Trinity County supervisors disagreed last week over whether they agree with findings in the 2017/18 Trinity County grand jury report evaluating other county responses and resulting actions taken over the past three years of grand jury investigations and recommendations.
The 2017/18 Continuity Report was the single report issued by the grand jury this year that was reduced from what was formerly 19 members down to 11 and ultimately only 10 who consistently participated. Board responses were required on two of the grand jury’s findings: that the county policy for responding to grand jury reports does not match relevant penal codes; and that not all department heads and elected officials understand the role of the grand jury and how it fulfills its duties.
The board’s 4-1 response disagreed wholly with both findings. However, it agreed to implement grand jury recommendations for next year by updating wording in the county policy to clarify that its intent is the same as what’s written in the penal code; and agreed that the County Administrative Officer or County Counsel should meet with newly elected or appointed officials and department heads to help them understand the role of the grand jury.
Sup. Bobbi Chadwick cast the “no” vote, arguing it isn’t possible to disagree with the findings, but agree to implement the recommendations.
“I agree with the grand jury. Our policy is old and should be updated, and I think training for newly elected officials would be very beneficial,” she said, adding she believes board responses “need to have a better understanding and embrace the grand jury to implement their recommendations. They’re not against us. They are for us and we need to stop seeing them as an adversary.”
Sup. John Fenley argued “it is up to each supervisor to train ourselves. I agree we do need to know what the grand jury is, but it is my responsibility to train myself and figure it out. I feel that for every supervisor here.”
“I would throw in that the grand jury also needs to train and know what the grand jury role is. I would have no problem with that at all. Do we need to write that into our response here?” said Sup. Keith Groves.
Sup. Terry Mines said that in drafting the board’s response, he questioned several department heads who indicated they do understand the grand jury’s role, and that grand jurors do receive training, “but I also thought regarding training for officials, how could that hurt?”
Chadwick agreed training “is a benefit to all officials. It doesn’t do any harm for people to review, especially now that the grand jury feels it is being ignored. The more training there is, the stronger we’ll be.”
September 26, 2018
The Trinity Journal
By Sally Morris
No comments:
Post a Comment