By Rick Longley/Willows Journal -
Conflict of interest claims by the Glenn County grand jury were refuted by the county counsel and the Human Resources director in the Board of Supervisors' official response.
County Counsel Huston Carlyle stated in a letter to Superior Court Judge Donald Byrd he disagreed with a conflict of interest finding by the grand jury regarding his roles as county counsel and interim personnel director.
"First, let me state that I was not interviewed," Carlyle wrote. "I find this to be somewhat troubling since the grand jury concluded, incorrectly, that a conflict of interest exists simply because one person is doing two jobs. ... I would hope in the future that if the Grand Jury intends to take someone to task, the targeted person is afforded the courtesy and due process of at least being interviewed."
Carlye said at most the grand jury should have concluded their was potential for a conflct in which he might have to recuse himself from representing the county, and possibly leading to the hiring of outside counsel at additional cost to the county.
"There is no conflict simply by holding the two offices,'' he wrote.
Carlyle aso noted Glenn County has saved about $175,000 by not having a separate personnel director.
He added, it is up to the Board of Supervisors to determine budget and policy.
Carlyle said it is not practical or necessary to try and describe in writing all of the situations that might lead to his recusal.
However, he said he uses guidelines provided by the State Bar of California to assist in this area, and they are used regularly.
Glenn County Human Resource Agency Director Scott Gruendl also wrote a response to Judge Peter Twede concerning an investigation of a conflict of interest within his department.
"There has been some misinterpretation of this report by the media and the public that the finding that a conflict of interest occurred was viewed negatively," Gruendl wrote.
He added, "It is my perspective that the Grand Jury agreed with the Human Resource Agency that a conflict occurred and that policy concerning the matter was followed."
What the grand jury specifically found was there was no follow-up with staff on how the policies were followed.
The jury's investigation stemmed from the hiring of two employees by the agency last year in which familial and friendships to executives were present.
Gruendl said one case involved the daughter of a Community Action Agency Division department head who was hired for the section where the parent worked.
However, the parent was not involved in the young woman's hiring or supervision, he said, even though he or she would normally supervise that position if the child was were not employed there.
He reiterated the HRA followed its conflict of interest code in this case, but there were rumors that some employees were concerned.
Nonetheless, the agency never received a formal complaint, and jury members never made it clear during their interview that a specific case was being investigated, he said.
Questions were general and no juror requested employee specific information or documentation, Gruendl said.
Where familial relationships occur, the lower level employee is supervised by a nonrelated employee if he or she is not separated by unit or division, Gruendl said.
"Under no circumstances would a related employee hire or promote, discipline, or evaluate when a familial relationship exists."
He also maintained that he continues to apply agency policy to instances where a conflict of interest exists, and that the policy be modified to include methods by which staff can be informed of such policies as well as methods by which an employee can submit a complaint concerning such a matter.
Gruendl asked for county employees to use all lower level complaint procedures and to have used the employee bargaining grievance process before taking a matter to the grand jury.
No comments:
Post a Comment