ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Grand Jury Foreman’s Letter………………………………………………………..…..…………..….….iv Grand Jury Member’s List……………………………………………………..…………….…….……….v Grand Jury Members Disclaimer and Signature Page….………………………………..…………..…….vi Grand Jury History and Function……………………………………………………………………...……1 California Grand Juries…………………………………………………………………………………..…2 Distribution List……………………………………………………………………….….………………...3 Responses to Grand Jury Reports……………………………………………………..……………….……4 Respondent’s Procedure……………………………………………………………..………………….…..5 Introduction………………………………………………………………………..……………………......6 High Desert State Prison…………………………………………………………..……………………..…7 California Correctional Center…………………………………………………………………..………...10 Lassen County Adult Detention Facility……………………………………………………………..……13 Lassen County Juvenile Detention Facility………………………………..………………………………15 Lassen County Health and Social Services…………………………………………..……………………17 Lassen County Public Works/Road Department……………………………………………..……………18 Lassen County Education Report……………………………………………………………………..…...26
iii
June 16, 2010 The Honorable F. Donald Sokol Presiding Judge Lassen Superior Court 220 South Lassen Street Suite 6 Susanville, California 96130
Dear Judge Sokol: Please find attached the final report of the Lassen County 2009/2010 Grand Jury. This report is a collective effort put forth by a group of dedicated citizens representing Lassen County. The experience of serving as the Foreperson has been very rewarding and educational to me as well as the other members of the Grand Jury. During this year the Grand Jury reviewed several governmental agencies within Lassen County, as well as the Lassen County school system. The Grand Jury found the representatives of these agencies to be professional, organized, and very knowledgeable. During these meetings the reoccurring theme was the budget constraints placed upon the agencies due to the current economic conditions. The Grand Jury commends the leadership of these agencies who have managed to get the job done with the resources at hand during these tough economic times. The Grand Jury takes this opportunity to thank Judge Bradbury for his leadership and guidance with issues which occurred during the beginning of the Grand Jury session. Additionally, we wish him well in his retirement from service as Presiding Judge Lassen Superior Court. The Grand Jury also thanks Suzie Faulkner, Lassen County Jury Commissioner for her assistance throughout the year. She was instrumental in the success of this year’s Grand Jury. It has been an honor to have served on the Lassen County Grand Jury for the past two years. I am personally proud to have had the opportunity to serve with the other members of Lassen County Grand Jury. Each member dedicated their personal time to insure that Lassen County is fairly represented. Finally, Judge Sokol, I would like to thank you for your support and guidance. The Grand Jury recognizes the difficulty of assuming responsibility for the Grand Jury as Presiding Judge Lassen Superior Court in mid-term.
Sincerely,
Charles Bolls Foreman
iv
MEMBERS OF THE 2009-2010 LASSEN COUNTY GRAND JURY
Charles Bolls, Foreperson* Joanne Darlington, Secretary* ____________________________ Kenneth Bishop* Rob Deboer* Shirley Gifford Beverly Hibbitts Richard Holmes Joe Hunter* Steve MacDonald Lori McDonald Max Moore Nancy Murray Deborah Pernot Joseph Ritz* Larry Rogers Penny Valentich Tammie Vial Kay White*
*Retuning members from 2008-2009 v
JURY MEMBERS’ DISCLAIMER AND SIGNATURES The Grand Jury recognizes that a conflict of interest may arise in the course of its investigation. In such instances, the juror may ask to be recused from all aspects of an investigation. Those members may choose not to investigate, attend interviews and deliberations, or assist in the making and acceptance of a final report that may result from an investigation. Therefore, whenever the perception of a conflict of interest exists on the part of a member of the 2009-2010 Lassen County Grand Jury, that member abstains from any investigation involving such a conflict and from voting on the acceptance or rejection of any related subject. By signing this final report, I approve it even though I may have recused myself from, or voted against, certain individual reports which the majority approved.
vi
LASSEN COUNTY GRAND JURY 2009-2010
GRAND JURY HISTORY AND FUNCTION The first formal Grand Jury was established in Massachusetts in 1635. By 1683, Grand Juries in some form were established in all of the colonies. The first cases considered by the Grand jury were murder, robbery and wife beating. Cases in Pennsylvania included Grand Jury indictments for: holding a disorderly meeting in 1651, witchcraft in 1683 and for other crimes in 1685. Various public evils were added to the range of investigations by the Grand Jury in 1685, and began to set a precedent for future Grand Jury interests. The original United States Constitution which was written in 1787 did not contain a reference to the Grand Jury, but the Fifth Amendment provided the remedy for the omission. It states: “No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger…” The fourteenth amendment in 1868 made most of the provisions of the Bill of Rights applicable to the States. Some of the states have interpreted this amendment to mean that prosecution of crimes no longer mandated a Grand Jury indictment. A study done by Deborah Day Emerson in the year 1984, shows that four states require a Grand Jury indictment for all crimes, 14 states and the District of Columbia require indictments for all felonies, six states mandate Grand Jury indictments for capital crimes only, 25 states (including California) make indictments optional. In a single state, Pennsylvania, the Grand Jury lacks the power to indict.
1
CALIFORNIA GRAND JURIES
The California Penal Code describes the organization, powers and the duties, and general structure of the Grand Jury. All of California’s 58 counties are required to have Grand Juries. There have been recent changes in Section 904.6 of the Penal Code (1991) which permits any county to have an additional Grand Jury at the discretion of the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. The Penal Code also allows county district attorney’s the option of utilizing special Grand Juries in the handling of criminal cases. Although this alternative is offered in Penal Code §904.6, some counties choose to maintain their regular use of Grand Jury for criminal and civil duties. The major function of a Civil Grand Jury is to oversee all aspects of the legislative and administrative departments that make up county, city and special district governments. It has the power to examine and guarantee that those who are given the responsibility of managing these offices are: truthful, dedicated, and sincere in their efforts to serve the public. There are forty-two states that have some form of Grand Jury, but California and Nevada mandate the impaneling of a Grand Jury each year. The Lassen County Grand Jury is a judicial body of nineteen (19) citizens impaneled to watch over the citizens of Lassen County. Grand jurors are forbidden by law, to disclose any evidence acquired during investigations, or disclose the names of complainants or witnesses. After investigations are completed, it is the responsibility of the Grand Jury to recommend changes that should be made in order to increase efficiency, and improve services to the general public. Some of the recommendations made by the Grand Jury are to save the taxpayer money. Special commendations may be made to departments or agencies for excellence in management. The reports that are released to the public, have been collected, voted on by the 12 members, and the results carefully edited by the editing committee for a Final Report at the end of the 2009-2010 Grand Jury’s term of office. The Final Lassen County Grand Jury Report is distributed to the public and to public officials. Its distribution also includes: Lassen County Times newspaper, KSUE/KJDX radio station, the Susanville Library and is available in the Jury Commissioner’s office at 220 S. Lassen Street, Susanville, California 96130. The telephone number is (530) 251-8109.
2
DISTRIBUTION LIST
Lassen County:
Education:
Superior Court Judge F. Donald Sokol
Lassen County Office of Education
Board of Supervisors (5)
Lassen Community College Board of Trustees (7)
District Attorney
President of Lassen Community College
Sheriff
Long Valley Elementary School District
County Counsel
Big Valley High School District
Treasurer/Tax Collector
Shaffer Elementary School District
Chief Administrative Officer
Johnstonville Elementary School District
Probation Department
Susanville Elementary School District
Department of Child Protective Services
Lassen Union High School District
Fair Department
Westwood Unified School District
Health and Social Services Department
Janesville Elementary School District
Public Works/Roads Department
Richmond Elementary School District
Community Development and Planning Department OTHERS: City of Susanville:
State of California Attorney General’s Office
City Council (5)
Lassen County Times Newspaper
City Administrative Officer
KSUE/KJDX Radio Station
Community Development Department
Susanville District Library
Corrections Facilities:
2009-2010 Grand Jurors
California Correctional Center
California Grand Jurors’ Association
High Desert State Prison
Susan River Fire District
3
RESPONSES TO GRAND JURY REPORTS SUMMARY OF PC 933.05
A compendium of all codes pertaining to Grand Jury was produced by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. This document is available to Grand Juries through the Superior Court in respective counties. Since the compendium was assembled the following has become law: Penal Code §933.05 provides for only two (2) acceptable responses with which agencies and/or departments (respondents) may respond with respect to the findings of a Grand Jury report: 1. The respondent agrees with the finding. 2. The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the findings, in which case the respondent shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefore. Penal Code §933.05 provides for only four (4) acceptable responses with which agencies and/or departments (respondents) may respond with respect to the recommendations of the Grand Jury: 1. The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. 2. The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be in the future, with a time frame for implementation. 3. The recommendation requires future analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis, with a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency/department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six (6) months from the date of publication of the Grand Jury Report. 4. The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with a detailed explanation therefore. However, if a finding and/or recommendation of the Grand Jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency/department head and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if requested by the Grand Jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those budgetary or personnel matters over which it has some decision making authority. The response of the elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency/department.
4
RESPONSE PROCEDURE TO GRAND JURY REPORTS SUMMARY OF PC §933.05
The governance of responses to Grand Jury Final Report is contained in Penal Code §933 and §933.05. Responses must be submitted within 60 to 90 days. Elected officials must respond within 60 days. Governing bodies (for example: the Board of Supervisors) must respond within 90 days. Please submit all responses in writing and digital format to the Presiding Judge, the Grand Jury Foreperson and the CEO’s office. Report Title:______________________________________ Report Date:_________________ Response By:______________________________________ Title:_______________________ Findings: I (we) agree with the findings numbered: ______________________________________________________________________ I (we) disagree wholly or partially with the findings numbered: ______________________________________________________________________ Recommendations: Recommendations numbered:______________________________________________ have been implemented. (Attach a summary describing the implemented actions) Recommendations numbered:______________________________________________ require further analysis. (Attach an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer and/or director of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed; including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six (6) months from the date of publication of the Grand Jury Report). Recommendations numbered:_____________________________________________ will not be implemented because they are not warranted and/or are not reasonable. (Attach an explanation)
Date:______________________Signed:_____________________________________________ Total number of pages attached:_________
5
INTRODUCTION
The Lassen County Grand Jury received ten (10) written complaints during the fiscal year of 2009-2010. As the letters and formal complaints were received and presented to the Grand Jury, there was careful consideration of each complaint as to the validity and content. Each grievance was inspected and acted upon in a professional and conscientious manner by the Grand Jury. Confidentiality has been strictly maintained as Grand Jury members were cautioned throughout the 2009-2010 term by the Jury Foreman, Charles Bolls. The following Grand Jury Reports are based on interviews and information which was brought to the attention and investigated by the Grand Jury.
6
HIGH DESERT STATE PRISON
Reason for Inquiry: California Penal Code § 919(b) mandates that the Grand Jury “inquire into the conditions and management of all detention facilities within their county.” The 2009-2010 Lassen County Grand Jury received one (1) complaint from an inmate incarcerated at High Desert State Prison (HDSP). HDSP Background: opened in 1995 and is located on 325 acres, adjacent to the California Correctional Center (CCC), seven miles northeast of Susanville. The primary mission of HDSP is to provide a secure environment for high security risk (Level IV) and high-medium security risk (Level III) inmates. The minimum support facility (MSF) and the reception center (RC) were originally designed to house 200 inmates. Additionally, the H D S P h o u s e s 11 2 0 sensitive needs yard inmates. The HDSP is designed to house inmates with disabilities who require specialized placement to accommodate accessibility issues. HDSP provides educational programs and work assignments for inmates. There is a Correctional Treatment Center (CTC) to provide for Health Care. The 2009/2010, Lassen County Grand Jury toured HDSP on October 27, 2009. Findings: Overall Assessment for High Desert State Prison as of fiscal year 2009/2010, the following statistics apply: Number of Custody staff: 997 Number of Support Services staff: 534 Total number of staff: 1,531 7
Designated Bed Space and Count: Facility Level Design Capacity I 200 II Unavailable III 300 IV 1,516 Reception Center 200 ASU 456 Total 2,672 The above figures can change on a daily basis.
Count 304 Unavailable 709 2,844 570 323 4,750
Staffing: The staffing of Correctional Officers at HDSP has continued to improve over the past fiscal year. HDSP has continued to struggle with cuts from the State cutting 15% of Correctional Officers pay. The education program is also seeing cuts this year with cuts in staff. The prison offers academic education for the inmate population. Academic classes provide instruction to upgrade math and reading skills, with an ultimate goal of achieving a GED. In December 2004, HDSP implemented a high school diploma program assisting inmates in obtaining a high school diploma. Facilities: During our tour of HDSP, the Lassen County Grand Jury visited Facility “A,” the Grand Jury inspected a plumbing chase. The plumbing chases have been repaired; the electrical lights/sockets being exposed to water leaking from the plumbing have been removed and repaired since the last Grand Jury visit, all work orders have been submitted to the Grand Jury showing repairs. Medical Services: The Lassen County Grand Jury walked through the Correctional Treatment Center (CTC). HDSP operates a 32 bed licensed, Correctional Treatment Center (CTC) which provides emergency medical services, emergency dental care, and mental health crisis care. Currently under the Federal Receivership, the CDCR, Health Care Services Division has been mandated to expand to current HDSP medical services buildings. Each Facility A, B, C, D, and E all currently have a clinic on the yard. Five new buildings will be built on the respective yards, as well as support buildings and a new Medical Administrative Building. (Due to budget cuts, all five buildings were cancelled.) Community Activities: It is important to note the efforts made by HDSP employees that contribute to the needs of our local community. Fundraising is a large part of HDSP. The Warden directs the annual Holiday Food Basket Program at HDSP. The funds raised through this program go to the clients of the Far Northern Regional Center in Susanville and provides Christmas presents to families and children staying in the domestic violence shelter in Susanville. For the last four years, HDSP employees have donated funds and approximately 150 holiday food baskets have been delivered each year to the clients of the Far Northern Regional Center. The American Cancer Society sponsors a “Daffodils Days” where HDSP employees are offered an opportunity to purchase daffodils to raise money for cancer treatment and research, as well as for promoting education and awareness. This is a popular program according to the information that has been received and employees continue to donate over a thousand dollars a year.
8
Each year HDSP conducts a chili cook off to benefit the victims of crime in conjunction with the National Crime Victim’s Rights Week (April 18-24). Employees cook their own chili, bring it into the institution and compete for the title of best chili. The cost for employees to sample all of the chili is two dollars per person. All proceeds from the event are collected at the door by representatives from Lassen Family Services here in Susanville. The Warden and Chief Deputy Warden judge the competitors and award a grand prizewinner. Recommendations: None. Response Required: None.
9
CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL CENTER
Reason for Inquiry: California Penal Code § 919(b) mandates that the Grand Jury “inquire into the conditions and management of all detention facilities within their county.” Background: Opened in 1963, the California Correctional Center’s (CCC) primary mission within the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) is to receive, house and train minimum custody inmates for placement into Northern California conservation camps. CCC currently maintains 19 camps, located throughout Northern California, to work with the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection in fire–suppression activities. The secondary mission is to provide meaningful work assignments for the support of the institution, as well as educational and training opportunities for inmates, including those who do not qualify for the camp program. A multi-level educational program provides students with courses leading to a General Education Degree (GED), vocational training, or a high school diploma. College classes are also offered that can lead to a college degree. CCC expanded in 1987 with construction of the Lassen Unit, specifically to house Level III (medium custody) inmates in a cell configuration. Lassen Unit has an electric fence for security. The 2009-2010 Lassen County Grand Jury visited the California Correctional Center on January 22, 2010. Findings: Overall Assessment for California Correctional Center Number of Custody staff: 798 Number of Non-Custody staff: 319 Number of Medical staff: 150 Total number of staff: 1267
10
As of fiscal year 2009-2010, the following statistics apply: Facility Level Design Capacity I (Cascade/Arnold Unit) 1557 II (Sierra/Main Gym) 1203 III (Lassen Unit) 950 Camps 2029 Total Inmate Population: 5739
Count 1535 1224 933 1823 5559
Wastewater and Water Conservation Update: The Susanville Wastewater Treatment Plant Modifications include the following: • Construction of three new earthen treatment ponds and three effluent storage ponds involving 650,000 cubic yards of earthwork. • Installation of 60 mil HDPE liner material in 115 acres of six new ponds and five existing storage ponds. • The replacement of all headwork’s equipment. • Construction of a new storage facility building. • Construction of two major recirculation pumping stations. • Installation of a new effluent disposal center pivot (254 acre) irrigation system. • Construction of more than 5.3 miles of 32”, 24”, 18”, and 16” HDPE buried piping. Laundry: During the tour of the laundry area, the Grand Jury noted that the clean laundry and dirty laundry areas are being kept separate. The clean laundry is brought in through one sally-port door and the dirty laundry is brought in through a different sally-port door, never crossing the clean with the dirty laundry. The folding tables are wiped down with sanitizer between each load of clean laundry. Main Kitchen: During the tour of the kitchen area the Grand Jury did not see any standing water or outstanding issues. OSHA did an inspection on April 22, 2009 and found no problems with the floor in the kitchen. California Correctional Center also had an inspection done by an outside engineer, whom also found no problems with the kitchen floor. Pups on Parole: Pups on Parole is a partnership between the California Correctional Center and the Lassen County Humane Society. The program which saves dog’s lives is also intended to help with the rehabilitation of inmates. Currently, they have seven kennels, 124 pups have been adopted by the public since June 21, 2007. The dogs get individualized obedience training at the firehouse.
11
Education Accomplishments for 2009 General Educational Development/High School Diplomas: College Students: Physical Fitness Training: Academic Students currently enrolled: Vocational Students:
125 116 1507 477 1288
The education program has applied and received grants for 15 smart boards in their class rooms. The CCC holds self-help Groups for inmates. In 2009 the Self-Help Group attendance was as follows: AA Meetings: NA Meetings: All Other Self-Help: Religious, Services:
5264 1986 3747 17990
Youth Diversion: This program began in 2008. Youths must be 18 years of age or older to participate. The inmates volunteer to share their story with the youths on probation. Each month a seven to eight hour session is conducted. Inmates also participate in the “Every 15-Minutes� program at local high schools. Commendations: The Grand Jury would like to commend the staff of the California Correctional Center for their efforts in supporting the community through charitable contributions, and work with youth in the community. Recommendations: The Grand Jury was not met by the Warden or his designated representative upon arriving at the Correctional Center. This is a recurring problem which was noted in last years Grand Jury Report. The Grand Jury believes there is a lackadaisical attitude towards their official visit. It is recommended that prior to visits, the California Correctional Center refine their protocol procedures for greeting official visitors. Response Required: Yes.
12
LASSEN COUNTY ADULT DETENTION FACILITY
Reason for Inquiry: The California Penal Code 919(b) mandates that the Grand Jury “inquire into the condition and management of all detention facilities within their county.” Inquiry Procedures: The Grand Jury toured the Lassen County Adult Detention Facility (LCADF). Members walked through the facility with the presence of command staff. Background: The LCADF is located on Sheriff Cady Lane in Susanville California near the Lassen County Juvenile Detention Facility (JDF) and next door to the Lassen County Sheriff’s Office. The current facility was built in 1991 to house both county and state inmates. Facility: The kitchen was clean and well organized. The culinary staff is assisted by 12-18 inmates per shift, two shifts each day. The kitchen provides thousands of meals per year to LCADF and JDF. The equipment in the kitchen with the exception of a new oven is old and in need of replacement. One of the steam jacketed kettles used for preparing soups and other meals is slow to heat and at times pops the circuit breakers. Another steam kettle does not work. The dish washer is outdated and is repaired on a monthly basis. The grills have no knobs and do not heat evenly. We were informed exposed electrical wires, when they get wet, also cause the circuit breaker(s) to trip. The LCADF heating and air conditioning system does not function properly. We were told by staff that the heating system is either “on or off”. The thermostats’ throughout the building do not control the desired temperature causing inmate complaints about being too cold or to warm. The heating system currently needs to be “manually” turned on or off from inside the facility maintenance shop. The Grand Jury members were told the control boards which allow inmate movement and the locking and un-locking of doors throughout the facility are outdated and replacement parts for them are becoming more difficult to locate. While walking through the facility we observed numerous water stains on the interior of the roof, lounge and inside the inmate dorm areas. The water stains were reportedly from design flaws and twenty-years of weather exposure. The LCADF operates a motor pool program on the site for county vehicles. A crew of approximately 6-12 inmates works inside the area. The LCADF operates an outside state inmate work crew consisting of 8-12 inmates who work in the community completing various work projects, snow removal, fire breaks and other tasks.
13
The crew works at different sites throughout the county and completes many hours of service for the Bureau of Land Management, United States Forest Service, City of Susanville and many other agencies. At present only one state inmate crew is being operated. In years past, LCADF utilized two state inmate crews and one county crew throughout Lassen County. Staffing: The LCADF has a staff of approximately sixty employees. This consists of sworn and non-sworn staff. At the time of our visit LCADF had one correctional officer vacancy. Two correctional officer vacancies have been frozen as a result of the 2009-2010 budgets. A teaching position was also vacant during our tour. All correctional officers are required to obtain 176 hours of CORE training at a cost of approximately $1,600 per staff member. This is one-time required training for each new correctional officer. Each correctional officer is required to receive 24 hours of training each year as set forth by the California Department of Corrections and Standards Authority. Training records are audited every year by Corrections Standards Authority and have received an above average report each year. Staffing Equipment: While speaking with LCADF staff, it was observed, the majority of the staff carried only one piece of personal protection equipment. None of the officers carried collapsible batons and some did not even carry some type of chemical agents for protection. While walking through the Special Housing Unit, which houses pre-sentenced and sentenced inmates on various violent and non-violent charges, members of the Grand Jury observed a lone officer in charge of the unit. The only personal protection was a small can of chemical agent. Recommendations: The Sheriff’s Office should seek funding for upgrades and replacement of worn out equipment in the facilities kitchen area. The Sheriff’s Office should seek funding to upgrade the twenty-year old facility in regards to the HVAC system, roof, control boards and overall repairs that are needed. The Sheriff’s Office should provide adequate levels of personal protection equipment for its staff as well as the required training. Response Required: Yes.
14
LASSEN COUNTY JUVENILE DETENTION FACILITY
Reason for Inquiry: California Penal Code § 919(b) mandates that the Grand Jury “Inquire into the condition and management of all detention facilities within their county.” Inquiry Procedures: The Grand Jury met with Letha Martin, Lassen County Chief Probation Officer; and Ken Crandall, Lassen County Mental Health Director. The Grand Jury toured the Lassen County Juvenile Detention Facility (LCJDF) on November 9, 2009. Background: In June 2000, the original facility was upgraded to accommodate 50 juveniles, but due to budgetary restraints, the facility currently houses only 20 juveniles with no plans of increasing that number. A Group Home has been opened on the other side of the Juvenile Detention Facility renting the space from Lassen County. Findings: Facility and Placements: At the time of the Grand Jury’s visit, the facility appeared clean and well organized. The staff was cooperative and responded to all questions asked by jury members. The average length of stay for juveniles detained in the LCJDF is three to four weeks, but juveniles have been detained for as long as fifteen months. Parents of detained juveniles residing in the LCJDF are charged as much as $15.00 per day. The charge is based on the parent’s income using a sliding scale. Plumas, Sierra, and Modoc Counties contract with Lassen County to house juveniles at the LCJDF. A per diem rate of $110.00 for each 24-hour period is charged to those counties for each detained juvenile. A reimbursement charge is also collected for medical, psychological, and educational services. There are a limited number of out-of-county juveniles housed at the LCJDF. Lassen County also contracts with Crystal Creek Juvenile Detention Facility, the Bar-O-Boys Ranch, and the Fouts Springs Youth Facility for placement of juveniles committed to camp. High-risk offenders are transferred and housed with the California Youth Authority at a cost of $4,000 to $6,000 per month. Security: The LCJDF currently uses video cameras that are placed strategically around the facility to monitor activity. These cameras do not have the ability to record and are only used for monitoring. The LCJDF staff expressed a need for a recording system for the facility, as it would document incidents that occur and would greatly assist with the safety and security of the facility. The LCJDF staff is pursuing funding to upgrade their video system. This issue continues to be brought before the Grand Jury’s attention year after year with no resolution due to budget constraints. Staffing: The Grand Jury inquired about the current staffing levels at LCJDF. They were in compliance with California Code of Regulation, Title 15, Section 1320 and 1321 in regard to appointment and staffing. Although the facility is being staffed at the required levels, the turnover rate appears to impact their ability to retain experienced detention officers. Lower wages and benefits in Lassen County compared to other counties seem to be a direct result of staff turnover and lack of staff retention.
15
Training: All LCJDF staff members receive 20 hours of initial training on site and 170 hours of Core Training at an academy. Additionally, all employees receive a minimum of 40 hours of PC 832.5 off post training per year. With staffing turnover rates, it is a challenge to keep up with required training. Services Offered: The LCJDF is primarily a housing facility and provides limited rehabilitation programs and services to detained juveniles. The services offered include the following: Education: The County Office of Education provides a teacher and an assistant who conducts daily classes on site. Individual educational programs are developed and followed for each student. The classroom was furnished as a public school classroom, computer workstations, desks, and bulletin board displaying student’s projects. The students in the education program receive transferable credits for completed classes. Alcohol and Drug Programs: Lassen County Drug and Alcohol provides an Alcoholic Anonymous counselor and/or volunteer 16 to 20 hours per week. Health and Dental Care: Medical care is provided daily through a county contract with Dr. Hal Meadows. Dr. Meadows also monitors psychological medications that have been prescribed by Dr. Shep Green of Lassen County Mental Health. Dental care is provided through a county contract with the Susanville Dental Group. Commendations: The Grand Jury commends the Lassen County Probation Department, the Lassen County Department of Mental Health, and the Lassen County Juvenile Detention Facility for initiating a program to improve mental health services for detained juveniles. Recommendations: Security: The Grand Jury recommends that the Lassen County Juvenile Detention Facility staff continue to pursue every course available to secure additional funding for a video recording and monitoring system. The Grand Jury recommends that the Lassen County Juvenile Detention Facility staff look into some vocational trade classes for the juveniles while in the facility, such as a community garden or small engine repair. Additionally, it is recommended that the issue of staff retention be addressed, and efforts to upgrade the pay and benefits for the staff working at LCJDF. The Grand Jury recognizes the Lassen County Supervisor’s oversight of the LCJDF budget: however, the issues mentioned in the Grand Jury’s recommendations are a note-worthy concern that still has not been addressed. Response Required: No.
16
LASSEN COUNTY HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES
Reason for Inquiry: One complaint, review procedures and policies pertinent to complaint. Inquiry Procedure: The Grand Jury met with Teri O’Brien, Director of the Child Protective Services. She gave a detailed overview of the functions and state mandated requirements of the Child Protective Services. Background: The Child Protective Services employs a staff of ten social workers whose classifications range from CPS II to CPS IV. There are supervisors for emergency cases and court cases, while unit clerks or office assistants handle the phones and paperwork. Presently, the department receives approximately 45 reports of abuse per month. Sources include teachers, school bus drivers and others. All incidents are screened and many are determined to be unfounded, inconclusive or substantiated. This process is completed by a social worker utilizing a computerized risk assessment tool and interviews. For emergency situations, children are placed in a “certified home” for two weeks while the investigation proceeds. Following a state mandated process and court proceedings, a judge will determine the placement of the child/children. Cases are reviewed every six months. At the 12 months evaluation in a placement case (Foster care, living with a relative), a determination is made as to performance. At present, there are 48 children in placement. The department’s goal is “children will remain in the family home only when it is safe.”
Recommendations: None. Commendation: The Lassen County Grand Jury commends Mrs. O’Brien and the Child Protective Services for maintaining a process that satisfies the needs of the youth in Lassen County.
17
LASSEN COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS/ROAD DEPARTMENT
Reason for Inquiry: Public Interest Inquiry Procedures: On November 12, 2009 the Grand Jury interviewed Mr. Larry Millar Director of Public Works and Director of Public Transportation. Background: Mr. Millar furnished the Grand Jury with a written “Overview of the Public Works Department” which gave a relatively complete picture of the operation of the Department. Findings: The Department appears to be well organized and managed. As with all County departments, budget constraints dictate the extent of activities within various divisions. Commendation: Mr. Millar came to the Grand Jury well prepared for his interview and demonstrated that he has a significant understanding of his department and his duties. Recommendations: Continue working with Diamond Mountain Casino to arrive at a memorandum of understanding regarding the County roads that service the Casino and some land near Herlong. This effort is to encourage the Casino, et al for the mutual benefit of all parties. Response Required: None The Lassen County Department of Public Works is comprised of five (5) main divisions which include Roads, Public Works, Transportation, Surveyor and Natural Resources. These main divisions are further broken down into the following units and/or budget units: 1) Road: (Operating, Construction, Traffic Relief) 2) Public Works: (Building and Grounds, Parks, Animal Control, Rabies Control, Cemeteries, Aviation, Capital Projects) 3) Transportation: (Local Transportation, Lassen Transit Service Agency, Local Transportation Fund Account, State Transit Assistance Fund Account) 4) Surveyor: (Surveyor) 5) Natural Resources: (Susanville Ranch Park) The Department of Public Works overall Mission Statement is as follows: “Department of Transportation/Public Works is charged with the responsibility to plan, design, construct, operate and maintain the public roads, bridges, facilities (buildings), drainage, parks, airports, cemeteries and public transportation of the County as well as administer and manage the animal control, rabies control and surveying functions for the County and the public. This overall mission is to protect the health and welfare of the public and to preserve the County’s infrastructure investment.” 18
