Plumas County Grand Jury Final Report

Plumas County Civil Grand Jury
Quincy, California

June 18, 2010

For Immediate Release

Fire - the Greatest Threat in Plumas County
Are We The Next Angora Wildfire Victims?

Today the Plumas County Civil Grand Jury published its 2010 Final Report. Detailed in it are the panel’s Findings, Recommendations, and Background Information focused on its Wildland & Structural Fire investigation:

* One-fifth of Plumas County’s parcels (many with homes, businesses, or multiple dwelling units) have been approved for development with no fire protection.
* There are no State (CAL FIRE) fire fighting units in Plumas County. This situation has left the County at risk for catastrophic fires.
* CAL FIRE has a land swap agreement with the US Forest Service in Plumas County for fire protection. The US Forest Service does not fight structure fires.
* Plumas County could be next to suffer major devastation from another Angora Wildfire that destroyed an entire community in South Lake Tahoe.
* The Plumas County Board of Supervisors has done little to protect the public from fire risk, including not acting on the advice of its own Emergency Services Advisory Committee.
* By not taking action, the Plumas County Board of Supervisors has failed to organize financial support for volunteer fire departments, the only protection against structural fires in the County.

The Plumas County Grand Jury has concerns that this situation exists in other California counties where CAL FIRE similarly has no physical presence. The Grand Jury recommends that citizens of these counties ensure they have fire fighting protection for their homes and property by contacting their local fire departments.

See the “Fire” section, page 31, in the 2009-10 Final Report found at the following web site:

Willits PD working under leaking roof, Mendocino County GJ finds

Ukiah Daily Journal Staff
Updated: 06/23/2010 12:00:28 AM PDT

Panel recommends a complete re-engineering' of building

The Daily Journal

Staff at the Willits Police Department work next to buckets of water and electronic equipment covered with plastic sheets as repairs to a leaky roof remain unsuccessful, the Mendocino County grand jury reported Monday.

In a report titled "Working in the rain, a public facility at risk," the GJ states that it visited the WPD, located on the first floor of the Willits Justice Center, which it rents from the county, on Feb. 2.

During the visit, GJ members noticed "several buckets half full of water, electronic equipment covered with plastic sheeting," and stucco siding on the outside of the building that was "buckling and delaminating."

According to the GJ, the roof of the building has leaked since it was first occupied in 1988, and repeated attempts to repair it by Mendocino County General Services (MCGS) have been unsuccessful.

"The roof still leaks, and rainwater continues to intrude into the structure of the building," the report states, explaining that the water buckets, potential for mold and dry rot and deteriorating stucco created a safety hazard for workers. In addition, the plastic sheeting hampered work productivity.

"The GJ is concerned with health and safety issues when employees work in an unsafe environment," the report states. "The Willits Justice Center is in need of a considerable amount of repair, (and) a complete re-engineering is needed."

The GJ recommends that, "in accordance with the lease agreement, the MCGS make all necessary repairs to the building ... and consult with an outside engineer to inspect for structural damage."

In a finding unrelated to the condition of the building, the GJ also noted that the recent closure of the Willits branch of the county Superior Court has had a negative impact on the WPD.

"WPD officers who must appear in court now travel to Ukiah or Fort Bragg, (often) creating overtime cost," and, since multiple officers can be called to testify for the same case, the WPD is left under-staffed at these occasions," the report states. "Officers' time was better-utilized when subpoenaed to the Willits Superior Court."

http://www.ukiahdailyjournal.com/ci_15356403

In Our Opinion: Travel stipends should stop

Ukiah Daily Journal Staff
Updated: 06/21/2010 09:53:59 AM PDT

We agree with the Mendocino County Grand Jury that the District Attorney should have taken action to force County Supervisor Kendall Smith to repay the county the money she owed after a close look at her travel expenses showed she had charged the taxpayers for about $3,000 in expenses that were not eligible.

Smith has consistently refused to pay the money back and the DA should use her power to make her write that check.

But Smith's greed has been decried on this page before.

Today we want to take up the grand jury's call for the county supervisors to revert back to a mileage and expenses reporting system for all travel and expenses.

