Saturday, August 24, 2013

The Mountain Messenger
Downieville, Sierra County, California     July 18, 2013

(Sierra County) Grand Jury Report Published


DOWNIEVILLE – The 2012-2013 grand jury report is finished, out and available.  Masochists, political junkies and scholars may find copies from the Clerk-Recorder’s Office as the courthouse or online by rummaging through www.sierracounty.ws.
This year’s panel reports on four areas of local governance; law enforcement facilities, the building department, employees’ conceders over whistleblowing, and the school district.  The report is somewhat unusual in its temperance.  Often grand juries second-guess elected officials and proclaim what County priorities should be.  While there are whiffs of this usual problem in this year’s report, the panel generally avoided that tendency.

Governors will nonetheless complain that while the grand jury has pointed out some problems, neglect, and failings, as ever the panel doesn’t offer funding for fixes.
“There’s always money.  It’s a matter of priorities.”  Auditor Don Hemphill was wont to say.  Therein lies the rub:  grand juries inevitably propose to change the priorities set by those actually elected to govern.

The grand jury concluded the leak in the courthouse roof needs fixing, that much of the security infrastructure didn’t get fixed with grand money, that prisoners don’t have a good enough exercise area, that the supes must consider closing the jail, that terrorists could wreak havoc and that the supes must do something about that, too.
Nope.

The county may, as the grand jury recommends, establish a standing committee to worry about such things.  On the other hand the supes might continue to assign those chores elsewhere.  The grand jury cannot command the supes to do anything, including share its assessment of likely terrorists attacks, or create and pay task force to re-examine the benefits of closing the jail.
The grand jury also believes the building department is fostering a disrespect for the law by ignoring most building code violations.

We had believed the State and the feds had the responsibility of fostering such disrespect.  But the grand jury is right: those who obey building laws pay dearly, while others skate.
“As to the problem the County has two options:  1) uniformly enforce the building codes, or 2) abandon the pretense of having a building code for structures in ‘Sierra County.”  The grand jury wrote.  We can find no way to quarrel with this analysis.

Complaining employees will always have a problem in such a small workforce.  ‘By the nature of a complaint, the complainer can often be identified.  Further, department heads, work so closely that complainers and whistle- blowers have a hard time believing their anonymity will be preserved by the personnel office.
We are somewhat sympathetic, while having little regard for anonymous narks.  We do not pay attention to unsigned letters, and are uneasy with anonymous complaints.  At the same time, we protect our sources.

Tough one.  The grand jury has discovered Nevada County would be willing to help us out with this.  We hope that avenue will be explored.
Finally, the grand jury responded to questions regarding the school district by attending meetings and interviewing staff.  We believe this chore will excuse each and every grand jury member from purgatory, if not harsher afterlife conditions.

The grand jury concluded the school district is clean; it does abide by the Brown Act, the State’s open meeting law.
The grand jury also notes the school district’s website makes digging out background information exceedingly difficult.

The grand jury points out the obvious problems of educating our youth: a steadily declining number of kids spread over 1,000 square miles, underpaid teachers, the lack of an economy of scale and, finally, a relatively uncaring populace.
If, the grand jury explains, the people of Sierra County want the level of excellence long provided by an under paid and under-appreciated staff, they’ll simply have to get involved and pay for it.

Amen.
Don Russell, Editor

 

No comments: