Lassen County Grand Jury
Lassen County Courthouse
220 South Lassen Street, Suite 6
Susanville, California 96130
June 30, 2006
The Honorable Stephen D. Bradbury
Lassen Superior Court
220 South Lassen Street, Suite 6
Susanville, California 96130
Dear Judge Bradbury,
As required by Section 933 of the California Penal Code, the 2005-2006 Lassen County Grand Jury submits this Final Report. This is the result of countless hours of reading documents, interviewing witnesses and visiting worksites by the members from the beginning of July 2005 until this date. All of us consider it an honor and privilege to have served.
From our first meeting on August 11, 2005, we developed a sense of trust and appreciation for one another which sustained us through the year and inspired us to produce the report. We believe this report to be factual and of interest to the residents of Lassen County, and hope that it will cause improvements in the city and county operations. The commendations and recommendations we gave to the departments and schools are sincere and well intended.
Our experience as Grand Jurors has led most of us to marvel at this unique institution and we appreciate your selection of us to serve. The Grand Jury serves as a lawful independent institution to enlighten the citizens to the good, mediocre and bad things which happen in their government, and should inspire government leaders to improve their operations. The camaraderie and mutual respect which the jurors developed resulted in consensus as this report developed, though one juror refused to sign the report for her own reasons. We hope that its publication will inspire other residents in Lassen County to serve on future Grand Juries.
Suzie Faulkner, the Superior Court Jury Commissioner, and her co-workers were very helpful during the year, and we could not have produced this report without their assistance. However, the Grand Jury requests that Lassen County provide a permanent ADA compliant office and basic equipment, such as a laptop computer, fax/printer/copier, a shredder, etc. for future juries. References are made throughout this report to that effect.
Thank you for your confidence in us.
Respectfully submitted,
Sheldon Merchant, Foreman
2005-2006 Lassen County Grand Jury Return to Menu
MEMBERS OF THE 2005-2006 LASSEN COUNTY GRAND JURY
Shel Merchant, Foreman *
Linda Vincent-Adams, Foreman ProTem *
M.J. Whitley, Secretary
Linda Robinette, Sergeant At Arms
Sharron Watkins, Librarian
George Affonso (resigned during term)
Teri Lynn Bejcek
Max Brewer (resigned during term)
Elgin Cannon
Charlene Cluck
Bob Ellis
Irene Haas
Carole Hack *
Frank Hall
Linda Kennedy-Tice
Wayne Maggard *
Ron Myers
Tom Taylor (resigned during term)
Andrew Wellborn (resigned during term)
*Returning members from 2004-2005
JURY MEMBERS DISCLAIMER AND SIGNATURES
The Grand Jury recognizes that a conflict of interest may arise in the course of its investigations. In such instances, the juror may ask to be recused from all aspects of an investigation. Those members may choose not to investigate, attend interviews and deliberations, or assist in the making and acceptance of a final report.
Therefore, whenever the perception of a conflict of interest exists on the part of a member of the 2005-2006 Lassen County Grand Jury, that member abstains from any investigation involving such a conflict and from voting on the acceptance or rejection of any related subject. By signing this final report, I approve it even though I may have recused myself from, or voted against, certain individual reports which were approved by the required majority.
_______________________________ _________________________________
SHEL MERCHANT, Foreman LINDA VINCENT-ADAMS
_______________________________ _______________________________
TERI LYNN BEJCEK ELGIN CANNON
_______________________________ ________________________________
CHARLENE CLUCK BOB ELLIS
_______________________________ ________________________________
IRENE HAAS CAROLE HACK
_______________________________ _________________________________
FRANK HALL LINDA KENNEDY-TICE
_______________________________ _________________________________
WAYNE MAGGARD RON MYERS
_______________________________ ________________________________
LINDA ROBINETTE SHARRON WATKINS
_______________________________
M. J. WHITLEY
DISTRIBUTION LIST
The Final Report of the 2005-2006 Lassen County Grand Jury will be distributed to the following individuals and organizations:
Lassen County:
Superior Court Judge Stephen D. Bradbury
Superior Court Judge Ridgely Lazard
Board of Supervisors (5)
Chief Administrative Officer
Treasurer/Tax Collector
County Clerk/Recorder
Assessor
County Counsel
District Attorney
Planning Commission
Director of Public Works
Community Development Director
Sheriff
Office of Emergency Services
Director of Department of Health and Human Services
Director of Family and Children Protective Services
Veterans Service Officer
Animal Shelter
Lassen County Chamber of Commerce
Westwood Chamber of Commerce
City of Susanville:
City Council (5)
City Administrative Officer
Finance Officer
City Attorney
Chief of Police
Education:
Lassen County Office of Education
Lassen Community College Board of Trustees (7)
President of Lassen Community College
Lassen Union High School District (5)
Lassen Union High School Superintendent
Corrections facilities:
California Correctional Center
High Desert State Prison
Lassen Adult Detention Facility
Other:
Janesville Town Council, Inc.
State of California Attorney General’s Office
Lassen Municipal Utility District
Lassen County Times newspaper
KSUE radio station
Susanville District Library
2005-2006 Grand Jurors
California Grand Jurors’ Association
The Lassen County Grand Jury received several complaints concerning similar and overlapping issues, for example: issues concerning the rights of grandparents and foster children, visitation of grandparents and adopted children, etc. Therefore, to eliminate the need for several reports concerning similar issues, reference is made to each county or city department that was part of the interview or inquiry.
An explanation of each complaint follows, then a referral to each report which discussed an area concerning the particular subject. Be advised that information received from complainants by the Grand Jury was not specifically discussed with any county or city department head. The Grand Jury felt, however, that all issues in the complaints received were of interest to the community and should be in the Grand Jury Final Report.
Complaints received by the Grand Jury include:
1. Lassen Municipal Utility District. See report.
2. Delivery of Irrigation Water in Baxter Creek Drainage. See report.
3. Complaint concerning mental health issues of a spouse. Refer to reports regarding the Lassen County Health and Social Services and the Office of Chief of Police.
4. Complaint concerning grandparents wishing visitation with grandchildren who were adopted by others. Refer to the report regarding Lassen County Health and Social Services.
5. Complaint concerning grandparents wishing to visit grandchildren in foster care. Refer to the report regarding Lassen County Health and Social Services.
6. Complaint from out of county prison inmate. This was not within the Grand Jury’s purview and a letter was sent to the inmate so advising.
7. Complaint from an inmate with general complaints about several institutions. This was not within the Grand Jury’s purview and a letter was sent to the inmate so advising.
8. Complaint concerning the Honey Lake Motocross Park noise monitoring. Refer to Noise Monitoring at Honey Lake Park report and report regarding Office of the Lassen County Chief Administrative Officer.
9. City of Susanville. See report.
10. Several complaints pertaining to Lassen Community College District. See report. Return to Menu
LASSEN COUNTY OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES
Reason for Inquiry: (1) Public interest. (2) Annual interview with public officials.
Background: The Lassen County Office of Emergency Services (OES) provides service in any extraordinary emergency situation associated with natural disasters, technological, man-made and war emergency operations in the Lassen Operational Area.
Inquiry Procedures: The Grand Jury interviewed Lassen County Assistant Sheriff and Emergency Services Officer, Chester G. “Chip” Jackson.
Findings: The OES is the Lassen County agency to disseminate information
and logistical functions for any emergency or disaster affecting Lassen County. The agency is responsible for policies and procedures required to protect the health and safety of the populace, public and private property, and the environment from the effects of natural and human caused technological emergencies and/or disasters.
The office is an intermediate level of county government within the “Standardized Emergency Management System” and is charged with responsibility for training and preparing related agencies for such events. The office is responsible for both field response and Emergency Center activities, including the disaster recovery process. The office reviews certain hazardous materials plans from the community. It must ensure compliance with statutory requirements.
Due to lack of funding and a tight budget, Deputy Jackson is the only paid staff member. He manages all aspects of OES. Supplemental assistance is provided by volunteer staff during emergencies. Although there are many grant funded Emergency Training Seminars available for the various agency volunteers, the number of volunteers is small. The State of California mandates that volunteer staff meet the same training requirements as paid staff members. Most volunteers are employed elsewhere, and therefore, it is not always possible for them to request and receive several days away from their paid employment positions to train for volunteer positions.
The new Homeland Security laws have created additional responsibilities for OES since 2001. Although the federal government is providing funds for equipment, it does not provide funds for staff and administration.
The State has provided an Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) which contains details about standard emergency procedures in place for each emergency agency which it updates regularly. Lassen County has not yet printed and distributed the EOP to the various local emergency agencies due to funding difficulties.
The OES has acquired additional equipment through the State funded equipment supply lists, which is currently stored in various buildings and offices. OES is currently seeking storage for this equipment because the State does not provide funding for equipment shelter.
The ambulance system for Lassen County has had many difficulties. Currently, Sierra Emergency Medical Services Alliance (SEMSA) is operating in Lassen County. The OES works closely with the ground and air ambulance employees. Deputy Jackson indicated that the possible completion of the Dyer Mountain Project will have major impacts on all Lassen County services, and may also be required by Lassen County to have is own emergency services.
Commendations:
(1) The Grand Jury commends Deputy Jackson for the task of sole management of the emergency operations for Lassen County. Regardless of severe budget constraints, continued efforts are made to improve communications among the various emergency agencies to increase the inventory of emergency equipment and supplies.
(2) Deputy Jackson is commended for obtaining available grant funding for necessary training required for volunteer and paid staff members of the various emergency agencies. The Grand Jury also commends each emergency agency volunteer for the countless hours of dedicated volunteer services to the community.
Recommendations:
(1) Lassen County should fund adequate staffing for OES.
(2) Lassen County should assure that adequate staffing and support for emergency services are provided prior to implementation of the next phase of project approval of the Dyer Mountain Project so that existing services are not adversely impacted.
(3) Lassen County should explore alternative methods in order to make the EOP available to involved agencies as soon as possible.
(4) Lassen County should provide adequate shelter for emergency services equipment.
Response Required: Yes. Lassen County Board of Supervisors. Return to Menu
LASSEN COUNTY AMBULANCE EXCLUSIVE OPERATING AREA
Reason for Investigation: (1) Public interest. (2) Annual interview with public officials. (3) Lassen County bidding procedures.
Investigative Procedures: Lassen County department heads, having possible knowledge of the bidding procedures, were interviewed. Relevant documents were reviewed.
Findings: On or about June 23, 2004, Lassen Ambulance stated in a letter to the Lassen County Board of Supervisors that it would no longer accept the designation as the 911 emergency provider. On July 13, 2004, the Lassen County Board of Supervisors initiated a Request for Proposals (RFP) for an Ambulance Exclusive Operating Area. On or about December 7, 2004, Lassen Ambulance relinquished its Certificate of Operation to the California Highway Patrol. At a December, 2004 Emergency Medical Care Committee (EMCC) meeting, South Lassen Ambulance indicated it had only one crew to cover the area from Susanville to Herlong. The Office of Emergency Services (OES) reviewed a Declaration of Local State of Emergency and EMCC asked that a Declaration of Emergency be declared. At that time emergency ambulance service was contracted with Reno Emergency Medical Services Association (REMSA) until a permanent provider was found.
Consultants were contracted to provide the minimum qualifications required for ambulance service, exclusive operating area, and an RFP. The consultants selected an Ambulance Proposal Review Committee (APRC). The APRC evaluated each ambulance service in each of four areas: credential review, operational review, fiscal review and enhancements. The office of the Lassen County Administrative Officer (CAO) was unable to locate and provide to the Grand Jury documentation requested showing criteria used by APRC for evaluating each of the four areas.
On April 11, 2005, former CAO William Bixby sent a memo to the Lassen County Board of Supervisors requesting they direct him to negotiate a contract with Sierra Emergency Medical Services Alliance (SEMSA) as recommended by the APRC.
On April 19, 2005, the Board of Supervisors voted unanimously in favor of directing the CAO negotiate a contract with SEMSA for provision of ambulance services for the county. One option was selected as the preferred option for negotiations. On August 9, 2005, the Board of Supervisors approved a contract with SEMSA as exclusive operator in the newly established exclusive operating area.
The EMCC did not meet from December, 2004 until January 31, 2006. The decision to award the ambulance contract to SEMSA appears to have been based solely on the recommendation of APRC.
Commendation: The EMCC and the Board of Supervisors are commended for taking prompt action to ensure there was adequate ambulance coverage in Lassen County.
Recommendations:
(1) The EMCC should meet at least every quarter to review compliance with the ambulance contract with SEMSA.
(2) The EMCC should meet more often as needed to review all documentation regarding contract awards and ensure county bidding procedures are followed.
Response Required: Yes. Board of Supervisors
EMCC. Return to Menu
LASSEN COUNTY HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES
Reason for Inquiry: (1) Public interest. (2) Follow up from the previous 2004-2005 Grand Jury Report. (3) Annual interview with public officials. (4) Two complaints were received by the Grand Jury.
Background: Health and Social Services (H&SS) has ten departments which serve Lassen County. These include: Alcohol and Other Drug Departments, Mental Health, Community Social Services, Family and Children Protective Services Public Health, Public Guardianship/Conservatorship, Fiscal Services, Veterans Services, Quality Improvement and Patient Rights Advocate. At the present time there are 150 employees and 10 social workers.
Inquiry Procedures: The Grand Jury conducted an interview with Kevin Mannel, Deputy County Administrative Officer and Health and Social Services Director, and Danielle McGuire, Director of Family and Children Protective Services Department (FCPS). Cathy Hilts, Administrative Secretary, provided a visual presentation. The Grand Jury was also provided binders and reports containing graphics and statistics explaining services available to Lassen County residents.
Findings: A chart showing the current departments of H&SS is attached which outlines the structure of the department. H&SS works towards “finding the common threads that run throughout the departments so the systems can serve and function”. It continues to upgrade software for better tracking and monitoring systems. The annual operating budget for 2005-2006 is $24.5 million. Mr. Mannel voiced concern about the massive changes in the public health areas and nursing shortages. Nursing shortages are as high as 800,000 nationally and 120,000 in California.
The Mental Health Department serves approximately 700 patients and is continuing to look for partners such as Lassen Aurora Network, Inc. (LAN) to provide “prompt acceptable services”. LAN is a network of individuals who volunteer time to promote emotional and psychological wellness and independence for individuals. It works with existing programs and serves as part of a mutual referral system.
Services of FCPS include emergency response, voluntary family maintenance, court-ordered family maintenance, family reunification, permanency planning and Independent Living Services. As of the beginning of 2006, FCPS has reduced its case load per worker to approximately 15 to 20 clients per worker. In 2004-2005, the client/worker ratio was approximately 36 to 1.
FCPS makes it a priority for family reunification or replacement of children with qualified family members whenever possible. Please refer to the Concurrent Planning information attached. When the Concurrent Planning has run its course and adoption is
best for the child, the child’s case is turned over to the California State Adoption Service.
The Grand Jury was informed that local law enforcement has policies in place to aid officers in their evaluation of possible mental health patients under California Welfare and Institutions Code Section 5150. Please see addendums attached. Police Officers receive 24 hours of training in mental health issues while in the Academy.
When situations occur, such as patient detox and elderly dementia , which may become public and personal safety issues (not necessarily criminal), a peace officer will detain a person under Section 5150 only if he or she believes there is an immediate threat to the safety of the person detained or the safety of others. Section 5150 specifies conditions for the detention of individuals for evaluation and treatment, and requires peace officers to transport detainees to a neuropsychiatry facility. Lassen County does not have such a facility and detainees must be transported to the Sacramento area for a 72 hour evaluation and observation required by the Code. Unless the individual is behaving in such a manner that there is imminent danger of injury to the subject or others, the person cannot be detained without the concurrence of psychiatric staff at the scene.
The Grand Jury found that H&SS continues to go through many changes. However, the lack of stability that previous Grand Juries have reported on has greatly improved. Staff turnover continues to be a problem, however, due to budget concerns and difficulties attracting qualified employees to Lassen County.
The issues described in the complaints the Grand Jury received have been remedied from a departmental perspective. It appears to the Grand Jury that the rules and procedures were followed properly according to the programs in place. One of the two complaints received described an event which happened fourteen years ago and the other requested a remedy which was prohibited by law. The Grand Jury recognizes that this does not bring relief to those families who miss their loved ones.
Commendation: The Grand Jury commends the staff of H&SS for making difficult changes and working hard to develop ways to “improve communication and seamless service delivery to customers”.
Recommendation: The H&SS Department should continue to recruit staff on a continuing basis and establish an open and ongoing recruitment list.
Response Required: None Return to Menu
OFFICE OF LASSEN COUNTY TREASURER/TAX COLLECTOR
Reason for Inquiry: (1) Public interest. (2) Annual interview with public officials.
Inquiry Procedure: The Grand Jury interviewed Richard Egan, Treasurer/Tax Collector.
Background: The Treasurer/Tax Collector is an elected officer responsible for all accounting for Lassen County, including tax collection and all investment activities. There are three divisions in the office with seven allocated positions.
Findings: Mr. Egan discussed several issues with the Grand Jury including the three divisions of his office (tax collection having the most manpower). Mr. Egan also provided a copy of the June 21, 2005 Lassen County Investment Policy which is attached.
(1) The tax collection division collects various fees and court fines. The types of taxes include secured, supplemental, transient occupancy, as well as Special District assessments. Interim taxes are derived from the assessment by the County Assessor’s Office. Unsecured taxes are levied on personal property such as boats, mobile RVs, jet skies, equipment and government permits for grazing. Unsecured taxes also include transient hotel and motel taxes. The county collection program has approximately a 97.6% success rate for delinquent collection rate which is very high. Mr. Egan implemented a comprehensive collection program, which includes internet sales for delinquent property.
The county gets 19% of net secured and unsecured taxes collected and the State of California gets 81%. Property tax collections have been higher since 2003 because property values have increased by 10% to 20%. Because Proposition 13 is still in effect, property values are limited to a 2% increase per year.
(2) Mr. Egan is the investment officer for county funds, and the county portfolio is managed pursuant to the “Prudent Investor Standard” as defined in the California Government Code Section 1700.2 and Section 53600.2. An attorney review and a treasury oversight committee, appointed by the Board of supervisors, oversee the investment policy guidelines. One-half of Lassen County’s investment portfolio is Federal Agency Coupon securities, which are invested for as long as give years.
