improves Yolo County’s ground water, but also stores and re-leases water for recreational and environmental uses in Lake and Yolo Counties. The District manages the water in the reservoir by releasing as 46 2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report Planning and Public Works Committee • The District manages the water in the reservoir by releasing— as needed- through the dam. • The County is notified whenever there are adjustments to the ex-isting arrangement, for instance, whenever the Cache Creek Dam is opened or closed during rains or to maintain the level of Clear Lake for summer recreation. Recommendations 1. The committee recommends maintaining the excellent relation-ship that has developed between the two governmental entities so everyone continues to benefit. Agency/ Department Required to Respond None References • Clear Lake water rights history. Retrieved 1/ 19/ 2007 from www. lakecounty. com • Yolo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Handout. Received 11/ 20/ 2006 • Yolo County water rights history, Clear Lake levels, watershed & Lake characteristics. Retrieved 12/ 22/ 2006 and 1/ 14/ 2007 from Lake County Water Resources Division web site: http:// watershed. co. lake. ca. us • Indian Valley/ Walker Ridge. Retrieved 12/ 25/ 2006 from www. blm. gov • Indian Valley Reservoir. Retrieved 12/ 25/ 2006 from www. fishingandhuntingnews. com and www. fishsniffer. com 2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report 47 Planning and Public Works Committee Central Garage Oversight Subject The committee made a site visit to the Lake County Central Garage. Summary Central Garage personnel facilitate the cost- effective maintenance of county vehicles. In addition, they are involved in cost management in regards to the purchase of new equipment and vehicles. Procedure/ Methodology The committee met with the Director of Public Works and the Fleet Maintenance Supervisor in October 2006. A presentation was pro-vided to the committee followed by a question/ answer session and a tour of the facilities. Background and Discussion None Findings • Central Garage is funded via the billing of various county depart-ments for rental and maintenance on vehicles and equipment. • Inspections are done on a rotating basis every 90- days so that all vehicles and equipment meet Department of Transportation ( D. O. T.) requirements. • The Fleet Maintenance Supervisor has devised a “ cost per hour” system for equipment and a “ cost per mile” system for vehicles. This system is highly efficient in determining when a vehicle needs to be rotated out and replaced. • The Lake County Board of Supervisors currently suggests re-placement mileage for vehicles is 130,000. However, the Fleet Maintenance Supervisor can replace a vehicle at lower mileage, if it is determined to be cost- effective. • Currently there are 123 road maintenance vehicles and 350 vehi-cles in the county fleet. • Although most vehicles are maintained at Central Garage, those that are not cause difficulty in adhering to D. O. T. inspection schedules. • The current South Main Street location for Central Garage is an area that has seen tremendous growth over the years. The traffic in front of its current location is continually increasing. This not only presents a potential hazard to the community, it also makes maneuvering equipment to and from the garage difficult. 48 2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report Planning and Public Works Committee Recommendations 1. The suggested mileage for vehicle rotation should be reduced from 130,000 miles to 90,000 miles. 2. All county vehicles should be maintained at Central Garage making it easier to adhere to D. O. T. inspection schedules and allowing for more efficient and accurate record keeping. 3. A new location for Central Garage would be beneficial to the community and to the county. Agency/ Department Required to Respond Board of Supervisors ( within 90- days) Central Garage ( within 60- days) 2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report 49 Planning and Public Works Committee Clearlake Code Enforcement Complaint Subject The Grand Jury received a complaint alleging lot line infringement and inadequate code enforcement. Summary The property in question is divided property with a shared driveway. The complaint alleged that a “ cabaña” constructed by one party on their own property encroached within the legal distance or “ set- back” required from the lot line boundary. The complaint was filed by a neighbor and not from either party sharing the driveway in question. Procedure/ Methodology The code enforcement officer in question come to the jury room and discussed with the committee the allegations contained in the com-plaint. Background and Discussion The property was classified as legal non- conforming when the City of Clearlake incorporated in 1980. Findings • The party constructing the “ cabaña” on his property obtained all permits necessary for legal construction. • The lot line in question is not a property boundary but rather a public access road. Therefore, the lot line boundary code does not apply. Recommendations None Agency/ Department Required to Respond None 50 2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report Planning and Public Works Committee 2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report 51 Planning and Public Works Committee County Sealer of Weights and Measures Presentation Subject The Agriculture Commissioner- County Sealer of Weights and Meas-ures made a presentation in September 2006 to the Lake County Grand Jury. Summary This is an annual oversight of county department. Procedure/ Methodology The commissioner provided informative literature related to his pres-entation followed by a question and answer period. Background and Discussion Approximately 17% of the Lake County Agriculture Department’s work time is spent overseeing, testing, and certifying the various scales and measurement devices in Lake County. Consumers are encouraged to report any inaccuracies in devices to the Sealer of Weights and Measures. Findings • Four inspectors, two seasonal workers, and one clerical person oversee the county’s 726 fuel pumps ( used for motor vehicles, boats, and aircraft), as well as scales at grocery stores, packing sheds, wineries, and vendors of manufactured homes. • The majority of errors encountered on weighing/ measuring de-vices that are certified by the Sealer arise out of honest operator mistakes. • Occasionally devices can malfunction due to mechanical prob-lems that arise from wear and tear from normal use. These are infrequent and are usually caught by the Sealer during normal certification appointments. • All weighing/ measuring devices are required to be inspected an-nually, at a minimum. Recommendations None Agency/ Department Required to Respond None 52 2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report Planning and Public Works Committee 2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report 53 Planning and Public Works Committee Lake County Lakebed Management Presentation Subject A representative from Lake County Lakebed Management gave a presentation to the Planning and Public Works Committee regarding lakebed management. Background and Discussion Lakebed Management regulates all structures ( docks, walls, etc.) that are on Clear Lake. They also maintain boating and swimming areas, control aquatic weeds, and monitor water quality. Findings • As the nutrient levels in Clear Lake have reduced over the past decade, the algae have also diminished. This process has encour-aged the growth of aquatic weeds. • Lakebed Management maintains an ongoing program to control aquatic weeds. These weeds choke- off boating and swimming ac-cess to the lake. • The California Department of Pesticide Regulation regulates all herbicides used in this program. • Permits for private use of pesticides may be obtained from the Lake County Agriculture Commissioner. Recommendations None Agency/ Department Required to Respond None 54 2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report Planning and Public Works Committee 2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report 55 Planning and Public Works Committee Middle Creek Flood Damage Reduction and Ecosystem Restoration Project Oversight Subject This is an oversight of the progress of the Middle Creek Project. Summary The purpose of the Middle Creek Flood Damage Reduction and Eco-system Restoration Project is to restore the Middle Creek flood plain to its natural wetland ecosystem and provide flood damage reduc-tion for certain areas in the flood plain. In doing so, the major nu-trient flow from Middle Creek and Scotts Creek will be deposited in the newly restored basin, thus providing much cleaner water to the main body of the lake. Procedure/ Methodology A question and answer session was held with the Assistant Lake County Director of Public Works/ Water Resources. In addition, cor-respondence with various government agencies and consultants was reviewed. Background and Discussion The project will cause the urgently needed removal of an aging and failure– prone levee system, built in the early 1900’ s, that poses sig-nificant risk of harm to life and property. The project will require an exchange of like- title for replacement lands for property owners within the project area. Furthermore, the project has two primary benefits that are significant from both a public safety and an envi-ronmental perspective. It will eliminate the current flood risk by removing substandard leeves. These levees were never constructed to proper standards and have deteriorated over time, making them most prone to failure dur-ing a major flood event. Evacuation of the area was required in 1983, 1986, and 1988 with evacuation imminent in 1995. It is in the best interest of the county and those living behind the levees to have the project move forward without delay. It will allow the project area to be reclaimed as a functional wetland, thereby improving the watershed health and the water quality of Clear Lake. The restored wetland will also increase habitat for fish and wildlife, greatly improving the bird nesting habitat and increas-ing the available spawning habitat for fish. The downstream benefits of the cleaner water flowing into and through Clear Lake will be felt as far away as the Sacramento Delta and San Francisco Bay. These 56 2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report Planning and Public Works Committee benefits cannot be measured at this time, but they must be recog-nized. Findings • The project has secured authorization in both the House- Committee passed Water Resource and Development Act ( WRDA) H. R. 2864 and the Senate- committee passed WRDA legislation, S. B. 728. Missing from these authorizations is a crucial mitiga-tion factor. • Several parcels in the project area are held by the United States in trust status for the Robinson Rancheria band of Pomo Indians. A county led effort has identified a plan to allow the trust title to be transferred to another similarly sized parcel owned by the tribe. This is a mutually agreeable plan for all parties and the county most strongly seeks language in the WRDA to allow for this exchange. Without congressional approval for equivalent re-placement lands, the project simply cannot move forward as planned. If allowances are not made for the Indian Land Trust in the final WRDA, the project can continue, but at a much greater cost to Lake County. As of this writing, the sitting House & Sen-ate have sent legislation to a congressional conference commit-tee. Prospect for passage appears positive, but three issues re-main to be resolved. They are: − the previously discussed Indian Trust Land Exchange − responsibility for the costs of Highway 20 relocation within the project area − responsibility for the costs of the power- poles relocation within the project area Recommendations 1. The 2006- 2007 Lake County Civil Grand Jury recommends, in the strongest possible terms, maintaining the language authoriz-ing the equivalent replacement lands. This is an essential ele-ment to a project that will benefit the entire population of Lake County and downstream areas for generations to come. Agency/ Department Required to Respond Department of Public Works ( within 60- days) 2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report 57 Planning and Public Works Committee Middletown Area Town Hall Advisory Committee Meetings Subject The Planning and Public Works Committee attended several Middle-town Area Town Hall ( MATH) meetings. Summary The Grand Jury saw the newly organized and approved MATH Advi-sory Group concept as a possible resolution for the bigger problem areas around Lake County. The Grand Jury decided to look at the MATH Advisory Group to see if the same idea could work in other unincorporated Lake County communities. The first official meeting of the group now known as MATH occurred in April 2006 with about 70 people attending. Over the next few months, the MATH name was selected from several suggestions. A purpose statement was also adopted based on the state code. It reads: “ The MATH shall advise the Board of Supervisors on such matters relating to the Middletown area concerning services which are or may be provided to the area by the county or other local governmen-tal agencies, including but not limited to advice on matters of public health, safety, welfare, public works and planning as authorized by Government Code section 31010.” Procedure/ Methodology Beginning with the January 2007 meeting, the Grand Jury’s Plan-ning and Public Works Committee attended several monthly meet-ings of MATH. Background and Discussion The idea for the formation of some type of local advisory group be-gan when several Middletown residents and business owners dis-cussed problems facing the town, such as blighted properties and rapid development. A resident remembered a 2002 article in the Press Democrat about a non- profit group called the Forestville Plan-ning Association that was formed to address issues in that unincor-porated community. In October 2005, one of the organizers of the Forestville group spoke at the Middletown Luncheon Club describing the group’s begin-nings. Members of the Luncheon Club expressed interest in dis-cussing this further and a return visit was set for an evening meet-ing. 58 2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report Planning and Public Works Committee In 1971, the state legislature enacted legislation authorizing munici-pal advisory councils, citing several reasons for such councils in un-incorporated areas: − The need for community influence over land use decisions in the area − Inadequate resources to support incorporation − Distance from the county seat that inhibits citizens from taking part in decisions affecting the community − Need to unify a group of neighboring small communities with common problems The Board of Supervisors unanimously approved the resolution on December 12, 2006. MATH meets the second Thursday of each month at 7 pm in the multi- use room of the Middletown school. All residents of the South Lake County Fire Protection district are mem-bers and may vote at any meeting. The mailing address is: PO Box 185, Middletown, CA 95461. The email address is: mathtown-hall@ gmail. com to request agenda items or express concerns. A website is in the works. Findings • There are needs in this county that are more complex than small communities can resolve. Solutions could come from larger group participation of several entities working together. • The MATH governing board itself makes no decisions. All deci-sions and recommendations are made by a vote of the entire group attending the meetings. Board members run the meetings, keep the records, obtain information required for agenda items, and handle other administrative issues. • The precise boundaries of MATH are set within the South Lake County Fire Protection District, and the number of Board mem-bers are as follows: − “ Middletown Proper” is described as that area located south of Grange Road, north of Rancheria Road, west of Loconomi Road, and east of Anderson Springs Road – 3 members − South ( Twin Pines Casino) is south of Rancheria Road to the county line – 1 member − West ( Cobb Region) is west of Anderson Springs Road – 1 member − East ( Butts Canyon) is east of Loconomi Road to the county line – 1 member − North ( Coyote Valley) is north of Grange Road – 1 member • The District 1 Supervisor has supported the formation of such a body from the beginning. • Distance from the county seat and the daytime meetings of the 2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report 59 Planning and Public Works Committee • Distance from the county seat and the daytime meetings of the Board of Supervisors and the Planning Commission inhibit citi-zen participation in county decisions that affect Middletown. • The Middletown area’s recent growth is creating unique concerns that are not within county jurisdiction, such as a heavily traveled state highway through the downtown area. • The MATH meeting format is very loose and open. The beginning of each meeting has public input. • MATH is currently focusing on: − Traffic − Youth activity − Design and placement of new street lighting − Downtown parking − A museum − Visitor center − Downtown park − Economic development − Affordable housing − Growth impact • Unincorporated communities are encouraged to visit MATH to de-termine if this concept might be useful in other areas of Lake County. Recommendations 1. The 2006- 2007 Grand Jury recommends that the 2007- 2008 Grand Jury follow- up on the progress of MATH. Agency/ Department Required to Respond None 60 2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report Planning and Public Works Committee 2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report 61 Planning and Public Works Committee Spring Valley Water Facility Oversight Summary County Service Area No. 2 ( CSA No. 2), Spring Valley Lakes water system currently services 412 active users as of September 2006. The Spring Valley water system is comprised of a treatment plant, two pump stations, approximately 66,600 feet of distribution pipe, and one 241,000- gallon water storage tank. On September 5, 2006, the Board of Supervisors passed an emergency ordinance limiting the amount of water used per single- family dwelling. In addition, the filling of swimming pools or hot tubs with system water is for-bidden and no new service connections are allowed while the ordi-nance is in place. This ordinance is also a building moratorium. Procedure/ Methodology The committee met with two Special Districts Representatives, in-cluding the Special Districts Administrator and the Facility Mainte-nance Supervisor in November 2006. The Maintenance Supervisor provided an in- depth and informative tour of the facility. Following the tour, the committee was presented with a report detailing pro-posed upgrades. The Special Districts Administrator briefly ex-plained what was in the report and answered questions asked by the committee. Background and Discussion CSA No. 2 is currently operating under a permit issued by the Lake County Environmental Health Department on June 16, 1982. In 1984, regulatory jurisdiction was transferred to the State Depart-ment of Health Services. At that time the system was nearing 200 connections. Findings • The ordinance placed into effect in September was amended to remain in effect for a year. At the end of 2006, the Board of Su-pervisors could continue it for another year. • After two years, the moratorium could be extended indefinitely by the California Department of Health Services, Drinking Water Branch. Two previous moratoriums in the mid- 1980’ s and 1990’ s were imposed by the state and removed when necessary repairs were made. • The current moratorium is based primarily on the many ques-tions related to the systems delivery system. The Yolo County Flood Control District is the agency contractually responsible for delivery of the North Fork of Cache Creek water. The Special 62 2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report Planning and Public Works Committee District’s Administration stated that the delivery system is anti-quated and leaking badly. The Lake County Special Districts De-partment, the agency representing the Spring Valley Water Board, commissioned a water engineer to determine what the problems were and possible resolutions. This was completed in September 2006. His report indicated that water loss did exist, but that the existing antiquated meters were providing erroneous information. Until agreement and resolution are forthcoming the moratorium will in all likelihood remain. • Approximately 400 building sites remain and once the morato-rium is removed, house construction may continue. Because the rate of growth in Spring Valley is substantially greater than most county areas, another problem arises. At the current rate of growth and allowing for the moratorium, the current water allot-ment from the Yolo County Flood Control District will be ex-ceeded by demand between 2018 and 2020. At that point the Board of Supervisors, sitting as the Board of Directors of CSA No. 2, will have to seek an additional water allotment from the above named Yolo County agency. The added cost will be solely the responsibility of the Spring Valley water users. • The current filtration system is aged and simple, but effective with minimal maintenance costs. • The current system has reached its capacity in both on- demand water availability and filtration. • Upgrades to the facility are necessary to allow any new service connections. • Two plans are proposed for upgrading the facility: − The first plan includes additional sand- filtration units and a continual upgrade of the current system. This plan is sched-uled to be done in three phases with completion being 2026 at an estimated total cost of $ 2,958,000. The first phase would be completed in 2008 at an initial cost of just over $ 1,500,000. − The second plan is for expansion using a more advanced mi-cro- filtration technology. This plan would also be completed in three phases. The cost projections are estimated to total $ 4,700,000 with completion of phase three in 2026. The ini-tial phase cost would be just over $ 2,700,000 and would be scheduled for completion in 2008. • The more advanced micro- filtration plan’s initial cost is more ex-pensive; however, the continuing maintenance costs are subse-quently lower. • Financing for the upgrades is currently the major issue. The Special Districts Administrator has made proposals to the prop-erty owners in the area. 2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report 63 Planning and Public Works Committee • When the water facility responsibility in Spring Valley was as-signed to Special Districts, the maintenance for the roads and bridges was also included. • Given the potential for further growth in this area of the county, upgrades to the CSA No. 2 water facility will be fiscally beneficial in the long term for both the area and the county. Recommendations 1. Questions concerning the distribution system in Spring Valley must be resolved and remediation undertaken as a first step. 2. Upgrading the CSA No. 2 water facility needs to begin as soon as possible. 3. Responsibility for road and bridge maintenance in Spring Valley should be transferred to Public Works. Agency/ Department Required to Respond Board of Supervisors ( within 90- days) Public Works ( within 60- days) Special Districts ( within 60- days) 64 2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report Planning and Public Works Committee 2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report 65 Planning and Public Works Committee Spring Valley Water Meter Complaint Summary This was an investigation into a complaint regarding the billing prac-tices of Spring Valley Water District. Procedure/ Methodology In March 2007, the Planning and Public Works Committee received a complaint alleging fraudulent billing practices of the Spring Valley Water District, County Service Area No. 2. ( CSA No. 2). Upon receiving the complaint the committee contacted the Special Districts Administrator ( SDA) and arranged a meeting to discuss the issues listed in the complaint. In the meeting the SDA discussed various aspects of CSA No. 2 and the ongoing improvement efforts of that district. A list of accounts was given to the SDA who investi-gated the alleged inaccurate meter readings and then sent a report to the committee with his findings. Background and Discussion CSA N0.2 is in the initial stages of a vast upgrade to their water sys-tem. The Planning and Public Works Committee performed a site visit earlier in the year and the details of the upgrade are listed in the previous report titled, Spring Valley Water Facility Oversight. Findings • In addition to upgrades to the water system mentioned in the committee’s site visit report, new meters are being installed at every unit in Spring Valley. The District’s consulting engineer, The California Rural Water Association and the Rural Community Assistance Corporation, recommended the meters. The new me-ters will be read by the use of an electronic “ wand” that will transfer the information into a portable computer box. At the end of the day the information from the portable computer is trans-ferred to the Special District’s computer for billing. The upgrade process is over 60% complete. • The meters listed in the complaint have not yet been upgraded and are manual- read meters. The meter reader erroneously typed meter readings into the “ handheld” unit. This resulted in inaccurate bills. Immediately after being made aware of the er-rors by the customers, the Administrative Manager of Special Dis-tricts extended apologies to the customers involved. New read-ings were taken and the bills were corrected. The customers in-volved in this complaint are satisfied with the corrective actions of the Special Districts office. After installation of the new meters, human error will be minimized. 