Road Division: The Road Division includes the Road Operating Budget, the Road Construction Budget and the Traffic Relief Budget. The Road Operating Budget is responsible for the day to day administration, operation and maintenance of the County Road System which currently consists of 881 miles (2008 County Maintained Road Mileage) and 59 bridges. This includes the labor force of 39.65 Full Time Equivalents (FTE) as well as the equipment and vehicles. The overall County is divided into five Road Districts which are similar to the Supervisor District Boundaries The Department utilizes a mix of purchasing materials from outside vendors and County manufacturing in order to do the most for the limited dollars available to maintain the County roads and bridge system. The Department is also responsible for snow removal, flood control and assisting with other natural disasters. Funding consists of restricted State and Federal funds with no General Fund contribution. The current FY 2009/2010 road operating budget is $6,574,846 which is approximately the same as last FY. The department currently has four (4) vacant positions (two (2) in engineering and two (2) on the road crew) which they plan to not fill until funding becomes more stable. The Road Construction Budget includes rehabilitation and construction projects within the County Maintained Road System which utilize State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) funding or other State and Federal Funding. These types of projects may consist of asphalt concrete overlay projects, bridge and road rehabilitation projects, bridge replacement projects and new road construction projects. The current FY 2009/2010 road construction budget is $9,131,613 which is an approximate 5% decrease from last FY. Projects included within this year’s budget are Skyline Road Extension, Leavitt Lane Bridge replacement, Lambert Lane Bridge replacements (2 structures) and the Termo-Grasshopper overlay project. The Termo-Grasshopper project was funded with stimulus funding. The Traffic Relief Budget includes projects which utilize Traffic Relief Funding. These projects include asphalt concrete overlay projects, chip seal projects and maintenance projects. Generally, the Department utilizes this funding for materials and utilizes the Road Department equipment and labor force to maximize the amount of work which can be accomplished. The current FY 2009/2010 traffic relief budget of $1,200,064 is for the anticipated proposition 42 funds that are expected. These funds will be utilized for a chip seal project for Richmond Road and Gold Run Road.
19
The Public Works Division is further divided into Building and Grounds, Parks, Animal Control, Rabies Control, Cemeteries, Aviation and Capital Projects. The Building and Grounds Division is responsible for the administration and facility work for the maintenance, custodial and minor construction/ remodeling of Lassen County’s facilities (buildings and grounds). These include facilities located throughout the County. In addition, this Division provides custodial and general maintenance services to several Leased Buildings. The Building and Grounds Division is responsible for the utilities for the majority of the County facilities. Funding is through the General Fund with some reimbursement through other County Departments for specific maintenance projects and through rental fees for some of the buildings. The current FY 2009/2010 building and grounds budget is $894,710 which is an approximate 8% decrease from last FY. This budget consists of a total of 8.12 full-time employees (FTE) with one vacant position (building and grounds worker) which they are not planning on filling. Lassen County Buildings 1) Bieber Library 2) Westwood Library, Westwood Community Center 3) Jolly Elders 4) Doyle Community Center 5) Standish 4-H 6) Campfire USA, Agricultural Administration, Alexander Street, Courthouse, Courthouse Annex
The Parks Division is responsible for the administration, maintenance, and construction of park facilities within Lassen County. As the majority of the park facilities have been constructed utilizing State Park Grants the County is required to maintain them in a safe and operational condition. Funding for the day to day maintenance of these facilities is through the General Fund for services and supplies while the labor force is through the Building and Grounds Division and through Inmate Work Crews. The current FY 2009/2010 parks budget is $25,470 which is an approximate 16% decrease from last FY.
20
Lassen County Parks 1) Beiber 2) Little Valley 3) Stones Boat Ramp 4) Spalding Boat Ramp 5) Lake Forest 6) Susanville Ranch 7) Johnstonville 8) Janesville 9) Lake Leavitt 10) Milford 11) Cowboy Joe 12) Dixon 13) Doyle 14) Clear Creek
The Animal Control Division is responsible for the administration and operation of the Animal Shelter for the County and the City of Susanville. This includes assisting the Rabies Control Division with the licensing and handling of dogs and cats and public health and safety as it relates to animals. Another major role is to oversee the Adoption Program for dogs and cats. This Division is responsible for the utility costs and other expenses in operating the Animal Shelter. Funding consists of a General Fund contribution in the amount of 60% of the annual budget for the County and 40% from the City of Susanville. The current FY 2009/2010 animal control budget is $134,895 which is an approximate 16% decrease from last FY. This budget consists of a total of 1.5 FTE. 21
The Rabies Control Division is responsible for the administration and operation of the animal control program for the County. This program is responsible for the protection of the public health and safety by assuring that all dogs and cats are vaccinated and licensed for rabies. It is also responsible for the handling of complaints regarding vicious and dangerous animals, picking up stray, injured, sick or dead animals, removing stray and abandoned animals, and providing assistance with other problems associated with the control of animals. Funding consists generally of State funding with General Fund contribution when necessary. The current FY 2009/2010 rabies control budget is $124,978 which is approximately the same as last FY. This budget consists of a total of 2.1 0 FTE. The Cemetery Division is responsible for the administration, maintenance and operation of Lassen County’s fourteen cemetery sites located throughout the County. This Division is also responsible for the utilities at each of these facilities. Funding consists of a portion of property taxes and revenues from the sale of grave sites, however, a General Fund contribution is generally also required to meet the annual budget. This Division also relies heavily on assistance from Inmate Work Crews. The current FY 2009/2010 cemetery budget is $148,370 which is approximately 1 % down from last FY. This budget consists of a total of 1.25 FTE.
Lassen County Cemetaries 1) Bieber 2) Madeline 3) Ash Valley 4) Dry Valley 5) Ravendale 6) Secret Valley 7) Lassen
8) Susanville 9) Westwood 10) Diamond Valley 11) Stacy 12) Janesville 13) Milford 14) Doyle
22
The Aviation Division is responsible for the administration, operation and maintenance of Lassen County’s four airports located throughout the County (see attached map). This Division is also responsible for the utilities at each of these facilities. Funding consists of State Funding for the day to day operation and State and Federal Grants for capital improvement projects. The current FY 2009/2010 aviation budget is $384,288 which is an approximate 5% decrease from last fiscal year. This budget consists of a total of 0.15 FTE and funding for two improvement projects (Spaulding airport widening and Ravendale airport crack sealing and stripping).
