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:
Post a Comment