(3) The office also collects non-tax related county and court ordered fees as well as fees from smaller districts with in the county. Taxpayers are able to challenge assessments and penalties by contacting the Treasurer/Tax Collector’s office. Tax information can be obtained and taxes can be paid through the County website.
The Dyer Mountain Development Project was discussed at length. The area proposed for the development project was owned by Roseburg Industries (Roseburg).
The area was in a Timber Protection Zone (TPZ). A TPZ is similar to the Williamson Act, which allows property to be assessed as agricultural land, and the State of California reimburses Lassen County for uncollected tax revenue. In order for Dyer Mountain Associates to develop the property, the zoning had to be changed to a developmental zone and the value reassessed. When Roseburg applied to get the TPZ classification removed, the Board of Supervisors agreed. Roseburg owed deferred interest and penalties of approximately $150,000. The Board of supervisors negotiated a 10% penalty for interest only and Roseburg paid $165,000 to relinquish the TPZ classification.
Reassessment of the property will increase the tax base by approximately
$22 million if the development occurs as planned. Mr. Egan indicated that a special district may be needed for items such as development services, employment, city issues, bonds and taxes.
Commendation: Mr. Egan has implemented many effective procedures, such as on-line payment of taxes, which enable a higher collection rate and streamlines office operations.
Recommendation: It is recommended that Lassen County assure that adequate staffing and support for emergency services is provided prior to implementation of the next phase of project approval of the Dyer Mountain Project so that existing services are not adversely affected.
Response Required: None. Return to Menu
OFFICE OF THE LASSEN COUNTY CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
Reason for Inquiry: (1) Public interest. (2) Annual interview with public officials. (3) Issues concerning developer fees and reimbursement to the County.
(4) Refer to the Ambulance Exclusive Operating Area report. (5) Refer to the Honey Lake Motocross Park report.
Background: John Ketleson is the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO). He acts as agent for the Lassen County Board of Supervisors and is responsible for various county departments.
Inquiry Procedure: The Grand Jury interviewed John Ketleson. He has been in the CAO position since July 1, 2005, and was Lassen County Counsel for three years prior to becoming CAO.
Findings: Various subjects discussed included: (1) matters contained in complaints received by the Grand Jury, (2) issues concerning bidding procedures and reimbursement of developer fees and, (3) Dyer Mountain Development Project.
When questioned by the Grand Jury as to what appears to be non-uniform assessment of developer fees, Mr. Ketleson responded that the Board of Supervisors is reluctant to impose and collect developer fees. The Board would rather rely on increased property taxes collected from home and business developments.
Dyer Mountain Associates (DMA) is a Limited Liability Corporation. In the past, issues have arisen concerning entitlements, permits and applications in anticipation of construction. The current Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared by Lassen County covers only broad aspects of the project, not particular details of the development. Issues not fully disclosed or fully analyzed in the Draft EIR include, (1) highway traffic, (2) wildlife and domestic animal studies and, (3) site-specific environmental impacts for fish and wildlife habitat. An amended EIR would be required to address these issues prior to each phase of development.
DMA deposited $400,000 for costs Lassen County incurred for studies performed by county consultants and staff, which has been depleted. There is presently no bonding or other mechanism in place to insure recovery of county funds should the development fail. DMA had proposed financing by Lassen County, perhaps by a Mello Roos District. Mr. Ketleson has recommended the county not take such action.
There is an issue concerning noise monitoring costs, pursuant to the Noise Element of the General Plan, associated with the Honey Lake Motocross Park (HLMP), Milford, California. Mr. Ketleson indicated the county should proceed for reimbursement in the Superior Court action which ordered HLMP to pay for the study. Bidding for improvement projects within the county was addressed, including bids for ambulance service and bids for a new well for the Janesville Park. A Request for Bids for the Janesville Park well has been completed. The bidding process for ambulance service was performed by a consulting firm and the CAO did not participate in it.
Recommendations:
(1) The Memorandum of Understanding entered into between DMA and Lassen County provides for the county to be paid funds or a deposit prior to further county studies being done. DMA should deposit additional funds, rather than Lassen County advancing funds for services.
(2) Lassen County should enforce independent noise monitoring of HLMP at the sole expense of the proponents/owners and enforce collection of county funds owed.
(3) Although the county may acquire additional property taxes from new development, it should address the infrastructure costs incurred by the county. Reimbursement should be sought whenever possible.
(4) The procedure for bids and projects and businesses within Lassen County should be monitored more carefully in order to ensure the most qualified participant is selected.
(5) Lassen County should assure that adequate staffing and support for emergency services are provided prior to implementation of the next phase of project approval of the Dyer Mountain Project so existing services are not adversely affected.
Response Required: Yes. CAO
Board of Supervisors. Return to Menu
Reason for Inquiry: Public interest.
Background: The Janesville Town Council, Inc. (Council), a 501(c) (3) non-profit corporation was formed to (1) act as an advisory committee to the Lassen County Supervisors to promote the Janesville Community Action Plan and (2) to initiate and/or support its own community programs, organize activities for youth, and perform related services.
Investigative Procedures: Obtain documents and attend meetings.
Findings: The officers are elected, but according to their by-laws, it is uncertain as to whether they are elected by the general membership. Membership is open to any individual who has attended at least two complete meetings and has requested membership. Residence is not a requirement for membership. Meeting notices are not regularly made available to the public.
The Council obtains grant money and determines how it will be spent. The Council is not publicly elected. The Council is controlled by the Board of Directors (Board), a small group of individuals who are elected by the Board members.
At one meeting, attended by Grand Jury members, the Council president stated that the Council was pleased with the large turnout, however, the Board refused to listen to what the majority of the people in attendance had to say regarding moving the Honey Lake Valley Riders’ (HLVR) arena. Speakers were not treated respectfully during the meeting if what they were saying was not in agreement with the Council. It was clear that nothing that was said at that meeting would have any effect on how the Council voted.
The Janesville Park is owned by Lassen County and is under the control of the Board of Supervisors. Before planned negotiations with HLVR occurred, Supervisor Lloyd Keefer took the plan for park improvements from the Council to the Board of Supervisors.
At a recent meeting, the Council presented the membership with proposed changes to existing by-laws. The proposed new by-law changes included the following statements: (1) “voting on motions and issues is limited to the elected members of the Board of Directors” and (2) “discussion of issues, however, is encouraged and open to all members and guests as recognized by the president”.
Commendations: The Council is to be commended for their efforts towards fire safety in the Janesville area. For example, continuing the fuel break across the Janesville Grade and obtaining a “grass grant” to work on eliminating the “white top” weeds in and around the Janesville area.
Recommendations:
(1) The Council should be open to suggestions by the residents of the Janesville area. Residents who attend the Council meeting should be treated with respect and have their requests honestly considered. Residents who become members should have voting rights. Meetings should be advertised and scheduled during the week at the same place and time to make it easier for interested residents to attend.
(2) The Grand Jury is concerned that the Council purports to speak for the residents of the Janesville area without legal accountability.
(3) The Lassen County Board of Supervisors should clearly define the relationship that exists between the Council and the Board of Supervisors.
Response Required: Yes: Janesville Town Council, Inc.
Lassen County Board of Supervisors Return to Menu
Lassen County Adult Detention Facility
Reason for investigation:
Penal Code Section 919 (B) mandates that the Grand Jury “inquire into the conditions and management of all detention facilities within their county.”
Background:
The Lassen County Adult Detention Facility (ADF) opened in 1991 and is one of the first in the state to combine under one roof, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) and county inmates. It has a yearly budget of $6 million and employs about 60, including 35 correctional officers, seven supervisors, one correctional counselor and two managers.
The state side has 164 beds (145 average population). CDCR inmates are classified as level one security and cannot include any violent, sex offenders, or gang members. The state pays $18,000 per year per inmate under a 20-year contract with options for renewal. One full-time correctional counselor is assigned to the facility. The county side of the ADF has 145 beds (80 average population), including 20 beds that can be used for female prisoners. The population includes detainees awaiting trial as well as sentenced inmates. The facility has a mixture of cells and dormitory housing. It also includes temporary holding cells and detox cells, which are also used by other county agencies.
The 2005-2006 Lassen County Grand Jury toured the ADF on September 15, 2005.
Findings:
Overall assessment:
The ADF provides a multitude of services to the local and state criminal justice system. The Grand Jury’s visit followed an inspection by the Corrections Standards Authority, which determined the facility was in compliance with all regulations and standards. Jurors conducted their own review of the physical plan, budget, inmate treatment and staffing, and found the facility to be exceptionally clean and orderly. The staff was alert and positive, and inmates appeared to be properly treated. The mail procedures were explained and appeared to be appropriate. The visitation and exercise areas were observed and appeared to be adequate.
Staffing:
Recruitment and retention of 60 employees is a problem. It was noted that correctional officers at other area institutions (state and federal) are at a higher pay scale than county employees, which creates problems in keeping staff.
Facility:
The ADF is monitored by state and local agencies. Staff verified that the facility had passed all required inspections, including environmental health, fire, medical and mental health, and nutrition. Operations and procedures were reviewed by the State Board of Corrections and audited by the CDCR. A life-scan machine is used for background checks of teachers, day care workers and others needing fingerprinting services.
On the day of the Jury’s visit, female prisoners were housed in a dormitory arrangement with windows covered, which many jurors believed compromised security.
Programs:
Numerous educational programs are provided, including academic and personal adjustment opportunities (such as parenting, anger management, etc). Courses are also offered through the Corrections Learning Network and Lassen Community College. Inmates can also obtain their GED and get pre-parole guidance.
A computer lab is available for letter writing, resumes, legal issues and homework. The library has about 8,000 books and offers a computerized Law Library. All computers have restricted access and are not connected to the Internet.
Commendations:
The ADF should be commended for its dedicated, positive staff that maintains a well-operated and clean facility.
Recommendations:
1) Staffing issues, both recruitment and retention of employees, need to be addressed in terms of adequate pay.
2) The Sheriff’s Department should explore a better way to provide a separate and secure facility for female prisoners.
Response Required: None Return to Menu
California Correctional Center
Reason for Investigation:
Penal Code Section 919 (B) mandates that the Grand Jury “inquire into the conditions and management of all detention facilities within the county.”
One complaint was received from a former inmate.
Background:
Opened in 1963, the California Correctional Center’s (CCC) primary mission is to receive, house and train minimum custody inmates for placement into Northern California conservation camps. It currently maintains 21 camps, which are located throughout Northern California, to work with the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection in fire-suppression activities. The secondary mission is to provide meaningful work assignments for support of the institution and educational and training opportunities for inmates, including those who do not qualify for the camp program. A multi-level educational program provides students with courses leading to a General Education Degree (GED), vocational training, or a high school diploma. College classes are also offered that can lead to a college degree.
Lassen Unit was opened in 1987 and houses level three (medium custody) inmates in a cell configuration. It has an electric fence for security.
Investigation Procedures:
The 2005-2006 Lassen County Grand Jury toured the California Correctional Center on March 16, 2006.
Findings:
Overall assessment:
The CCC appears to be a well-run institution with new programs and educational opportunities for inmates. Staffing shortages and water discharge were issues that are being addressed. The California Correctional Center opened in 1963 and covers a total of 1,100 acres.
As of fiscal year 2005/2006, the following statistics apply:
Number of custody staff: 783
Number of non-custody staff: 338
Number of medical staff: 63
Total number of staff: 1,184
Annual operating budget: $126 million
Designated Bed Space and Count
Facility Level Design Capacity Count
I 886 1561
II 608 1,440
III 500 1,097
Camps 1,708 2,103
Total 3,682 6,201
Staffing:
A state wide shortage of correctional officers has created a problem for all prisons under the CDCR. Officers have been called upon to do overtime. CCC is about 50 officers short with an additional 20 officers on extended sick leave. The institution should get about 20 new graduates in the near future. In addition, CDC and High Desert State Prison (HDSP) are developing a local Academy to assist the two institutions in getting new officers. The academy, the first of its kind outside of the state training facility in Galt, is scheduled for May at High Desert State Prison. About 100 individuals passed the first testing phase. Cadets will graduate this fall and be assigned to either of the two local prisons. Having the academy in Susanville will prevent students from having to stay away from home or the training. It also gives local residents an opportunity to train and go to work in Susanville.
Facility:
CCC is under an order from the Lahontan Water Control Agency to bring down its water output. The prison goes through about 1.4 million gallons of water a month. Conservation methods, including time-restricted showers, low flow valves and toilets, have been installed. Additional efforts include plans to expand the alfalfa fields as part of a joint venture with a local cattle ranch to use more waste water.
Medical Services:
The prison’s medical unit has clinics in Lassen Unit and in the Main Unit, which are staffed with five doctors, three nursing supervisors and ten nurses. The statewide shortage of nurses has been a problem for the institution, which hires nurses off a registry to fill needed vacancies. For the firs time in a long while, the institution has the ten nursing positions filled. In addition, the institution has 19 medical technical assistants (MTA’s), which combines the position of a licensed vocational nurse with custody classification. Ten of these positions are currently filled. A contract or part-time employee holds the remainder. One nurse practitioner is also on staff. No psychiatrist is currently on staff, but there is a psychologist. Telemedicine is frequently used for specialized treatment.
A dental chief oversees five dentists as well as dental assistants. The staffing requirements are expected to increase with new regulations stemming from a recent court decision. Administration believes the staffing may need to double.
Medical staff appears to give quality care to the inmates. Staff said the inmates are an aging population with the same illnesses and diseases that are found in the rest of society, such as cancer, hypertension and diabetes. Dentists are seeing many cases that are the result of prolonged drug use. Overcrowding creates an additional workload for medical staff.
As of June 30, 2005, inmates or staff cannot possess tobacco products on the institution grounds.
Fire Camps:
Fire prevention/suppression crews are housed in a total of 21 camps throughout Northern California, including the most recent additions in Nevada City and Santa Cruz. The crews work with the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection and account for a major portion of the state’s firefighting manpower. The Grand Jury toured Antelope Camp where new permanent buildings have replaced the mobile homes, which housed the staff and inmates for over 20 years. The inmates receive physical fitness training and fire suppression training. The new dormitory unit was clean and well organized.
Emergency Service:
CCC maintains fire and medical emergency equipment and staff. All inspections were up-to-date. CCC provides fire and emergency service mutual aid to Lassen County, especially in the area from Ravendale to Leavitt Lake. Mutual aid calls on average two to three times a week and usually involves traffic accidents. CCC has just received its third ambulance.
Inmate Programs:
Governor Schwarzenegger
Food Services:
Meals are prepared from a standardized menu with specialized diets available for religious reasons. A designated area of the kitchen is being developed for proper preparation of Kosher meals as a department requirement. The food preparation area was clean, organized and appeared sanitary.
Community Efforts:
A Citizen’s Advisory Committee (CAC), a 12 member panel, promotes communications between the two prisons and community. The CAC meets every two months with the wardens and staffs to receive updates on prison operations and to hear community concerns. The CAC has been meeting as required.
Commendations:
1) The efforts by CCC Warden Kathy Prosper, in conjunction with HDSP Warden (a) Tom Felker, to provide a training academy in Susanville is commendable.
2) CCC is commended for supporting the “rehabilitation” in the CDCR through its fire camps, increases in self-help programs, educational opportunities and “Bridging Program”.
3) The aging facility appeared to be clean and well maintained.
Recommendations:
CCC should continue to monitor water usage and explore more ways to handle waste water discharge
Response Required: None Return to Menu
High Desert State Prison
Reason for Investigation:
Penal Code Section 919 (B) mandates that the Grand Jury “inquire into the conditions and management of all detention facilities within the county.”
Two inmates forwarded complaints to the Grand Jury from High Desert State Prison (HDSP).
Background:
HDSP opened in 1995 and is located on 325 acres. The primary mission of HDSP is to provide for the confinement of high security (Level IV) and high – medium security (Level III) inmates. There is a 200 bed minimum security facility (MSF) and a 200 bed reception center (RC) that processes inmates who are remanded into the care of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation from Northern California counties.
A large number of the prison population is comprised of younger inmates who are serving long sentences, and many have proven to be management problems. HDSP provides educational programs and work assignment for inmates. There is a Correctional Treatment Center (CTC) to provide for the health care needs, and the prison is designed to house inmates with disabilities.
The 2005-2006 Lassen County Grand Jury toured HDSP on October 20, 2005.
Findings:
Overall assessment:
High Desert State Prison seems to be a well-run institution. It appears secure and well maintained. A pilot program, known as the Behavior Management Unit, has been instituted. Staffing shortages and overcrowding continue to be problems.
As of fiscal year 2005/2006, the following statistics apply:
Number of custody staff: 898
Number of support services staff: 400
Total number of staff: 1298
Annual operating budget: $143,080,104
Designated Bed Space and Count
Facility Level Design Capacity Count
I 200 367
III 300 645
IV 1516 2606
Reception Center 200 648
Ad-Seg 228 342
Total 2,400 4,608
Staffing:
The Jury was told there is a statewide shortage of correctional officers. HDSP received some relief with the arrival of 83 new officers in 2005. The two prisons have developed a local academy to train correctional officers. The Academy, the first of its kind outside of the state training facility in Galt, opened in May 2006. The cadets take classes at HDSP in educational classrooms left empty when the vocational education courses ended. They will graduate in October and most will be assigned to either HDSP or CCC.
Facility:
The reception center (RC) is for inmates from Northern California counties. The inmates going through RC has increased, as had the inmate population throughout the state. The gymnasiums are used as housing units.
Facility Z, a new Administrative Segregation Unit, activated in September 2004, is designed for 100 inmates. Four cells are designed for inmates with disabilities. Since activation, the unit has been at 150 percent capacity. Inmates exercise individually in 20 small yards.
Medical Services:
A 32-bed licensed Correctional Treatment Center (CTC) provides “sub-acute” medical, dental, and mental health services. The CTC has a fully equipped and staffed Emergency Room for treatment and stabilization of patients prior to transfer to local hospitals. The institution provides routine medical services via Health Clinics, located on each of its five units. Staffing includes a physician, dentist and registered nurse (five days per week) and a Medical Technical Assistant {LVN}(seven days per week, 16 hours per day). Inmates are medically screened when received by RC.
The Correctional Clinical Case Management System (CCCMS) provides mental health care. Inmates under care are centralized in designated housing units. HDSP has a problem recruiting medical staff. Currently it has a shortage of doctors and no psychiatrist. Temporary medical staff is obtained from a contract registry when needed to fill vacancies until permanent employees can be hired. California prisons are now under Federal Court ordered receivership and changes are expected.
Programs:
A Behavior Management Unit is a new pilot program at HDSP where inmates are segregated and have to earn their way back into regular activities. The idea is to isolate troublemakers instead of locking down prison units. Inmates with disciplinary action, including gang activity, are placed in the unit. Officials believe the program is effective.
As of June 30, 2005, a change in CDRC policy prohibits the possession of tobacco by staff or inmates.
Education:
The education department provides work training assignments for eligible inmates. The inmates may receive academic or vocational education depending on the inmates’ security status and Test of Adult Basic Education (TABE) scores. Academic education includes classes in literacy training, Adult Basic Education, re-entry, and English as a second language. A Bridging Program (life skills), and a GED Program are also offered. A high school diploma program began in December 2004. Since February 2005, Lassen Community College offered college courses to qualifying inmates who can earn an Associates Degree. 50 inmates are currently enrolled in the program. The correspondence classes are funded through the college’s Extended Opportunity Programs and Services (EOP&S), including tuition and books. The program is in its pilot stages and is limited to inmates housed in Facility B, but may be extended to other units in the future. Twenty-one of the students were on the Dean’s List with a grade point average of 3.5 or better. Inmates are also taking individualized correspondence courses with other colleges. All vocational programs at HDSP were eliminated due to budget cuts and a reorganization of priorities. Some programs are being reinstated.
Food Services:
HDSP has one large kitchen, 13 satellite kitchens, 14 dining rooms and an employee snack bar. Over 500 inmates are employed in the kitchens. Food is prepared three days in advance, flash frozen and reheated before serving. A state dietician reviews the menu three months in advance. Medical and special diets are considered as well as religious dietary restrictions. The food preparation area was clean, organized and appeared sanitary.
Community Efforts:
A Citizen’s Advisory Committee (CAC), a 12 member panel, promotes communications between both prisons and community. The CAC meets every two months with the wardens and staff to receive updates on prison operations and to hear community concerns. The CAC has been meeting as required.
Commendations:
1) The efforts by HDSP Warden (A) Tom Felker, in conjunction with CCC Warden Kathy Prosper, to provide a training academy in Susanville is commendable.
2) The implementation of the Behavior Management Unit is commendable because it provides a new method of dealing with trouble inmates.
Recommendations: None Return to Menu
LASSEN UNION HIGH SCHOOL
Reason for Inquiry: Public interest.
Background: Lassen Union High School (LHS) is located on Main Street in Susanville, California and has approximately 1,079 students. The superintendent is Dan Lewis.
Inquiry Procedure: In May, 2006, the Grand Jury was given a tour of LHS by Superintendent Dan Lewis, and Brett Mitchell who was the Supervisor of Construction Projects.
Findings: The tour was the first visit for the Grand Jury since LHS completed modernization in the fall of 2005. The old English building was demolished and replaced by a modern 40,000 square foot building. The other buildings and a small gym were also renovated and modernized, and new computer labs were added.
The new 700 building contains science labs, a large performing arts classroom and an acoustically designed band room, a large library and an art and ceramics workshop. The cafeteria was remodeled and enlarged.
The Lassen High School District attempted twice to get the voters to approve local funding for the modernization. Both ballot measures received a majority vote but not the two-thirds necessary for passage. The Board of Trustees applied to the California Department of Education as a “Financial Hardship District” because the legislature had provided funds at that time. Lassen Union High School District was one of the last districts to benefit from this program. A state grant of $25 million paid for the construction and modernization of LHS.
The Grand Jury observed new geothermal lines were installed inside steps and sidewalks with heating and ice melting capabilities. A new cooling system was installed for greater temperature control. The grant also paid for dual pane windows and wall insulation. This resulted in substantial savings for heating and cooling costs. Additional surveillance cameras were installed throughout the campus.
The new computer labs are fitted with state of the art equipment throughout the high school, including a special computer network room. Each computer is protected with age-appropriate security filters. Specific policies and procedures have also been adopted for on-line classes. The high school has earned good grades from A through B in computer technology from The State Office of Education.
LHS anticipates opening a new career center in the fall of 2006 enabling each ninth grade student to complete a three week program of job/career evaluation and training. Plans for 2006 include continuing Diamond Mountain Charter School as an option for high school students, and plans include expansion and remodeling the gym foyer. New facilities for indoor physical education activities, including a wrestling room, may also be acquired.
Each classroom has a large sign which outlines “Expected Learning Results”. The “Expected Student Learning results” are: LHS students would (1) learn to manage resources, (2) become effective communicators, (3) be responsible citizens, (4) become technologically proficient, (5) acquire proficiencies in reading, writing and math, (6) become critical thinkers, and (7) be able to evaluate and solve problems. With high educational and behavior expectations posted throughout the school, it is easy to understand why this high school recently earned two California Distinguished School Awards: one award was for the academic program and the other was for Lassen Technical Institute (LTI). The LTI provides vocational students with academic and technical classes to enhance their career choices.
Commendations:
(1) The members of the Grand Jury who toured LHS were impressed with the forethought in planning that had been done. The expectation of excellence for both present and future students was obvious.
(2) The mood at LHS was positive and enthusiastic.
Recommendation: None. Return to Menu
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF POLICE, CITY OF SUSANVILLE
Reason for Inquiry: (1) Public interest. (2) Annual interview with public officials. (3) Complaint received by the Grand Jury.
Inquiry Procedure: In March, 2006, the Grand Jury interviewed Mr. Chris Gallagher, Chief of Police for the City of Susanville.
Findings: Many issues were discussed including traffic, alcohol use, fines, gangs, burglary and other crimes. There are eighteen sworn peace officers and two non-sworn positions. An office employee records and tracks traffic tickets and handles subpoenas requested for service. The department has two detectives and two patrol officers per shift. The general fund provides 90% of the department’s revenue and the department receives 80% of parking ticket revenue.