Giving themselves nice monthly checks for "expenses" regardless of where they travel or how often is an insult to the taxpayers and ludicrous in a time of budget constraints.

Furthermore, it gets the supervisors out of having to report to the public where they travel and who they meet with when they do.

We think it's imperative that the supervisors go back to submitting mileage forms and receipts for stays at hotels, or meals that they believe the taxpayers should pay for.

After all, a lot of what supervisors do each day is aimed at getting reelected. Campaign costs can easily be masked in a monthly travel stipend that might be clear if the receipts were scrutinized.

And, we've said it before, but we hotly disagree with the notion that supervisors should get paid to travel to and from work in Ukiah. That goes against any normal mode of business expense reimbursement we know of and getting to work from your district comes with the territory as an elected official. It's not enough that each supervisor makes three times the median wage of people in this county. They have to be paid to drive to work too?

http://www.ukiahdailyjournal.com/ci_15343375

Napa County Grand jury faults jail care for mentally ill

A Napa County grand jury report found that the Napa County Department of Corrections is not equipped to aid a growing population of mentally ill inmates.

“NCDC staff reported the number of mentally ill individuals is increasing and that mental health services are insufficient to handle those individuals,” the report says.

Several jail staff members told grand jurors the jail is not equipped to provide housing, psychiatric treatment and medication for those who need it, the report said.

In 2009, two inmates committed suicide and three others attempted suicide. One inmate, having what appeared to be a psychotic breakdown, assaulted a corrections officer, the grand jury said.

Inmates at the jail include patients from Napa State Hospital who are awaiting trial for alleged violent offenses committed at Napa State, the report notes.

Jail staff can not always separate mentally ill inmates from the general population, the report said. Staff can provide only three hours of counseling services per week via closed circuit television.

Staff members can’t require that mental health patients take medications. When those patients refuse, it increases the risk they might injure themselves, other inmates or staff, the report says.

NCDC Director Lenard Vare agreed with many grand jury findings, saying the jail’s mission is much different than that of Napa State Hospital, where the inmates often come from.

“It is an enormous burden on my corrections officers because they’re higher risk,” he said. “The officers are at higher risk from assaults and other violent behavior from the mental health inmates.”

“It’s a traumatic event for any normal person coming to jail, but for a mentally ill person there are issues they have to deal with,” Vare said.

Managing mentally ill inmates is more expensive and requires more resources for the jail, he said. They often stay at the jail for months as their cases go through the court system, he said.

“I don’t believe the jail is necessarily the best place to house a person with serious mental health issues,” Vare said.

The grand jury also criticized assumptions the county made regarding evidence-based practices and how they will affect recidivism, or repeat offending. Evidence-based practices are those that have been shown to reduce recidivism.

These assumptions could lead to problems as the county rolls out its Adult Correctional System Master Plan, a blueprint for the jail and other adult correctional needs in the next 20 years, the grand jury said.

The plan projects what the future needs will be based on inmate populations. The county used general system trends from 1996 through 2006 to determine that the population of the jail could be between 424 and 472 by 2025.

However, if certain evidence-based practices are added within the justice system, the total jail population would only be 324 in 2025, the county says.

The grand jury pointed out that the definition of recidivism varies. Jurors were wary of counting on evidence-based practices to lower jail populations so dramatically. The county does not track recidivism, the report said.

“Without a tracking system in place, how is it possible to evaluate the effectiveness of existing rehabilitation/treatment programs?” the report asks.

The master plan says evidence-based practices can reduce recidivism up to

30 percent, but the jury wasn’t finding the supporting research. "Assumptions should be based on something stronger than ‘coulda,’ woulda’ or ‘shoulda,’” the report says.

The worst-case scenario is that the county builds a new jail, then realizes that its inmate projections were incorrect, the report says.

Vare said that recidivism is a county-wide issue, not just for the jail. The criminal justice committee has a definition and is talking about how agencies are going to track it, he said.

The jail does keep records of every inmate that has been in its custody going back for some time, he said.

The county still needs more time to see how its Community Corrections Service Center, a program for certain offenders on probation or in custody that opened in March 2009, is affecting repeat offenders, Vare said.

The county has until Aug. 19 to respond to the grand jury, said Molly Rattigan, a management analyst in the county’s executive office. “That gives us time to really look at the recommendations and the findings that they gave,” she said.

Until then, she and Chief Probation Officer Mary Butler declined to comment on the report.

Jury foreman John Morris said he is prohibited by law from commenting further on the report.

He did say the jury tried to be reasonable in its recommendations and commend things the county is doing well. “We’re not just here to tear things down,” he said.

http://napavalleyregister.com/news/local/article_6b1dff52-7b73-11df-a367-001cc4c002e0.html

Grand jury sees need to consolidate Marin's government entities

Richard Halstead
Posted: 06/18/2010 09:00:31 PM PDT

The Marin County Civil Grand Jury added its voice to those calling for consolidation of Marin's 130 local governmental entities.

In a report issued Friday, the grand jury noted that many sanitary, fire and other districts provide similar services. For example, 16 districts or municipalities provide fire service and 23 districts or municipalities provide sanitary service.

"With shrinking dollars and a faltering economy, it is definitely time to look at exactly how much it really costs to govern the county," the grand jury said.

The cost of local governance totals more than $1.4 billion a year, amounting to $5,422 per resident, according to the grand jury.

Unlike typical grand jury reports, which contain a list of findings and recommendations, the governance report merely attempted to document the number of government entities, their cost and duplication of services.

"What we were trying to do was look at the big picture, to help citizens get an idea of the total expenditures," said Judy Chapman, the jury's forewoman. "Because consolidation has been talked about for ages, we were trying to think of a way of approaching it that would be different."

The report noted that in addition to county government there are 57 advisory boards, 11 municipalities, 19 school districts, a community college district, 33 special districts and seven special purpose districts.

According to the grand jury, district budgets account for about 30 percent of the $1.4 billion cost of governance, while county government accounts for about 30 percent and the municipalities account for about 19 percent.

The governing boards representing the county's 130 governmental entities are composed of 664 members, most of whom receive compensation for their service, the report stated. Compensation includes salaries and/or payment for attending meetings plus reimbursement for expenses such as travel and parking. Some members receive life insurance and health benefits.

The grand jury said it found no evidence that individual compensation of board members was excessive. It did, however, document substantial differences in compensation between districts. For example, the annual cost for Novato Sanitary District's five board members is $72,862 while the cost for the San Rafael Sanitary District's five board members is $3,400. The annual budget of the San Rafael Sanitary District is $4 million larger than Novato's $9 million annual budget.

June Brown, an administrative services manager with the Novato Sanitary District, said board members there receive $225 per meeting and are eligible for health and dental benefits, even though not all board members take advantage of the perk.

Novato Sanitary District manager Beverly James said the comparison with San Rafael may be misleading.

"It's not clear from the report that everybody was reporting the same expenses," James said. "San Rafael is part of the Central Marin Sanitation Agency so some of their board expenses are covered under Central Marin."

In addition, the $72,862 expenditure was for 2007-08. "At that time we did have some extra committee and board meetings because we were embarking on the construction of a new treatment plant," James said.

Often in the past talk of consolidation has amounted to just that - talk.

In 2007, a proposal to merge fire departments in the Ross Valley was dropped after a consultant's study concluded the move could cost an additional $2 million a year.

A study that same year found that San Anselmo and Fairfax could save a total of $430,000 annually by combining their police departments. But the two towns haven't even been able to agree to share dispatch services. Negotiations broke down in 2009 over where those services would be located.

Late last year, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed AB 1232 authored by Assemblyman Jared Huffman, D-San Rafael, which gave the Marin Local Agency Formation Commission the power to merge the six districts of the Sewerage Agency of Southern Marin regardless of any local vote on such action.

Marin County Supervisor Charles McGlashan, who serves on the commission board, said Peter Banning, the commission's executive officer, has been meeting with SASM members and discussing ways the districts could share resources to boost operational efficiency.

But McGlashan said "political" consolidation still appears elusive. He said one sticking point is pensions and health benefits for district employees.

Pat Guasco, who was re-elected to the Ross Valley Sanitary District board in November, said, "I'm not so sure it would be of any benefit to the Ross Valley Sanitary District to get thrown into a pile of other agencies that are having real financial and budget issues. I want to make sure we protect our Ross Valley ratepayers."

Contact Richard Halstead via e-mail at rhalstead@marinij.com

http://www.marinij.com/ci_15329366?source=most_viewed

Mendocino County GJ: County holding on to mountain of evidence

Ukiah Daily Journal Staff
Updated: 06/19/2010 12:00:23 AM PDT

The county's main evidence storage room is packed to capacity with about 96,000 pieces of evidence because of a communication problem with the District Attorney's Office and a shortage of staff, according to the Mendocino County grand jury.

The GJ released a report, "A Mountain of Evidence: A Report on the Mendocino County Main Storage Evidence Room," on June 9.

The GJ found the facility organized but "overcrowded with evidence from closed and adjudicated cases."

The evidence, stored in containers on 10-foot-high shelves in the 5,000 square-foot building, "may not be purged until notification from the MCDAO," according to the report.

The GJ blames the overcrowding partly on an ongoing "lack of communication between the Mendocino County District Attorney's Office and evidence room staff," claiming the District Attorney's Office doesn't notify the storage room's staff when court cases are resolved in order to purge the evidence for those cases.

The District Attorney's Office has a form available for cases where a person claims their property, but in the absence of a claim or court order, the evidence stays in storage.

The District Attorney's Office currently doesn't use the form, "Mendocino County District Attorney Office Disposition-Evidence Memo," or the sheriff's form, "Authorization for Release/Disposition of Property," to authorize the release or the destruction of evidence.

The report calls for the district attorney to pick one of the forms to use.

"Purging and disposition of evidence requires greater staff than is currently available," the report states.

Currently, purging evidence requires a technician to pick a container with an old date; research the case to find the name of the perpetrator or perpetrators; search the District Attorney's Office and court records; check the name of each perpetrator for active arrests, bench warrants, pending felonies or pending litigation; and check the statute of limitations for certain crimes.

Some evidence must be kept as long as 99 years, the GJ notes.

The evidence room stores items for all local law enforcement agencies, including the California Highway Patrol, Cal Fire and the state Department of Fish and Game.

The GJ notes the evidence room has a full-time and a part-time evidence technician, a skilled job estimated to require three years of supervised training. The GJ recommends that the Board of Supervisors add an evidence technician job, and that the sheriff recruit a student or volunteer as a part-time aide.

The GJ notes four evidence technicians were employed at the storage facility previously, and that evidence intake doubled in the last 10 years.

The GJ recommends that the sheriff and evidence technician list upgrades the evidence room needs, and that the sheriff create a five-year plan to complete them.

The GJ also notes as a discussion point, not as a recommendation, that the evidence room "reeks of marijuana which becomes moldy when stored, causing health hazards for employees."

The GJ found that the storage facility has poor ventilation.

Other recommendations include use of a bar code system for evidence storage, which the GJ notes the Sheriff's Office is evaluating for use countywide.

Currently, records detailing where evidence is stored are kept manually in a card file with no backup, and the GJ recommends installing a sprinkler system in the office area to protect the records in case of fire.

Recommendations also include correcting a tripping hazard and trimming a tree that encroaches on nearby power lines.

http://www.ukiahdailyjournal.com/ci_15332573

San Luis Obispo Grand jury praises ECHO in review

Posted: Friday, Jun 18th, 2010
BY: Aaron Crutchfield

A new report issued by the San Luis Obispo County grand jury praised the El Camino Homeless Organization and said it should be studied as a model for the rest of the county, while stating cities throughout the county need to be more involved in solving the county’s homeless problem and the county needs a powerful homeless services coordinator.

The report stated that ECHO, an all-volunteer organization, has provided 62,000 bed nights for homeless persons since opening in 2001. ECHO moved from month to month between Atascadero churches before moving into space in the First Baptist Church on Atascadero Mall in 2006 with room for 31 beds. ECHO also funds motel rooms for families when the shelter is full. ECHO has also historically provided supper for 45 people each evening, but recently has been doing it for 60.