Lassen County Airports 1) Beiber 2) Spaulding 3) Ravendale 4) Herlong 5) Susanville
The Capital Projects Budget is responsible for the administration of Capital Projects for the County. This includes significant building maintenance, renovation or improvements as well as the current park projects under the 2002 Park Bond Grant. Funding consists of State and Federal funds as well as some General Fund contribution. The current FY 2009/2010 capital projects budget is $703,000 which consists mainly of the completion of park improvement projects (Janesville, Lake Forest, Leavitt Lake, Doyle and Spaulding) which were funded through a Per Capita State Park Grant. The Transportation Division includes the Local Transportation Budget, Lassen Transit Service Agency Budget, Local Transportation Fund Account and the State Transit Assistance Fund Account. The Local Transportation Budget is responsible for the administration and planning of transportation for the Lassen County Transportation Commission (LCTC) which is a joint commission of the City of Susanville and Lassen County. County employees act as support staff for the Lassen County Transportation 23
Commission. These salaries as well as operating expenses are paid out of this budget. The majority of the funding for this budget is through Regional Planning Assistance (RPA) funding as well as Local Transportation Funds. The current FY 2009/2010 transportation budget is $652,631 which is approximately the same as last FY. This budget unit consists of a total of 2.37 FTE which is up slightly from last FY. The Lassen Transit Service Agency Budget is responsible for the administration, operation and maintenance of the Lassen Rural Bus System and the administration and planning for the Lassen Transit Service Agency (LTSA) which is a joint agency of the City of Susanville and the County of Lassen. County employees act as support staff for the Lassen Transit Service Agency. The LTSA contracts with MY Transportation, Inc. to provide the operation of the Lassen Rural Bus System which consists of a fixed route with complementary Dial-a-Ride service to the City of Susanville and routes from Susanville to Herlong, Doyle and Westwood areas as well as with Lassen Senior Services for specialized transportation services to the elderly and disabled. In addition, the LTSA contracts for taxi services. The funding for this budget is through Transportation Development Act Funds in both Local Transportation Funds and State Transit Funds. Additional funding is also provided through Federal Assistance Funds. The current FY 2009/2010 LTSA budget is $2,715,654 which is an approximate 30% increase over last FY. The increase funding is contributed to the receipt of some grant funding and stimulus funding we were successful in obtaining for the purchase of 2 replacement buses and for some capital work to the bus shop (adding security fencing and adding on to the existing shop facility with an additional shop bay). The Local Transportation Fund Account was created to track the Local Transportation Fund. Revenues from the Local Transportation Fund (1/4 cent local sales tax) from the State are received in this account and then are subsequently distributed to eligible claimants which are Lassen County, City of Susanville and the Lassen Transit Service Agency. The current FY 2009/2010 LTF budget is $2,301,883 which is an increase over last FY due to the additional grant and stimulus funding. The State Transit Assistance Fund Account was created to track the State Transit Assistance Funds which are distributed throughout the State to transportation planning agencies. These funds are received into this account and then are subsequently distributed to eligible claimant’s which is the Lassen Transit Service Agency. This funding may only be used for transit. The current FY 2009/2010 STA budget is $356,214 which is an approximate 14% decrease from last FY. This is due to a decrease in State revenues. The Surveyor Division is responsible for providing services to the public and various governmental agencies and in providing the mandated review of Final Maps, Parcel Maps, Record of Surveys, Corner Records, and Legal Descriptions and their conformance with State and Local Ordinances. In addition, the Division is responsible with coordinating of the physical address system for the County. Staffing consists of County employees to complete the day to day operation of the Division and the use Consultants to provide the function of Deputy County Surveyor and the final review and stamping. Currently this Division must contract out for the services of County Surveyor as they have been unable to successfully retain a Licensed Surveyor on staff. Funding consists of fees for providing these services as well as General Fund contribution providing these services. FY 2009/2010 surveyor budget is $132,402 which is approximately the same as last FY. This budget has a total of 1.07 FTE.
24
The Natural Resources Division is responsible for providing administration, maintenance, construction and planning for the Susanville Ranch Park which is a 1,100 acre shared use recreation area. In addition, this Division is responsible for overall trail planning and coordination for the entire County. Funding consists of contributions from BLM, County of Lassen and the Lassen County Transportation Commission. The current FY 2009/2010 natural resources budget is $110,604 which is an approximate 20% decrease from last fiscal year, mainly due to lack of some grant funding they were able to obtain in last year’s budget. This budget unit has a total 1.0 FTE.
25
LASSEN COUNTY EDUCATION REPORT
Office of Education Report On August 19, 2009, Mr. Jud Jensen, Superintendent of Schools for Lassen County, provided the Grand Jury with the status of Westwood School District’s finances. Mr. Jensen gave a detailed account of his involvement with the Westwood School District finances, why he got involved and what the findings were which were presented to him by the Fiscal Crisis & Management Assistance Team (FCMAT). The FCMAT represents the State of California in regards to finance and school districts. The findings from FCMAT documented many irregularities in the finances of Westwood School District, Westwood Charter School and Westwood Charter School Services Inc. This matter has been referred to District Attorney Bob Burns and he forwarded it to the State Attorney General’s Office. The state has assigned a prosecutor to work on this case. The Grand Jury commends Mr. Jensen for his detailed report and his efforts on behalf of the residents of Lassen County.
Lassen Union High School On October 21, 2009, Dr. Todd Cutler, Lassen Union High School Superintendent, spoke to the Lassen County Grand Jury. Dr. Cutler provided a very frank and honest presentation regarding Lassen High School. He began by saying that Lassen Union High School (LUHS) is in fairly good financial shape at this time but must be ready to deal with further cuts in education the State of California is expected to make. His goals for the future include improving student academic success, improving teaching delivery systems to students, and improving LUHS relationship with the communities it serves. Dr. Cutler provided very detailed and down to earth ideas and methods to achieve these goals in the future. He was passionate in his resolve to make LUHS the best school it can be. Dr. Cutler has met with Dr. Douglas Houston, President of Lassen Community College (LCC), to improve the relationship between the two institutions. He would like to see more support and advice given to graduating seniors so they are aware of admission requirements needed to continue their education. He was disappointed that he has had limited contact with the college in this area and that not all the pieces are in place in his opinion at this time. Dr. Cutler also discussed the new Diamond Mountain Charter School program. He feels that it is off to a good start and will provide a good education experience to students who choose to attend. He also mentioned that the new building will be used for a variety of activities besides the charter school so that LUHS can get the most use for the money invested. Dr. Cutler answered questions from members of the grand jury on a variety of subjects. His straight forward and honest answers were appreciated by the members
26
McKinley Elementary School Visit On December 2, 2009, members of the Grand Jury Education Committee visited with Donna Wix, Principal, McKinley Elementary School. The 60 year old facility currently has K through 3rd grade, but will return to K through 5th grade when Diamond View School is completed. The school has an active School Site Council. The Academic Performance Index (API) was 763, which is below the 800 goal. They are actively working to achieve this goal. The Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) is in Improvement Status. This is being aggressively resolved. The staff is looking for ways to reduce classroom and office waste. The school is actively using the Character Counts Program for the students. The library was well supplied and used daily. The kitchen was small but clean and functional. During our tour of the campus we found the facilities very clean and well maintained. The staff was positive and morale was good.
Meadow View and Diamond View School Visits On December 11, 2009, the Grand Jury visited the Meadow View (MV) and Diamond View (DV) schools, both housed on the same campus due to the closing of the DV school building last year. Principals Vicky Leitaker (MV) and Patty Gunderson ( DV) addressed the group. They explained how things were running with two schools on one campus. Segregating the younger and older students is a big concern. Their system was explained in great detail with tremendous effort given to keeping the student bodies’ separate. Mrs. Leitaker did say that the older students are a blessing this year and are very helpful to the younger students. Both schools are doing the best they can with current finances and are unfortunately expecting mid year cuts that will further impact the operation of the two schools. DV and MV are both on program improvement status with regards to state testing. They each have one sub group that is not progressing at the same rate as the others. Strategies have been implemented to address the progress of these groups. An after school program for homework has begun at DV. The MV has expended more money for classroom aides in hopes of improving test scores. The School Site Council is active at both schools. Although there were numerous activities occurring during the visit, it was noted that Mrs. Leitaker and Mrs. Gunderson were calm and in control of the situations. They answered our questions honestly and professionally. The Grand Jury feels the students are in good hands.
Johnstonville School Visit On December 14, 2009, Grand Jury members visited with Sally Clark, Principal, Johnstonville School. The school houses kindergarten through eighth grade. The API score for Johnstonville was 785 in 2009, well above the 760 that is required. The School Site Council is very active. They currently meet twice a month, and is largely responsible for bringing the school up to standards after the resignation of the previous principal in April 2009. The current enrollment is 225 students. The school experienced some staff cuts in June 2009, with the potential of more cuts at the end of this school year. Staff morale was very low during 27
layoffs, but is currently showing improvement. Some faculty members have been staying after hours to tutor students with no compensation. Another area that was affected due to the budget cuts was bus routes had to be reduced. The school has some long term goals they are working on: Funding for after school programs; paving around gymnasium; and improving the area where parents pickup their students. When members of the Grand Jury toured the school, it was apparent the grounds were well maintained. The group also received a tour of the library, various classrooms, multi- purpose room, computer lab, and the recently completed gymnasium.
Susanville School District On December 16, 2009, Dr. Gary McIntire, Superintendent of Susanville Schools addressed the Grand Jury. He began his presentation by giving a report on the progress of the remodeling of Diamond View Middle School. The removal of asbestos has been completed and construction will begin as soon as the board approves the contract. The goal is to have Diamond View School open by September 2010. Dr. McIntire gave a detailed plan on how the district will get as much construction completed as possible with the funding that is available. Dr. McIntire seemed to have a plan for all contingencies and was well aware of problems facing the district. The Grand Jury found his presentation thorough and informative.
Richmond School Visit On January 7, 2010, members of the Education committee met with Ms. Cynthia Nellums, Principal of Richmond School. Ms. Nellums gave a short update about the status of the school. She informed the group the school is debt free and the enrollment is approximately 210 students with an API of 863. At the time of the visit, the School Site Council was not very active (only two parents were involved). Future projects within the next five years at Richmond include reroofing the gymnasium and remodeling classrooms. Mrs. Nellums stated the school has an active music program. She also mentioned the need for a program for higher achievers to qualify for the U.C. system. After the update, members of the Grand Jury toured the campus and found the facilities and grounds well maintained. One interesting item of interest was the Absorptive Media Removal System used to remove arsenic from the water.
Big Valley School Visit On March 23, 2010, the Education committee visited Big Valley School in Beiber. Superintendent Dr. Richard Rhodes provided a guided tour of all the schools in his K-12 district. As with all schools in California, Big Valley is facing tremendous financial challenges. Due to budget constraints, the elementary school in Adin was closed and students and staff were moved to the campus in Beiber. This move took a great deal of planning and meetings with parents and community members so they could understand why the move, although unpopular, was economically necessary. There have been many layoffs of classified and certificated employees and one administrator this year. The average daily attendance is in decline. If this trend continues they may have to look into consolidation with other small districts. Many counties are looking at possible consolidations next year. A representative from Fresno-Bakersfield area visited Dr. Rhodes to discuss how to consolidate schools in their area so the problem is statewide. 28
Commendation: Even though things are very tough for the schools, Big Valley is fortunate to have Dr. Rhodes as their leader. He works tirelessly to try and provide a quality education for his students. He is able to make hard decisions and backs up all his decisions with facts so that everyone can see why certain moves had to be made. The atmosphere at the school is positive with everyone doing what they can to provide a quality education for the students. The Grand Jury would like to commend Dr. Rhodes and his staff for their hard work in dealing with the problems they face.
Lassen Community College The Grand Jury asked Dr. Doug Houston to respond with a letter regarding the status of the accreditation of Lassen Community College. The following letter was submitted by Dr. Houston.
29
30
31