Thursday, October 4, 2018

[Lake County] A look at the Board of Supervisors’ responses to the 2017–2018 Civil Grand Jury Report

Board disagrees with 70 percent of findings in which it is implicated


LAKEPORT — Lake County department heads and the Lake County Board of Supervisors have approved their responses to items in the 2017—2018 Civil Grand Jury Report. Board members at their meeting on Tuesday expressed strong negative reactions to the report, which they said cast County of Lake employees in a bad light.
District 1 Supervisor Moke Simon echoed Congressman Mike Thompson’s September 20 letter to Lake County Superior Court Judge Andrew Blum, saying that the report had “missed the mark.” District 5 Supervisor Rob Brown said during the meeting that the grand jury’s report “should go in that shredder right there.”
Nevertheless, the responses have been filed. The Board of Supervisors had been granted an extension earlier this year from Judge Blum, pushing their legally-required response window out a month further. Prior to the board’s response being filed, many department heads had already responded to specific recommendations and findings in the grand jury report which had been addressed to them.
Of 21 findings and recommendations the grand jury notated as requiring a response from the Board of Supervisors, the board disagreed with or denied the requirement of its response to 15 (71 percent); the board agreed with five recommendations (24 percent), and was neutral toward one (5 percent).
Between the seven department heads’ answers responding to the report, 85 findings and recommendations made by the grand jury were addressed in total. Of those, the department heads aggregately disagreed with 51 (60 percent) of those, while they agreed with 22 (26 percent) and were neutral toward 12 (14 percent).
The Board of Supervisors denies the responsibility of responding to two sections of the report which the grand jury had directed, at least in part, toward the board.
Addressing a section of the report titled “Poor Student Attendance Costs Lake County Public Schools,” the Board of Supervisors claims that local public schools are “not within the purview of the Board” and states that the board consequently has no response to this section of the grand jury report. The board does, however, affirm its “commitment to improving the local economic base,” referring to a finding by the grand jury that Lake County should focus on improving its economic base.
Similarly, the Board of Supervisors notes that they have no legal responsibility to respond to the grand jury’s report section titled “Lake County Senior Centers” because senior centers are privately operated.
Responding to a recommendation in the report section “Where’s My Building Permit?” the Board of Supervisors disagrees that “Lake County should call on all of its available resources” during an emergency by activating “currently functioning MOUs,” or Memorandums of Understanding with city departments. Specifically, the grand jury report had found that the Community Development Department of Lake County had not been communicative with building and planning departments of the City Lakeport or Clearlake. The board argues that no such MOU exists, and that the Community Development Department’s needs were met without one.
Responding to a recommendation from the grand jury that an emergency fund be established for the Community Development Department in order to better prepare for natural disasters, the Board of Supervisors agrees with Community Development Director Michalyn DelValle that, in DelValle’s words, an “emergency fund would not provide any additional assistance” during an emergency.
While the board agrees with three recommendations from the jury regarding the management of juvenile wards of the county, it affirms that all three of the implied actions had been implemented already. The board does disagree that, according to the grand jury, “future contracts should include specific goals and responsibilities for health care, mental health care, and education for the Lake County wards.” The board argues that “amending contracts in response to dynamic individual needs is impractical.”
Regarding museums in Lake County, the board agrees with the grand jury that, according to the jury, “increased publicity of museum events should be funded and enacted.” The board says that such increased funding will be attempted.
A section of the grand jury report titled “Chaos After the Fires” argues, among other things, that citizens were misled by the county to believe post-Valley Fire cleanup performed by CalRecycle was free “when actually they would be responsible to reimburse the County.”
The grand jury recommends that the county’s contract with CalRecycle should be changed to specify its terms regarding payment and reimbursement. The Board of Supervisors in its neutral response agrees with County Administrative Officer Carol Huchingson that “the process should be defined, but the County sought an Agreement, and our efforts went without a response.”
In a section of the grand jury report titled “Go Jump in the Lake,” the grand jury argues that evacuation routes during an emergency are not well-defined by the county, that the county’s education of residents regarding emergency preparedness is “inadequate,” that too much emergency planning responsibility lands on the Lake County Sheriff’s Office, and that the County of Lake has not coordinated enough with local city governments or other organizations to develop its Emergency Operations Plan. The jury argues that “the EOP lacks specificity in regards to emergency warnings, evacuations, education, and training.”
In response, the Board of Supervisors argues that emergency planning responsibility is shared “by multiple entities and organizations” and that evacuation routes cannot be better defined than they are now. The board, in agreement with the grand jury that emergency siren systems should be strengthened, writes that “budgetary constraints preclude development of a county-wide siren system at this time.”
In another section of the grand jury’s report, which was written in response to a series of “Community Visioning Forums” held by the County of Lake—which the grand jury saw as an attempt to justify an increased countywide sales tax—the grand jury recommends that the county position itself to better utilize the help of volunteers and non-governmental organizations in order to address the goals laid out in the forums.
Answering a specific recommendation by the grand jury that the board create a position tasked with seeking out areas of need in the county and, through active outreach, finding willing volunteers to fulfill those needs, the Board of Supervisors replies that such a “connection point” is not within the board’s purview, but that Human Resources does accept volunteer requests.
October 3, 2018
Lake County Record-Bee
By Aidan Freeman


No comments: