Sunday, September 14, 2014

(Trinity County) Grand Jury reports on Probation Dept.


September 13, 2014
The Trinity Journal
By Sally Morris

The 2013/14 Trinity County grand jury had both praise and criticism for certain operations within the county’s probation department following an investigation conducted last spring in response to a complaint citing multiple concerns.
The grand jury gave a perfect grade in all areas to the juvenile detention facility operated by the probation department but currently closed due to lack of funding and declining inmate census. The grand jury called its report on the excellence of the facility unprecedented and ranked the juvenile hall with the best facilities in California which it said is remarkable in that other facilities around Northern California are having difficulty remaining open. However, it concluded that the value of maintaining a juvenile hall is controversial in light of the small local population.
The grand jury found that other concerns noted in the complaint about the probation department had merit and warrant further analysis or correction.
The report concluded that employee timekeeping based on the honor system is open to severe abuse; that probation department employees are not familiar with the county’s grievance procedures; and that who the chief probation officer reports to for administrative and budgetary reasons “is unclear, unaccountable and uncoordinated.”
It found that when disciplinary actions are taken against staff, there is no clearly defined recovery path; that the value of providing the chief probation officer a county vehicle for transportation to and from home in Redding needs analysis and justification; and that no vehicle logs are kept.
Chief Probation Officer Hal Ridlehuber responded to the grand jury report by agreeing with some of its findings, disagreeing with others and noting actions already taken to address some of the concerns.
He agreed about the quality of the juvenile detention facility and that maintaining it is a controversial issue. He noted that a cost/benefit analysis regarding the future of the facility was completed and presented to the Board of Supervisors at a special meeting in July and he believes the analysis makes a compelling case for continuing to operate the juvenile hall over outsourcing the services to another county. Future funding is expected to be a topic during this week’s county budget hearings.
Regarding employee timekeeping, Ridlehuber said the department fully complies with current countywide procedures established by the auditor’s office and that with daily oversight by management he believes appropriate checks and balances are in place to account for employees’ time under the current payroll system. However, he said the department would implement any new or more efficient procedures if adopted by the Board of Supervisors.
Ridlehuber disagreed that employees are unfamiliar with the county’s grievance procedures, saying all are provided with the employee information handbook and required to attend an orientation when they first begin employment and annually thereafter. At each session, they must sign a document acknowledging receipt and understanding of the policies.
He partially agreed that who the chief probation officer reports to is unclear, but noted that a new court/county memorandum of understanding has helped to clarify the different roles of county administrative officer and Superior Court judge.
He said he will continue to work with both on what type of written and oral reports need to be presented and when, but some of the reports recommended by the grand jury would be very time consuming to prepare on a monthly basis.
Ridlehuber agreed that a more clearly defined path to recovery from employee disciplinary action is necessary and said a plan will be implemented to ensure that disciplined employees understand their recovery path back to previous employment privileges and grade.
He also agreed that the value of providing the chief probation officer a county vehicle for transportation to and from home in Redding needs analysis and justification and that no vehicle logs are kept.
He noted that he is required to travel regularly to various locations both within the state and the county and as a peace officer he is also expected to respond to emergency situations in a county vehicle equipped for such response. County ordinance assigns him a county vehicle and department heads are required to use county vehicles for all business travel when available.
“I believe I am in full compliance with all county regulations regarding vehicle use, but I am always willing to follow any changes to policy as they occur,” Ridlehuber said.
He added that the grand jury members were “a pleasure to work with” and that although he doesn’t concur will all findings, “I believe they do an excellent job evaluating our various programs and staff at our juvenile hall and probation department.”

No comments: