Santa Barbara County supervisors are scheduled to consider a series of proposed responses to a grand jury report critical of mandatory overtime policies in the Sheriff’s Office when they meet Tuesday in Santa Maria.
The meeting is set to begin at 9 a.m. in the Board Hearing Room of the Joseph Centeno Betteravia Government Administration Building at 511 E. Lakeside Parkway.
A grand jury report released May 9 criticized the mandatory overtime policy for custody deputies that it said has become an integral part of budgeting and personnel management procedures for the Sheriff’s Office.
The report said the grand jury could not determine the impact of the policy in human terms, but it noted the Sheriff’s Office acknowledged it as a significant cause of dissatisfaction among staff.
Grand jurors listed five findings and made 10 recommendations to address those findings.
Sheriff’s Office officials had until July 8 to provide the presiding judge of the Santa Barbara County Superior Court with a response to all five findings and six of the recommendations.
County supervisors were given until Aug. 8 to respond to three of the findings and four of the recommendations, and on Tuesday the board will consider responses proposed by county staff.
Findings, recommendations, responses
In its Finding 2, the grand jury said recruiting is a low priority for the Sheriff’s Office, and the proposed response is that the board partially disagrees with that finding.
“The Sheriff and the County Human Resources Departments have worked together to ensure recruitment is a high priority and recruitments are conducted as fast and efficiently as possible to identify qualified candidates,” the proposed response says.
Recommendation 2b of the grand jury report said supervisors should direct staff to have a market survey conducted to compare the Sheriff’s Office recruiting and personnel policies and incentives to those of police forces in the county and other county sheriff’s departments.
The proposed response is that the recommendation has been implemented with a salary survey the human resources department completed in May that not only reviewed county pay but also incentives and recruiting practices compared to other jurisdictions.
Finding 3 was that the Sheriff’s Office hasn’t considered all potential measures to reduce short-term mandatory overtime requirements.
Supervisors partially disagree with that finding in the proposed board response.
“As part of the sheriff’s (fiscal year) 2018-19 budget development, additional measures to address the overtime issue have been developed and communicated to the Board of Supervisors at the April 2018 budget workshop,” the response says.
In its Recommendation 3d, the grand jury said the supervisors should “direct staff to conduct a comprehensive staffing study of the Sheriff’s Office to provide a clear understanding of staffing requirements, shortfalls and costs.”
The board’s response says the recommendation will be implemented as part of the yearly budget development process and department-level operational reviews conducted throughout the year.
Issues outlined in the recommendation will “continue to be studied and discussed” by the sheriff’s and the County Executive Office staffs.
In Finding 4, the grand jury said the Transportation Unit of the Jail Operations Division is particularly understaffed, “creating acute mandatory overtime requirements," and the proposed response is that the Board of Supervisors agrees.
Supervisors were asked to respond to two recommendations for the finding.
Recommendation 4a said the board should direct an assessment of the timeline, costs and impact on custody staffing of implementing video arraignments at the Main Jail and the Northern Branch Jail when it opens.
Supervisors’ response is that the recommendation has been implemented.
“The county has started the assessment of the requirements for video arraignment as it relates to needed equipment, staffing and related costs at the Main Jail and the Northern Branch Jail,” the proposed response says.
Recommendation 4b said that based on the assessment results, the board should try to obtain an agreement to implement the video arraignment system as soon as possible.
Supervisors’ response is the recommendation will be implemented if the completed assessment shows a video arraignment program can be implemented “at a reasonable cost.”
Other issues
Although the board chairman can change the order, the responses to the grand jury are scheduled as the third item on the board’s departmental agenda following the administrative items, which are usually approved together in a single vote unless a supervisor or member of the public asks to have one pulled for discussion.
Items scheduled prior to the grand jury report on the departmental agenda include a hearing to consider the 2018-19 special tax levy for Community Facilities District No. 2002-1, the Orcutt Community Plan, and No. 2004-1, the Providence Landing area near Lompoc.
Items scheduled after the grand jury report include a hearing on the first reading of a proposed amendment to the Fee Ordinance that would require applicants for cannabis cultivation, distribution, manufacturing, testing and retail projects to bear the full cost of staff time spent dealing with appeals filed against their projects.
If approved as proposed, the amendment would have to return at the board’s July 17 meeting in Santa Barbara for final approval, likely on the administrative agenda.
Supervisors are also scheduled to hear a presentation on juvenile justice data.
July 8, 2018
Santa Maria Times
By Mike Hodgson
No comments:
Post a Comment