In 2008, 639 people volunteered as overnight chaperones for ECHO.

ECHO gets support from local governments and a variety of donors, and through donated labor, the First Baptist Church’s modest fee and in-kind donations from other organizations, ECHO spends about $6 per person per night.

“Because ECHO has a system that works, their ideas and methods should be expanded to other areas within the county,” the Grand Jury said in its report. “[Community Action Partnership of SLO], Five Cities Homeless Coalition and other groups now working with the homeless should meet with the staff of ECHO and be mentored in the areas of recruiting, training and effectively utilizing volunteers.”

The grand jury’s view of homeless services in the rest of the county wasn’t as rosy.

In Paso Robles, which has the second-highest homeless population in the county, there is no shelter the grand jury is aware of.

Meanwhile, in the city of SLO, which has the highest homeless population in the county, CAPSLO runs the Prado Day Center and the Maxine Lewis Homeless Shelter.

The grand jury said the Maxine Lewis Shelter is not large enough to provide beds for all who seek them in SLO and the facility is in poor physical condition. CAPSLO runs an “overflow” shelter program with the Interfaith Coalition to provide beds for homeless women and families at local churches and synagogues.

Local cities and the county have supported an 86-page document titled, “Path to a home: San Luis Obispo Countywide 10-Year Plan to End Homelessness,” published in October 2008, but the grand jury said none of the governmental agencies have actually adopted it because adoption would obligate them to actually implementing the plans objectives.

“Path to Home includes a ‘housing first model’ for helping the homeless,” the grand jury said in its report. “The theory is that the best way to assist the homeless population is to first put the people in stable housing and then provide supportive services to help them remain housed while addressing the problems that led to their homelessness. This approach, we were told, has worked well in large urban areas that have old or empty buildings that can be converted to low cost housing. Whether ‘housing first’ will work as well in SLO County is problematic, because housing here is scarce and expensive.”

The county has proposed a “homeless campus” on South Higuera Street in SLO to combine services at the Prado Day Center and the Maxine Lewis Shelter into one place, making it so the homeless don’t have to travel around the county seeking services.

The grand jury recommends that the county and all incorporated cities should adopt and begin to implement the 10-Year Plan to End Homelessness, and also that the county and all cities should establish and fund a line item in their budgets specifically supporting services, including more housing, for homeless persons.

The grand jury also wants to see a full-time homeless Services Coordinator with a staff, including a grant writer, to oversee the 10-year plan and monitor funds directed toward helping the homeless.

The grand jury also wants to see the homeless Services Campus built as soon as possible, while the county, South County incorporated cities and nonprofit organizations should pursue joint efforts to build and operate a facility that provides both day services, such as those provided now by the South County People’s Kitchen, and night services which are not currently provided. The grand jury said the South County shelter could look to ECHO as a model.

The grand jury also wants to see a shelter in Paso Robles.

“Unless local governments and private organizations join together and expand available resources, the homeless adults and children of San Luis Obispo County will continue to struggle and far too many, including hundreds of our children, will remain homeless,” the grand jury said in its report.

There were 3,829 homeless people in SLO County in January 2009, according to the report, 1.5 percent of the county population, with 1,372 children or teens under the age of 18 included in that total. The grand jury interviewed 342 homeless adults for its report.

Twenty-five percent of the interviewees slept outdoors (in a tent, under a bush, etc.); 21 percent were in a car, camper or other vehicle; 18 percent were guests of family or friends; 12 percent were in a shelter; about 11 percent were in housing provided by a transitional housing program; and 10 percent spent the night in a motel. The remaining three percent did not respond.

Of the 3,829 homeless (1,372 children) in the county in January 2009, 1,025 (88 children) were in the city of SLO, while 572 (144 children) were in Paso Robles, 501 (64 children) were in unincorporated areas, 275 (38 children) were in Grover Beach, 209 (27 children) were in Atascadero, 118 (14 children) were in Arroyo Grande, 66 (five children) were in Morro Bay and 48 (three children) were in Pismo Beach. Further, there were 988 homeless children counted in public schools throughout the county but their places of residence were not available to the enumerators. Also, the home city of 27 persons was not included in the January 2009 report.

Thirty-five percent of the respondents said they were homeless because they were unable to pay rent while 20 percent said unemployment was the cause, with substance abuse, divorce and low wages each cited by 15 percent of respondents.

The complete 4,000-word report is available at the grand jury’s website at www.slo courts.net/grand_jury/reports.

http://www.atascaderonews.com/v2_news_articles.php?heading=0&page=72&story_id=2890

Mendocino County Grand jury turns to AG's Office over Smith's travel expenses

Ukiah Daily Journal Staff
Updated: 06/18/2010 12:00:16 AM PDT

The Mendocino County grand jury has asked for an opinion from the Attorney General's Office in an attempt to force the District Attorney's Office to get 4th District Supervisor Kendall Smith to repay the county more than $3,000 of travel money she allegedly misused.

The GJ released a report June 14 titled "It's Not Over Yet!: A Failure to Collect Mendocino County Supervisor Travel Overpayments," criticizing the District Attorney's Office for its use of "prosecutorial discretion" in choosing not to pursue repayment of $3,087, the amount of travel reimbursement the auditor's office estimated Smith allegedly claimed but didn't incur over two years.

The report cites a state law that authorizes the GJ to "order the district attorney of the county to institute suit to recover any money that, in the judgment of the grand jury, may from any cause be due the county."

GJ Forewoman Kathy Wylie requested an opinion from the state AG's office "concerning the apparent discrepancy" between that law and the district attorney's "use of prosecutorial discretion in this matter."

Three previous grand juries have questioned the District Attorney's Office's refusal to enforce that law, following investigations into the county supervisors' travel expenses.

The 2008-09 grand jury recommended Smith repay $3,087, the minimum amount the county auditor calculated Smith was overpaid in travel reimbursements between June 2005 and November 2006.

Smith allegedly rented a room in Ukiah or $100 per month "as needed to do her job," according to the 2008-09 GJ report, while also claiming a "per-diem" reimbursement for daily, round-trip mileage to Ukiah from her Fort Bragg home.

In her response, Smith says the auditor's recommendation "clearly states may' have been overpaid," adding, "It also states that a historical analysis of past claims was not done. It is not a comprehensive audit of the Fourth District Supervisor's claims, the immediate past Fourth District Supervisor or any other supervisor's claims."

The 2008-09 GJ claimed Smith said she didn't understand the county's travel and meal reimbursement policy at the time, and interpreted it incorrectly.

Smith's attorney, James L. Larson, said Smith's claims were always reviewed and approved before being paid, and were submitted in good faith, an April 2008 response from Mendocino County District Attorney Meredith Lintott says.

Responding to the GJ's demand to pursue reimbursement from Smith, Lintott filed an Aug. 22, 2007 brief stating the superior court had no jurisdiction to institute recovery "because the amount claimed is less than $5,000."

Lintott's brief also says "evidence of specific intent to defraud would need to be proved for the county to prevail," and says she found no evidence to support that.

During that same time frame, travel expenses claimed by 5th District Supervisor David Colfax and 3rd District Supervisor John Pinches were also in question.

"It appears to the GJ that elected officials in Mendocino County may file fraudulent claims of less than $5,000 without repercussion from any county department, including the MCDA's office," the 2009-10 GJ report states.

The 2009-10 GJ report refers to a supervisor who repaid travel reimbursement overcharges in full, and another who promised to repay but "reneged."

The current GJ report recommends county supervisors "immediately reimburse the Mendocino County taxpayers for any unearned or inaccurately reported (travel) overpayments, as required for any other county employee."

It also recommends the Board of Supervisors eliminate the travel stipend it adopted in January 2008 and go back to claiming actual expenses.

The stipend increased supervisors' compensation and retirement benefits, and the county's payroll costs, according to the GJ - a finding county officials agreed with in their responses to prior GJ reports.

The GJ also recommends that the Board of Supervisors resolve that a 10 percent salary reduction the board implemented should apply to the board as it does to other county employees.

http://www.co.mendocino.ca.us/grandjury/09-10/index.htm


http://www.ukiahdailyjournal.com/ci_15324381

Mendocino County Grand jury to MCSO: Arrest a Plumber - Fix the Jail!

Ukiah Daily Journal Staff
Updated: 06/17/2010 12:00:38 AM PDT

Plumbing problems abound at the county jail, according to a report released June 9 by the Mendocino County grand jury.

The report, "Arrest a Plumber - Fix the Jail!: A Report on the Mendocino County Jail and Courthouse Holding Cells," recommends the Sheriff's Office develop a plan to fix the plumbing and recommends using asset forfeiture money to renovate the jail.

The GJ found the jail "in dire need of maintenance and repair," according to the report.

Among the problems the GJ found were toilets with leaky bowls and continually running tank water; too much or too little water pressure in drinking fountains; some drinking fountains running continually; leaky plumbing on the jail's outside walls; and repairs made with self-manufactured parts, including a combination of various metals and plastics.

No maintenance personnel are assigned to the jail, and the GJ recommends that the county General Services Agency assign a full-time staffer to the jail.

The GJ recommends full staffing, but notes the jail is under a hiring freeze and that six vacant jobs are likely to remain empty because of budget cuts.

Jail staff include a captain/commander, two lieutenants, six sergeants (eight are allocated), two sheriff's service technicians (five were allocated), 41 line staff (46 are allocated). Seven employees are bilingual.

The daily staffing minimum includes eight line staff and one sergeant, and the jail could fall below that minimum "if anyone calls in sick," according to the report.

"Under-staffing results in long hours, and may result in errors due to fatigue," the report states.

The GJ notes there was a suicide and 184 reported safety issues involving inmates with mental health problems in 2009. No data is kept regarding attempted suicides.

The jail's capacity is 302 inmates; there were 257 inmates when the GJ visited in October. That included 35 women and 222 men.

The jail is divided to allow segregation of prisoners by gender and other classifications, including non-sentenced, sentenced, violent, protected custody and those with gang affiliations.

The prisoners must also be transported to the courthouse separately, according to classification.

One of the cells at the courthouse had a drinking fountain with high water pressure, which spewed water onto the floor when used, causing a safety hazard, the GJ reported.


http://www.ukiahdailyjournal.com/ci_15315213

Mendocino County Grand jury calls for hiring of deputies, K-9 program on coast

Ukiah Daily Journal Staff
Updated: 06/17/2010 12:00:41 AM PDT

The hire of two sheriff deputies on the coast and re-establishment of the K-9 program in Fort Bragg are among the Mendocino County grand jury's recommendations for the sheriff's Fort Bragg substation and holding cells.

The GJ report, "Bring Back the Dog!: A Report on the Mendocino County Sheriff's Fort Bragg Substation," was published June 9.

The Mendocino County Sheriff's Office shares the county-owned building with the Fort Bragg Police Department, according to the report, and the substation includes an evidence room, holding cells and perimeter security fencing.

The report included a recommendation that "the Mendocino County Sheriff replace the K-9 unit," but doesn't say when the program was discontinued, why it was discontinued or how much it would cost to reinstate it.

The dog would sniff out drugs, find suspects who may be armed and protect officers, according to the report.

The GJ also recommends filling two empty deputy jobs, one in Fort Bragg and one on the South Coast.

"A South Coast resident deputy position is critical to this remote area in order to shorten response time, which may be one to two hours," the report states.

The report doesn't say how long the two jobs have been vacant, why or what it would cost to fill them.

The staff at the substation includes a lieutenant, three sergeants, nine deputies, an animal control officer, a detective and an evidence technician/office assistant, whose weekly hours were reduced to 32.

The report also recommends recruiting and training a student to help with office duties.

Evidence that isn't needed after cases are resolved accumulates because the District Attorney's Office doesn't notify the evidence room when court cases are resolved, according to the report. The GJ recommends that the sheriff "encourage" the district attorney to adopt and use the Mendocino County District Attorney's Office Disposition-Evidence Release Memo.

The GJ also found there is no security camera monitoring the south entrance of the building and the fenced parking area, and recommended the county General Services Department install one.

http://www.ukiahdailyjournal.com/ci_15315217