Sutter County is denying
conclusions of a grand jury investigation claiming to have uncovered evidence
of abuses of power, management by intimidation and favoritism at a county
department.
In a draft response to the
grand jury's findings, the Board of Supervisors said it found no evidence to
support the more critical findings of the report.
The response, which the Board
will vote to approve this evening, was submitted by County Administrator Jim
Arkens.
The final report on the
investigation into the Welfare and Social Services Division painted a picture
of a workplace where management practices have deteriorated employee morale to
the point of potentially impacting services to the public.
"Favoritism and
preferential treatment of employees have adversely affected employee morale of
the (division)," the report stated. "These practices by management
staff involved work schedules, promotion, assignments and discipline. Evidence
has shown promotional practices within the division are not solely based on
merit."
"Division managers give
special assignments and promotions to those who seemingly curry personal
favor," the report continued. "In addition, evidence has also shown
disciplinary actions are not applied fairly and consistently to all
employees."
But Arkens said the county did
not discover any such evidence.
"At this point, we've
found absolutely nothing," Arkens said. "I asked the grand jury to
send people to me or give me cases or names, but they had nothing, and I've
received nothing."
During the 2014-15 fiscal year,
the county received three complaints from three employees in the department.
The complaints were independently investigated by Vida Thomas, a lawyer at
Weintraub Tobin, a Sacramento-based law firm.
None of the allegations were
sustained by evidence, according to the Board's response.
Arkens also noted the grand
jury's foreperson, Rebecca Askins, is an employee of the Welfare and Social
Services Division. At the time of Askins' appointment, the Sutter County
Taxpayers Association and Arkens expressed concern that a county employee
serving on a grand jury represented a conflict of interest.
September 28, 2015
The
Appeal-Democrat
By Andrew
Creasey
2 comments:
Post a Comment