By Dylan Darling, Ryan Sabalow
Monday, June 27, 2011
This year's Shasta County Grand Jury found that guards at the Shasta County jail were putting inmates out in the cold, questioned whether the Anderson Police Department had enough training to properly screen recruits and alleged that a problem-prone community service district had showed favoritism in hiring a manager.
Other reports examined the use of state prison inmates who have been convicted of violent crimes as firefighters and financial problems at the Burney Water District.
Here are the report's key findings from the jury's latest report, released Monday.
Chilly inmates
The grand jury received a complaint from an inmate who said that in December 2010 and January this year guards at the Shasta County jail forced inmates to stand outside in near freezing temperatures in short-sleeved shirts for almost two hours while their cells were searched.
The jurors recommended the prisoners be moved to other areas of the jail during pod searches or, if required to stand outside, inmates need proper clothing or some other way to keep warm.
The jurors reviewed daily temperature records and found that on two days inmates indeed had been forced to stand out in 37 and 36 degrees temperatures.
In the first search, around 21 inmates were required to stand outside in the jail's rec yard from 10:30 p.m. to 12:40 a.m., said Shasta County sheriff's Capt. Don Van Buskirk, the jails' commander. During the other search, a group of inmates was told to stand outside the booking area from 3:41 to 5 p.m., he said.
"Inmates are not provided with adequate protection from the cold during the inmate housing unit searches that occur in winter," the jurors found.
Van Buskirk said his office doesn't rebut the facts of the report, but he doesn't believe the inmates were mistreated.
"It was cool, but not unreasonably cold," he said.
He noted that none of the inmates had filed a complaint with his guards or reported a claim for damages, a precursor to a lawsuit.
However, San Francisco prisoners rights attorney Charles Carbone said the inmates would have a case should they choose to sue.
He notes that courts have ruled inmates at Pelican Bay State Prison in Crescent City had their Eighth Amendment rights violated when they were required to sit outside in cages in cold weather.
The Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution forbids cruel and unusual punishment of prisoners.
Anderson Police Background checks questioned
The grand jury in its routine discussion with local law enforcement agencies found that the Anderson Police Department doesn't have a Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) certified background investigator, a finding a police department spokesman denied Monday.
POST is a state commission established in 1959 to set hiring and training standards for local law enforcement agencies.
The findings come after former Officer Bryan Benson, 26, was accused last year of raping a woman he was taking to jail. His trial is pending, and he's pleaded not guilty to the charges.
On Monday, a judge threw out a motion by Benson's attorney to drop the charges against him. His partner, Matthew Goodwin, who wasn't charged, also was fired from the department after an internal investigation.
The jurors, who made no mention of Benson and Goodwin in their report, recommended the department follow the lead of every other law enforcement agency in the north state and use the state's inexpensive services to train someone to check recruits' backgrounds.
His department already does that, Anderson Capt. Robert Kirvin said Monday.
He said Anderson police Sgt. Steve Blunk is POST certified and performed the background check on Benson. However, Kirvin said he performed the background check on Goodwin.
Kirvin said he isn't a POST certified background check investigator, but he and all others in his department follow all POST standards.
Acting Police Chief Shawn Watts will draft a rebuttal in response to the jury's findings, Kirvin said.
Yet Dugan Barr, the Redding attorney representing the Millville woman who accused Benson of raping her, said the jury's findings "would certainly help to explain what happened" to his client.
Last week, Barr sued the department in federal court seeking $10 million in damages.
"It seems to me there are some obvious training and procedure issues in that department," Barr said.
Mountain Gate board showed favoritism in GM hire
The Mountain Gate Community Services District board appeared to show favoritism when it lowered its employment standards and hired the former board chairman last December to be its general manager, the grand jury concluded.
On Dec. 9, 2010 the board hired Jeff Cole, who had served on the board for nearly 10 months in 2009. In hiring Cole for the $5,250-per month general manager post the board went against the advice of general managers from three other north state water districts, according to the grand jury.
"The current Mountain Gate general manager was rated eighth in the list of (eight) applicants by those managers," the grand jury wrote.
The grand jury recommended that the board create a policies manual outlining proper use of the district's credit card and setting a limit on lodging reimbursement rates. It also recommended board members be trained on the Brown Act and government ethics every two years.
Cole said Monday the district changed the general manager's job description to bring the district in line with general manager guidelines crafted by the Association of California Water Agencies Joint Powers Insurance Authority, which provides insurance coverage for water districts.
"I don't think that was changing the job description for favoritism," he said.
At least one of the board members disagrees.
Joan Anderson, who the Shasta County Board of Supervisors appointed to the district board in January 2010, said Monday it appears the board did show favoritism when it made the changes. She said the board made the changes before she became a member.
The board's other members — Greg Peterson, Cary Park, David Shelby and Chairman Gary Gunter — did not return phone calls left Monday.
The grand jury also investigated possible violations of state public meeting laws and possible misuse of the district's credit card. It recommended that all five board members complete a public meeting law training every two years and create a manual that details who may use the district's credit card and for what purpose.
Inmates with violent histories manning fire lines
The grand jury made no recommendations but found there are indeed inmates with violent criminal pasts being placed at a local fire camp.
The jury's findings come after a monthslong Record Searchlight investigation that found at any given time at least one in five of the 4,000-plus inmates at the state's camps have violent criminal histories.
The newspaper's finding directly contradicted claims by state prison officials who repeatedly denied that violent inmates are placed at the camps and that only "carefully-screened," nonviolent, low-risk inmates are allowed inside the state's 41 minimum-security conservation camps, including a handful in the north state.
The grand jury found that there are some inmates at Sugar Pine Conservation Camp in Bella Vista "that have been convicted of violent crimes."
"However, they have become eligible for assignment to Sugar Pine by having their classification reduced to a 'minimum-security' level," the jurors wrote. "This is accomplished by time served, good behavior and further recommendations from the Department of Corrections."
After the Record Searchlight story ran in April, state Sen. Doug LaMalfa announced he would hold bipartisan hearings on the matter.
His spokesman said Monday his office is trying to set up a mid-July hearing, but a firm date hasn't been set.
No laws broken, but financial problems at Burney pool
The grand jury found that while the Burney Water District needed to get its funding in order when it comes to the local pool, it didn't break any laws.
The grand jury received a complaint from someone who alleged the district was using water and sewer services paid by district rate payers to balance the community swimming pool fund.
The complaint alleged the move violated Proposition 218, a 1996 law that required voter approval for any changes in assessments and property-related fees.
The jury found no evidence that a proposed increase from $1 to $5 in fees at the pool had been implemented without voter approval (since the board didn't officially move ahead with an oversight committee's recommendation). However, the jurors found several other problems with the district's budgeting, which led to net operating loss for at least three years.
The jurors said the district needs to eliminate its operating losses and be able to handle unanticipated future expenses, and should "carefully monitor operations to bring the district into a break-even position."
Other findings
The jurors also looked into a number of other items. Their findings included: The Redding City Council didn't overstep its authority in putting two controversial measures on the ballot; Redding planners should do more to ensure that wastewater from properties didn't run off onto neighbors' lands; the Shasta County Coroner's Office needs new gurneys; there were no problems with the county's auditor, juvenile hall, DUI checkpoints, or the county's law enforcement firearms shooting simulator.
http://www.redding.com/news/2011/jun/27/grand-jury-cuts-wide-swath/
No comments:
Post a Comment