66 2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report Planning and Public Works Committee Recommendations None Agency/ Department Required to Respond None 2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report 67 Planning and Public Works Committee Taylor Observatory Oversight Visit Summary Taylor Observatory, 5725 Oak Hill Lane, is located directly behind the high school in Kelseyville. They have been in operation since 1980. The planetarium opened in 1985. Major renovations took place in 2004 courtesy of the Kelseyville Rotary. The observatory website is www. taylorobservatory. org. Procedure/ Methodology The Grand Jury visited the observatory and was given a PowerPoint presentation followed by a question and answer session. After the initial information was presented, the Grand Jury watched a show in the planetarium and looked at several objects in the night sky through the telescopes. Background and Discussion None Findings • The Taylor Observatory is unfortunately a well- kept secret that pro-vides valuable service and information to the county. • The goal of the observatory is to encourage and promote awareness and interest in astronomy. • The observatory has a 16- inch computerized telescope housed un-der a dome capable of viewing 140,000 celestial objects. In addi-tion they have an 8- inch portable computerized telescope, an 8- inch portable solar telescope, and a 2- inch portable solar telescope. • Science and math scores among high school students in the United States are lower than several other countries. The observatory pro-vides an excellent opportunity to interest children in science through astronomy. • In 2005, the observatory was awarded a grant to develop curricu-lum for high school level classrooms. The grant has been renewed for next year. • Starting in the 2007/ 2008 school year, astronomy classes will be offered at local high schools courtesy of the observatory. The classes will be presented throughout the county’s high schools us-ing videoconferencing. • Currently, the observatory information is available at the Visitor’s Center but not included in the press package sent out by the mar-keting department of Lake County. 68 2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report • Public events are held one Saturday a month including a class-room presentation, planetarium show and telescope viewing. Pri-vate events are held by appointment. • The number of events has more than doubled in the last two years along with the number of people served. As the number of patrons continues to grow, more equipment will be needed. • Recruitment of people to work at the observatory is an ongoing process. • The Friends of the Observatory was created to work primarily in fundraising efforts. Recommendations 1. The Committee recommends that the Marketing and Economic Development Department include the Observatory information in marketing materials sent out by the county. Agency/ Department Required to Respond Board of Supervisors ( within 90- days) Community Economic Development ( within 60- days) PUBLIC HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES COMMITTEE REPORTS Child Protective Services Complaint Grievance Review Complaint Indian Child Welfare Act Compliance Jail Medical Service Oversight Redbud Health Care District Oversight 2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report 71 Public Health and Social Services Committee During the tenure of both the 2005- 2006 and the 2006- 2007 Grand Jury, the Public Health and Social Services Committee has received, and attempted to investigate, nu-merous complaints of child abuse and neglect and the alleged unsatis-factory performance of Lake County CPS, a division of Lake County DSS. Child Protective Services Complaint Summary While this report originated with investigations of specific child abuse and neglect and the performance of CPS, it has grown into a question of oversight of one of the largest and most important departments in Lake County. Many significant findings and recommendations are contained in this report; however, it should be read as a work in pro-gress. This year’s jury session came to an end June 30, 2007. At that time, this Committee was in the long- drawn- out process of re-petitioning the courts for the CPS records that are necessary to com-plete a thorough and fair investigation. This committee will hand over the investigation to next year’s Grand Jury with the hopes that they will be granted permission by the court to access the needed records and continue to investigate the complex issues involving CPS. Procedure/ Methodology In the course of this investigation, the Committee interviewed li-censed day- care workers, health- care professionals, concerned members of the community, and organizations involved with the welfare of children -- all who have routine contact with Lake County CPS. California DSS staff and Lake County CPS staff, including the Director, Deputy Director of Adult and Children’s Services, and Pro-gram Manager of Children’s Services, a former social worker newly promoted to supervisor, and a social worker responsible for “ Emergency Response” were also interviewed. The Committee con-sulted with County Counsel and the District Attorney to obtain legal advice. The Committee interviewed the Chairman and members of the 2005- 2006 Grand Jury Public Health and Social Services Com-mittee. The Committee met frequently with complainants and wit-nesses. In addition, court petitions were prepared and filed with the Juvenile Court to obtain access to the needed Lake County CPS Committee CPS DSS CASA - Public Health and Social Services Committee - Child Protective Services - Department of Social Services - Court Appointed Special Advocates Acronyms 72 2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report Public Health and Social Services Committee records. The results of the petitions was a hearing in April 2007 be-fore the Juvenile Court Judge. At this hearing, access was not granted. Amended petitions are being filed. Background and Discussion The history of this investigation began with last year’s Grand Jury and will continue with next year’s Grand Jury. Following the much-publicized abuse of two young Lake County children in November 2005, last year’s Grand Jury received a complaint charging Lake County CPS with neglect and was contacted by a state assembly member regarding the pending investigation of that abuse. For most of last year’s session of the Grand Jury, that Committee attempted unsuccessfully to access the records of Lake County CPS. While Lake County CPS cooperated within the bounds of the child confi-dentiality laws that govern them, that Committee was unable to ac-cess all the records needed to corroborate or deny the validity of the complaints. Last year’s Grand Jury decided further investigation was needed and voted not to publish their report, but rather to “ roll-over” the complaint to this year’s Grand Jury. The Committee learned that Lake County CPS was investigated by the State beginning in late 2005. The Committee contacted the Cali-fornia DSS in mid- September 2006 to inquire about the state’s in-vestigation. Three months later the Committee received information, which included correspondence between the federal, state, and Lake County DSS agencies and the actions that resulted. The Federal agency had tracked the much- publicized events between November and December 2005 regarding the abuse of two young brothers in Lake County. Facts from this horrific case, as well as an erroneous statement made by the Deputy Director of Lake County CPS regard-ing local CPS protocol, prompted the Federal agency to raise ques-tions about Lake County CPS and request the investigation. The Federal request was to: “ investigate the processes used to investigate the referrals of abuse and neglect in this case, determine whether Lake County’s CPS responded in accord with State policies and procedures and provide a report to the Administration for Children and Families ( ACF) Regional Office within 30 days from the date of this letter.” The California DSS conducted both an on- site and online review of the Lake County Child Welfare Services program in January 2006. As a result, the California Children’s Services Operations Bureau and Lake County CPS jointly developed a “ Corrective Action Plan” to strengthen the deficiencies found during the State’s investigation. 2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report 73 Public Health and Social Services Committee This plan focused on training and assessment procedures and pro-vided written clarification on the statutory authority of the local agency to remove children. As a result, an official Memorandum of Understanding was recorded between Lake County CPS and all Lake County law enforcement. The committee was surprised to find that at the conclusion of the State’s onsite visit, a letter from the Lake County DSS Director to the State dismissed the gravity of the visit and refers to it as an ordi-nary “ technical assistance review” that other counties would also routinely receive rather than the urgent request from the Federal Department of Health and Human Services. This Committee maintains that the only way to complete a balanced investigation and answer the allegations posed by the complainants is to access the CPS records in question. At the advice and assis-tance of County Counsel and the District Attorney, the Committee initiated the necessary steps in October 2006 to prepare the peti-tions. However, between the District Attorney’s schedule and the Committee’s ongoing investigation with another Lake County CPS related complaint, the Committee was not able to complete the peti-tions until March 2007 ( See the Committee’s report, Indian Child Welfare Act Compliance, p. 83). The Committee then met with the District Attorney who agreed to file the petitions and represent the Grand Jury before the Juvenile Court. A hearing date was scheduled in April 2007 and at this hearing, the Juvenile Justice Judge determined that the Jury’s request for re-cords was too broad, lacking specificity. Counsel who represented Lake County DSS at the hearing argued that the California DSS was responsible for monitoring Lake County DSS’ performance and the Grand Jury need not be involved. However, this Committee contin-ues to receive additional complaints into May 2007, even with the California DSS oversight of Lake County DSS. In May 2007, the Committee spoke with the California DSS Chil-dren’s Services Operations Bureau Chief who was one of three policy people responsible for reviewing all county Self Improvement Plans and following up on matters requiring additional action. The Cali-fornia DSS was specifically looking at the “ assessment of the refer-ral” ( the emergency response action) and the “ recurrence rate” ( was this an additional or first- time referral?). The most recent follow- up by California DSS was in December 2006, which resulted in no 74 2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report Public Health and Social Services Committee additional written report, only a final review. Their summation was that things seemed satisfactory, there was “ no radar alert” and noth-ing negative had been recently “ heard” about Lake County. The Committee also spoke with the Chief of the Children’s Services Op-erations & Evaluation Branch of California DSS for an update on Lake County who confirmed the Bureau Chief’s information above. Revised petitions have been prepared following the Judge’s sugges-tions made at the April hearing and are in the process of being filed. This Grand Jury session will end on June 30, 2007, which leaves insufficient time to include the outcome of the pending hearing on the revised petition in this report. Since this Committee has not been allowed access to the confidential records, it cannot determine if Lake County DSS operations are in fact satisfactory and in accor-dance with Federal and State policies and procedures, or unsatisfac-tory, as the numerous complaints received by the Grand Jury allege. Findings • Grand Juries in other counties have been given access to CPS files while investigating complaints or performing oversight. The Solano County Grand Jury filed a petition and gained access to all files for a 6- month period just 2 years ago. There are similar situations throughout California in the past several years relative to Grand Jury access. • California DSS investigated Lake County CPS at the request of the Federal Department of Health and Human Services. The fol-lowing are some of the operational procedures jointly developed by the California DSS and Lake County DSS: − Implement plan for better documentation to support decision-making process. − Establish a uniform process for ongoing provider feedback. − Work with Regional Training Academy to identify staff training needs for Emergency Response and Family Maintenance, develop a training plan, and provide training. − Plan and implement Structured Decision Making software. ( This creates a link for decision- making based on a standardized safety assessment model). − Provide administrative oversight to assure uniform standard of practice in Emergency Response. − Reinforce the policy and procedures for Child Welfare Services authority to place children into protective custody for physical and sexual abuse. − Clarify, with staff, agency role in responding to physical and sex-ual abuse referrals. • Since this Committee is still unable to access confidential files, the committee only has the “ word” of the California DSS that these operational procedures have been corrected. 2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report 75 Public Health and Social Services Committee • Even after Lake County CPS/ DSS received a review and com-pleted a Corrective Action Plan from California DSS, this Grand Jury continues to receive complaints about Lake County CPS into May 2007. • Lake County CPS appears to be self- governing with minimal over-sight from the State but ultimately, the Director of DSS answers to the Board of Supervisors. • Staffing is an ongoing problem. Management and supervisory positions consume much of the manpower and budget leaving critical staff vacancies chronically empty. As of the writing of this report, the Children’s Services Program was budgeted for 21 so-cial workers, but there were currently 8 vacancies. However, there was a Director, a Deputy Director of Adult and Children’s Services, a Program Manager of Children’s Services, and two su-pervisors in this division. The department staffing appears dis-proportionate. • The Chief of the California Children’s Services Operations and Evaluation Branch thought there was a huge pay gap between Lake County social workers and its administration. In fact, the Chief stated Lake County is “ at the top of the worst” for social workers as far as compensation is concerned. A Social Worker I requires a bachelor’s degree and receives compensation from $ 2,192.00 to $ 2,664.00 per month. A Social Worker IV requires a master’s degree and receives compensation from $ 2,937.60 to $ 3,571.20. The Director of DSS, on the other hand, receives compensation from $ 7,120.31 to $ 8,654.78 per month ( figures from the 2006- 2007 Lake County Final Budget). • Lake County CPS recently implemented “ Structured Decision Making,” software designed to improve risk assessment. • Earlier this year, it was proposed to the Board of Supervisors that Lake County work to re- establish the CASA ( Court Appointed Special Advocates) Program. Approval was granted to proceed with the first phase of the process, applying for a Planning and Development grant for $ 10,000. At the writing of this report, the application was on track to be filed by the July 6, 2007 deadline ( Additional information about CASA is available at www. nationalcasa. org). • Revised petitions have been submitted to the District Attorney for refilling using the suggestions of the Juvenile Judge. • Many California counties employ a paid ombudsman for DSS. The ombudsman can be contacted by individuals or agencies who are having difficulty reaching CPS or require assistance with un-derstanding CPS policies and procedures. Many complainants / witnesses this committee met with may have initially had their complaint resolved had there been such a mediator. 76 2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report Public Health and Social Services Committee • This committee was constantly advised by individuals and agen-cies that calls to CPS were not returned in a timely manner. Recommendations 1. This Committee recommends that the 2007- 2008 Grand Jury continue this investigation. 2. This Committee recommends creating a paid ombudsman posi-tion for Lake County CPS. This person should be objective, unbi-ased and not and employee of the Lake County DSS. The om-budsman’s contact information should be on all documents and notices to families, or other involved agencies. 3. This Committee recommends creating an independent Advisory Board to oversee Lake County CPS. This Advisory Board can de-termine if Lake County’s CPS is providing for the children in the system, receive complaints and provide a place for fair hearings. This Advisory Board should include a County Supervisor, the county ombudsman, representation from the Children’s Council, licensed day care providers, child care associations ( Easter Seals, etc.), and other consumers of the agency. 4. This Committee recommends that the Board of Supervisors face head- on the staffing and management problems at Lake County CPS. It is ultimately the Board of Supervisors’ responsibility to ensure that the Lake County CPS is performing efficiently, and that children at risk in this county are receiving the help they de-serve. This Committee encourages the Board of Supervisors to take this responsibility seriously and not assume that everything is being done from within the department or that the state is ef-fectively overseeing Lake County CPS. 5. This Committee recommends that Lake County CPS management monitor and assure that implementation of Structured Decision Making software is successful without resulting in the loss of the human element, which is critical when helping at risk children. 6. This Committee fully supports the development of a CASA Pro-gram in Lake County. It is a community based volunteer organi-zation that will provide a voice for the best interest of the chil-dren in our court system. 7. Lake County must fill the vacant social worker positions. A real-istic pay scale is required to attract qualified individuals. 8. Lake County DSS needs to engage in “ active recruitment” for va-cant positions. Some suggestions are: • Lake County DSS could contact local high schools and commu-nity colleges encouraging students to consider social work. • Lake County DSS could pursue cooperative relationships with the community colleges and the Lake County Office of Education to ensure the appropriate college classes are offered locally. These classes could assist current Lake County DSS employees in career advancement. 2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report 77 Public Health and Social Services Committee • Assist current employees with tuition and/ or time off to take the appropriate classes for social worker eligibility. • Provide a “ signing bonus” for hard to fill positions. • Be open to creative hiring practices, such as part- time or job sharing as approved by the State. 9. This Committee recommends social workers personally answer their telephones. If an answering machine is used, the worker should have time set aside each day for a callback period. 10. Lake County CPS has an after hours “ hotline” for emergencies. The call is not answered by an individual but uses the “ answering tree” system. The answering machine advises the caller to select from a number of choices. The Committee be-lieves that most people who call that number in an emergency would hang up given the current message. The message should be rearranged to inform of the emergency access imme-diately instead of taking several minutes to get to that part of the message. Agency/ Department Required to Respond Board of Supervisors ( within 90- days) Lake County Department of Social Services ( within 60- days) References • California Rules of Court, ( 2006, September 22), www. leginfo. ca. gov. • California Codes, Penal Code, ( 2006, September 22), www. leginfo. ca. gov. • California Rules of Court, Welfare and Institution Code, ( 2006, Septem-ber 22), www. leginfo. ca. gov. • California Manual of Policies and Procedures, Child Welfare Services Program, ( 2005, February 16). • Disclosure of Confidential Child Abuse and Neglect Records: Summary of State Laws, National Clearinghouse on Child Abuse Information, ( 2006, October 06), www. nccanch. acf. hhs. gov. • History of the CASA Movement, ( 2007, May 30), www. nationalcasa. org. • Lake County Record Bee articles: − $ 100,000 bail for suspect in 4- year- old’s vicious beating, ( 2005, Novem-ber 22), − Suspect in boy’s beating faces 12 years in prison, ( 2005, November 26), − Tragic story of abused boys, ( 2005, December 1) − Abuse case raises questions, ( 2005, December 17) − Child abuse case resumes Jan. 30, ( 2005, November 26) − Man accused of child abuse pleads guilty, ( 2006, February 22) • Structured Decision Making – An Overview, ( 2007, April 4), www. neglected- deliquent. org. • Structured Decision Making: Background, ( 2007, April 10), Juvenile Jus-tice Bulletin, www. ncjrs. gov. • Structured Decision Making, ( 2007, April 10), Children and Family Ser-vices Division, www. dss. cahwnet. gov. 78 2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report Public Health and Social Services Committee 2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report 79 Public Health and Social Services Committee Grievance Review Complaint Subject In August 2006, this committee received a complaint regarding the decision of a Lake County Department of Social Services review. Summary The complainant, an approved day care and foster care provider, had been advised in the fall of 2005 by Social Services personnel that she was a candidate for adoption of a child in the Child Protec-tive Services ( CPS) system. The complainant was later advised in December 2005 that the adoption proceedings had been terminated because the complainant and the complainant’s mother had partici-pated in negative publicity regarding the operations of the Depart-ment of Social Services. The above communications were verbal, and not written. The complainant believes this action by CPS was unjust retaliation because of participation in the negative publicity. The complainant was unable to locate the Department of Social Ser-vices’ written decision in this matter. Procedure/ Methodology The committee interviewed the complainant to obtain information regarding the issue. In September 2006, the committee contacted the Director of the Department of Social Services to attempt to ob-tain information and/ or a copy of the Department’s decision, which is a matter of public record. In October 2006, the committee also requested a copy of the Department’s decision from both the District Attorney’s office and the County Counsel’s office. In March 2007, the committee again contacted the County Counsel’s office for assis-tance in this matter. In that same month, the committee finally re-ceived a copy of the decision that the complainant received in Janu-ary 2006. Findings • The Department of Social Services’ decision in this grievance was mailed to the complainant on January 30, 2006. • The “ Reasons for Decision” of the Department were accurately made in accordance with the Welfare and Institutions code 306.5. • There is no reason to indicate why this decision, a matter of pub-lic record, could not have been made available by the Department of Social Services to the Grand Jury in a more timely manner. 80 2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report Public Health and Social Services Committee Recommendation 1. Responses to Grand Jury requests for public record information must be provided in a timely fashion to avoid unnecessary delays in time and resources. Agency/ Department Required Respond Lake County Department of Social Services ( within 60- days) 2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report 81 Public Health and Social Services Committee It was designed to promote the stability and security of Indian tribes and families, and provide assistance to tribes in the operation of children and family services programs ( see Appendix A). The pas-sage of ICWA is the result of over a decade of national effort. This effort was by those concerned with the large number of Indian chil-dren that were removed by county welfare officials from their family homes and placed into non- Indian settings. This was done without consultation with either tribal officials or the Indian community re-sulting in emotional injury and cultural loss to the child, and dam-age to the integrity of tribal survival. AODS - CDSS - CILS - CPS - CWDA - GAO - ICWA - LCDSS - LCJC - LCOE - Peer TA - Indian Child Welfare Act Compliance by the Lake County Department of Social Services and Child Protective Services Summary CPS and court compliance with ICWA is mandatory. In 2006, Cali-fornia passed and signed into law SB678, a bill that further strengthens the language of the federal law and acts to codify ICWA. This was necessitated by the fact that the federal law in many cases was being ignored. A report issued from the United States GAO af-firms that states, including California, struggle with complying with ICWA. While investigating a complaint re-garding a Lake County CPS case, the Committee discovered the case met with ICWA criteria. This federal act was created to stem the dispropor-tionate number of Indian children placed and adopted out of their In-dian communities, without input from their tribe. In 1978, the U. S. Congress passed the Indian Child Welfare Act ( PL 95- 608) for the pur-pose of protecting the best interests of American Indian children. Acronyms Alcohol and Other Drugs Services California Dept of Social Services California Indian Legal Services Child Protective Services California Welfare Director Association Government Accountability Office Indian Child Welfare Act Lake County Department of Social Services Lake County Juvenile Court Lake County Office of Education Peer Technical Assistance ( Casey Family Programs) 82 2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report Public Health and Social Services Committee Procedure/ Methodology This Committee conducted extensive research ( see references) and interviewed numerous individuals during the course of this investi-gation. Interviews were conducted with Lake County CPS, a division of Lake County DSS, ICWA Representatives from Lake County Indian tribes, CILS, and the California DSS ICWA Administration Special-ists. The Committee also attended monthly ICWA Round Table meetings in Lake County and a quarterly California DSS ICWA work group meeting in Sacramento. Background and Discussion According to Lake County DSS, the following are some significant Lake County statistics regarding the local Native American popula-tion: • The American Indian and Alaskan Native population is 1,772 of 58,309, or 3% of the county’s population ( per Census 2000). • The Lake County CPS caseload that meets ICWA criteria or pend-ing tribal verification is 9.3% ( as of 12/ 06). • ICWA children in foster care are 9.8% ( as of 12/ 06). ICWA provides minimum federal standards for state child custody court proceedings, which include voluntary and involuntary foster care placements, termination of parental rights, and pre- adoptive and adoptive placements involving Indian children. Key elements of these standards include, but are not limited to: • Before removing Indian children from their homes, attempts must first be made to prevent the breakup of Indian families through active efforts to provide rehabilitation and remedial services. • The Indian child’s parent( s), Indian custodian, and the child’s tribe must be properly notified of pending custody proceedings. Child custody cases cannot proceed to a hearing until at least ten court days after receipt of the notice. Notice to a child’s tribe must be sent to the tribe’s chairperson or its designated agent for service of process. • Proper notice must be written in clear and understandable lan-guage. • Clear and convincing evidence, including testimony from a quali-fied expert witness as defined by ICWA, is required for removal of an Indian child from his or her parent( s) or Indian custodian. 2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report 83 Public Health and Social Services Committee Findings This Committee learned of multiple resources available to assist Lake County CPS social workers in performing their job duties. They include: • ICWA Monthly Round Tables - monthly meetings that are hosted on a rotating basis by the seven Lake County tribes at the various tribal headquarters around the county. In addition to tribal repre-sentation, other social and legal service agencies ( AODS, LCOE, Easter Seals, CILS, LCJC attorneys etc.) also attend. Ideas are shared and issues are addressed in a non- confrontational man-ner. Although it appears Lake County CPS attended in the past, there was a period when Lake County CPS was not represented, or that information disseminated at these meetings was not shared with all the social workers. This Committee is gratified to see that Lake County CPS Administrative Staff is now attending these Round Table meetings and bilateral conversations are oc-curring. However, it would be beneficial if the employees/ supervisors who are responsible for the implementation of these mandated duties also be allowed to attend the Round Tables. • The California DSS has established two ICWA specialist positions. These positions are the point of contact for ICWA issues. As a major resource for county child welfare, Indian tribes and tribal organizations, they provide technical assistance and clarification regarding the importance of compliance with ICWA. They also fa-cilitate the ICWA Quarterly Work Groups. • ICWA Quarterly Work Groups - meetings facilitated by the Cali-fornia DSS ICWA Administration and held at the California DSS headquarters in Sacramento. Counties and tribes throughout the state are invited to attend. ICWA issues are discussed and infor-mation is shared regarding new procedures and upcoming train-ing. This Committee was advised that Lake County DSS does not attend. • State ICWA Training – formal, comprehensive training is available to social workers at the UC Davis Regional Training Academy. Ongoing formal training can be developed to meet individual county needs. Technical assistance is always available, but must be requested. The California DSS training unit will come to coun-ties to provide training at no cost to the county, if requested. For-mal or individualized training is provided. A Handbook on ICWA, which includes sources of information and support to aid in the implementation of ICWA, was developed as a resource guide that is provided to all training participants. 84 2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report Public Health and Social Services Committee • Casey Family Programs Peer TA - a technical assistance ap-proach that rapidly disseminates information about successful practices, policies, and tools related to a defined issue, con-cern, or challenge. Peer TA is solution- focused and occurs through a process of joint problem- solving between a team of individuals who is requesting assistance and a team of peer consultants who has first- hand experience related to the tar-geted issue. Peer TA teams are brought to the program re-questing assistance at no cost ( see Appendix B). Lake County tribes have indicated to this Committee that they are enthusi-astic about participating in this program with the county. • Directors’ Meetings - information regarding these and other available resources is distributed at monthly CWDA meetings. County Welfare Directors and other administrative personnel are encouraged to attend these meetings. The California DSS ICWA Administrator, who spoke with the Grand Jury Commit-tee, does not recall Lake County DSS attending these meetings on a regular basis. By not taking advantage of these meet-ings, the state administrator felt that it leaves Lake County so-cial workers at a disadvantage and results in Lake County’s isolation and uninformed disinterest in the ICWA mandate. • Currently, Lake County DSS has a working procedural document when handling ICWA cases. We found this document to be in-adequate, and it does not provide the necessary services to com-ply with ICWA. • Although ICWA is the federal and state law and must be complied with, the Committee learned this is not the case in numerous In-dian child custody cases in Lake County and in California. • According to the interviews with the Tribal ICWA Representatives, the required 10- day notice for Indian child custody proceedings is routinely ignored by Lake County DSS. Tribal ICWA workers generally receive last minute telephone notification, not the ten-day written notice as stipulated in the law, and in the Lake County DSS Operations Manual. • This Committee has been attending the monthly ICWA Round Ta-bles for the past six months. The same issues, particularly where “ notice” is concerned, are brought to the attention of all parties. The tribal ICWA Representatives repeatedly have advised the Lake County CPS administrators that the law is not being fol-lowed. • CPS was attending the Round Tables at the beginning of this year after a lengthy absence; however, they have missed the last sev-eral meetings. 2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report 85 Public Health and Social Services Committee • Attending each Round Table has been the Deputy Director for Adult and Children’s Services and the Program Manager for Chil-dren’s Services. At each meeting both indicate they will return to their agency and “ kick- around” these issues. At the February 2007 Round Table, these individuals indicated they were unsure of the notice process themselves, but thought the Lake County CPS supervisors who manage the employees who perform this function, were aware of it. These procedures are definitively out-lined in the California DSS CWS Manual/ ICWA Special Require-ments. • According to both ICWA Representatives and the legal counsel from CILS, the use of “ expert witnesses” does not appear to be taken seriously by the Lake County DSS. In some cases, a Lake County DSS social worker acted as the expert witness, rather than the Indian agent for the tribe, as the law requires. • It was discovered that most Lake County DSS social workers were not familiar with ICWA requirements. When questioned, the Lake County DSS Deputy Director and Program Manager were not aware if ICWA training was included in the core training that all social workers attend. • While interviewing both ICWA Representatives and the clients in-volved, this Committee learned that social workers did not always follow a particular case to the end; instead, there could be a number of Lake County DSS social workers assigned to the same ICWA case— some understood, but some did not, the nature of the law. This not only created inconsistencies, but also resulted in workers having to “ catch up” or learn about the ICWA law, so they could proceed with the case. Recommendations 1. To reach ICWA compliance, Lake County DSS should update their working protocol. Since CILS is in the process of updating their working protocol, we strongly recommend that Lake County DSS work closely with them as a valuable resource in this proc-ess. 2. This Committee recommends full compliance with ICWA policies and procedures by Lake County DSS, as mandated by state and federal law, and stipulated in the California Child Welfare Ser-vices Program Manual, ICWA provisions. 86 2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report Public Health and Social Services Committee 3. This Committee recommends that all Lake County social workers be given appropriate ICWA training. 4. This Committee recommends that the following ICWA resources be taken advantage of: • ICWA Round Table Monthly Meetings should be attended by social workers and supervisors as well as administrative staff. Information from these meetings should be shared with all Lake County DSS staff. • California DSS Work Group Quarterly Meetings in Sacra-mento should be attended and information from the meet-ings should be distributed to all Lake County DSS staff. • Ongoing training for all pertinent staff. • Consider Peer TA provided by the Casey Family Programs. • Lake County DSS Management should attend and share information distributed at the CWDA meetings. 5. This Committee firmly recommends that one or two specific so-cial workers be assigned to follow ICWA cases— as ICWA special-ists. We are gratified that this appears to be the direction taken by current Lake County CPS Administration. We also commend Lake County CPS for initiating a local work group that will work with representatives from the Lake County tribes to assist in the resolution of ICWA issues. However, this Committee recently learned from the ICWA Representatives that this “ local work group” has lost its credibility; in fact, attendance has fallen off drastically because meeting times are moved around haphazardly and the group’s direction no longer follows the original intent. 6. This Committee recommends that future Grand Juries continue to monitor compliance with ICWA. 7. All efforts should be taken and all resources used to keep the county’s Indian children out of the Lake County CPS system. 8. This Committee strongly recommends that a consolidated effort be taken by all seven of the Lake County Tribal Councils to insist that ICWA be complied with by Lake County DSS, as mandated by federal and state law. It is also the responsibility of tribal ad-ministration to insure that Lake County DSS has current tribal and ICWA contact information. This will facilitate official notifi-cation and communication between the county and the tribes. We recommend that the newly organized Intertribal Leadership Council make ICWA compliance a top priority. Agency/ Department Required to Respond Board of Supervisors ( within 90 days) Lake County Department of Social Services ( within 60 days) 2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report 87 Public Health and Social Services Committee Appendix A What is the “ ICWA?” Congress’ authority to enact laws singling Indians out for unique treat-ment – like the ICWA – has been consistently upheld by the United States Supreme Court. Recognizing that Indian tribes have a unique legal status under federal law and that the Constitution gives Congress plenary power to treat Indians as a separate people, the Court has characterized such distinctions as being of a political rather than racial nature when they tar-get Indians as members of “ quasi- sovereign tribal entities” rather than In-dians as a racial group. Additionally, the Federal Government has a unique trust or fiduciary re-sponsibility toward the American Indian tribes and, their interests and as-sets, as a result of treaties that stressed services such as education, health, etc. in exchange for land. In the mid- 1970s, a Congressional investigation revealed that approxi-mately 25% - 35% of all Indian children were removed from their families by state child welfare agencies and state courts and placed in foster or adoptive homes and institutions, and that the majority of these placements were in off- reservation, non- Indian homes. In California, Indian children were eight times more likely to be removed from their families than non- Indian children and more than 90% were placed in non- Indian homes. Congress determined that Indian children who had been placed for adop-tion into non- Indian homes frequently suffered serious adjustment prob-lems during adolescence. The federal ICWA was enacted in 1978 to remedy this situation and to “ protect the best interests of Indian children and to promote the stability and security of Indian tribes and families.” In doing so, Congress ex-pressly recognized that the states “ often failed to recognize the essential tribal relations of Indian people and the cultural and social standards pre-vailing in Indian communities and families” and that the removal of Indian children was “ often unwarranted.” These rules are designed to keep Indian children connected to their fami-lies and tribes. Maintaining this connection serves the best interests of In-dian children and also promotes the stability and security of Indian tribes and families. Social Service agencies are required to make special efforts to keep Indian families together. These agencies must provide services that reflect the current social and cultural standards of the family’s Indian community. 88 2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report Public Health and Social Services Committee Following are some problems ICWA addresses: • Large numbers of Indian children were being removed from their families by state courts and county social service agencies; most of these children ended up in non- Indian homes and institutions. • Indian children who were cut off from their tribal communities and cultures often later had behavioral and emotional problems. • State and county officials often did not understand, ignored, or re-jected the cultural or social customs of the child’s tribal commu-nity. Membership in an Indian tribe is dependent upon the tribe’s membership laws; enrollment may or may not be necessary for the child to be consid-ered a member. As defined by ICWA, an Indian child is: • Unmarried and under the age of 18. • A member of a federally recognized Indian tribe or eligible for mem-bership in a federally recognized Indian tribe. • The biological child of a member of a federally recognized Indian tribe. Under ICWA, parents or Indian custodians have rights that focus on main-taining the culture and beliefs of that tribe. In fact, the major difference between usage of the CPS procedures for Indian children and non- Indian children is a strong undercurrent to favor and look for the Indian culture and social customs in every step of the CPS process. A higher standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, along with testi-mony of an expert witness ( usually a Tribal Representative), is required be-fore parental rights are terminated. Adoption is against tribal beliefs. Tribal family structure is such that a sister, aunt, grandmother, etc. is viewed no differently than the biological mother. The Indian tribe has rights under ICWA as well. In fact, these rights are almost equal to those of the parents or Indian custodian. For example, the Tribe: • Has the right to participate in custody cases of its Indian children. • Has the right to “ exercise” “ tribal jurisdiction” which refers to which court – tribal or state – will hear a case. • Has the right to see records kept by the State on placement of tribal children and look at documents about the case that the court has on file. • Has the right to apply certain tribal laws or customs to the custody case and these include, but are not limited to, laws defining “ Indian custodian” or “ extended family” for example. 2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report 89 Public Health and Social Services Committee The CILS provides a complete spectrum of ICWA- related services for Indians and tribes, including the following: • The education of juvenile courts, juvenile dependency attorneys, and state social workers about ICWA, the policies behind its enact-ment, and ensuring ICWA compliance in their daily caseloads. • Challenging guardianships illegally obtained in violation of ICWA on behalf of Indian parents and Indian custodians. • Explaining the role of expert witnesses in ICWA cases to courts, so-cial workers, and other attorneys, and helping these players obtain proper expert witnesses. SB 678, the new state bill, took effect January 1, 2007 with the goal of strengthening Federal ICWA. 90 2006- 2007 Lake County Grand Jury Final Report Public Health and Social Services Committee Appendix B Casey Family Programs Established by United Parcel Service founder Jim Casey, the Casey Foun-dation is a philanthropic Seattle- based national operating foundation that has served children, youth and families |
| PDI.Date | 2007 |
| PDI.Date.Issued | 2007 |
| PDI.Title | Final Report. 2006-2007. |
| OCLC number | 144566468 |
Tags
Comments
Post a Comment for Grand Jury report
Your rating was saved.
you wish to report:
Your comment:
Your Name:
|
|
...