According to Chief Gallagher, the department needs a traffic control officer. Traffic accidents are very high for the size of Susanville. Radar signs are in various locations, although many drivers ignore them. There is a possibility an officer may be acquired through a grant. There were 75 alcohol related tickets in a three month period. There were 600 arrests in 2005: 115 being DUI arrests and 168 drunk in public arrests.
Chief Gallagher indicated there are no organized gangs in Susanville, although there are “wanna be” gang activities. He believes the Department has nipped the gang problem in the bud through aggressive action. The public “ride along” program is not in effect at this time. The main priorities of the department include law enforcement, fire and public safety. Chief Gallagher praised his officers because crime statistics have dropped. Recruiting officers, however, continues to be difficult and many leave the department to work elsewhere.
The main department building is continuing to be remodeled. The exterior walls no longer have glass and the lobby pass-through glass is bullet proof. The walls have been made bullet proof through the use of old unusable Kevlar vests. The property room was upgraded and turned into an office. Most of the seized property has been disposed of and, because it is not legal to sell guns that are seized by Police, firearms are destroyed.
The Grand Jury asked about mental health issues and the role that police officers play in assisting families. Section 5150 of the California Welfare and Institutions Code specifies conditions for the detention of individuals for evaluation and treatment, and requires peace officers to transport detainees to a neuropsychiatric facility. Lassen County does not have such a facility and detainees must be transported to the Sacramento area for a 72 hour evaluation and observation required by the Code. Unless the individual is behaving in such a manner that there is imminent danger of injury to the subject or others, the person cannot be detained without the concurrence of psychiatric staff at the scene. Each police officer must have 24 hours of Police Academy training with regard to Section 5150.
Temporary Restraining Orders become difficult when interviewing emotional parties in domestic situations. Both parties involved have a right to do business in public places.
The Drug Task Force is now called the “Bureau of Narcotics Enforcement Task Force”. It consists of various local and state law enforcement officials and the supervisor is a Police Commander. The task force uses confidential informants and relies on anonymous calls as well.
There are agreements with Lassen Community College, Lassen High School and Banner Lassen Hospital which provide one sworn officer. Chief Gallagher believes the College should have its own security as other colleges do. When he was asked about the problems with guns and alcohol at Lassen Community College, he stated that the department has increased its presence on the campus. He indicated that his department has a plan in progress to monitor internet websites that are primarily used by high school and college students.
The animal control officer was removed because of budget constraints. Animal control in Lassen County is a problem and officers respond to calls within the City as well as the Susanville Indian Rancheria (Rancheria). The Rancheria, an independent government authority, does not contribute funds to the animal control budget, nor does it have its own police officers. There are increased calls to the area since the Casino opened and since the expansion of the Rancheria. The police response to calls for assistance on the Rancheria property impacts the police budget, and could impact public safety in Susanville because fewer officers would be available.
Theft involving valuables being taken from unlocked vehicles has been an ongoing problem, and Chief Gallagher asked that residents be reminded to lock their cars.
Many residents believe the department often does not follow up on their complaints. The Chief explained what happens after his office receives a complaint and the various avenues through the system the complaint may take. Some cases may be referred to the District Attorney’s Office, for example. He indicated that he has an “open door policy” and suggests residents contact an officer with any questions they may have.
When Chief Gallagher was asked how subpoenas are served, he responded that they are sent to his office via inter-office mail from the District Attorney’s office. The Grand Jury was concerned that they were not notified when subpoenas requested for service were not served and requested that in the future the department notify them in a timely manner when service is delayed or if it is not possible to serve a subpoena.
Commendations:
(1) Installation of the radar traffic signs in the City has been successful and the signs appear to have had an impact in school zones by decreasing speeding in those areas.
(2) The Department is commended for its creativity in completing safety improvements in remodeling the office building.
Recommendations:
(1) Subpoenas should be faxed to the Police Department as well as sent by inter-office mail to ensure that officers receive them with ample time for service.
(2) The City of Susanville should negotiate a memorandum of understanding with the Rancheria for police services.
Response Required: None Return to Menu
CITY OF SUSANVILLE
Reason for Investigation: The Grand Jury received a complaint from the City of Susanville (City) regarding “inaccurate financial reporting” and “inaccurate audit reports” prepared for the City.
Background: The City is an independent government authority which has an annual audit prepared by certified public accountants.
Investigative Procedure: The Grand Jury reviewed the confidential complaint received from the City.
Findings: The Grand Jury determined the complaint was being reviewed by other government agencies and, therefore, inquiry into the matter was not within the scope of grand jury authority.
Recommendation: None.
Response Required: None. Return to Menu
LASSEN MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT
Reason for Investigation: The Grand Jury received a complaint stating, “Frank Cady and Jaimee Richey are Partners in the Law Firm ‘Cady, Pardee & Richey LLP’ which creates a conflict of interest for Frank Cady to be LMUD’s general manager and Jaimee Richey to be LMUD’s general counsel”. The complaint also stated that the “contracts of Frank Cady and Jaimee Richey with LMUD should be terminated”.
Background: Frank Cady was legal counsel for Lassen Municipal Utility District (LMUD) before becoming its general manager. On July 1, 2005, the LMUD Board of Directors hired Frank Cady as General Manager and on July 13, 2005 hired Jaimee Richey as Interim Legal Counsel.
Investigative Procedure: The Grand Jury obtained relevant documents relating to the issues from both the complainant and through Grand Jury research.
Findings: According to a Bill of Sale, Frank Cady sold the law firm of Cady, Pardee & Richey LLP to Jaimee Richey on June 30, 2005. Mr. Cady assumed the General Manager position for LMUD on July 1, 2005. On July 13, 2005, LMUD hired Jaimee Richey as Interim Legal Counsel. Based on the Bill of Sale and sequence of events, there does not appear to be a conflict of interest.
As to the Complainant’s accusations and request that the contracts with LMUD be terminated, the Grand Jury has no authority to make a determination with regard to such an issue.
Response Required: None. Return to Menu
DELIVERY OF IRRIGATION WATER IN BAXTER CREEK DRAINAGE
Reason for Investigation: The Lassen County District Attorney’s office received a petition from a small group of concerned citizens residing in the Baxter Creek stream system agricultural area of Lassen County. This petition was given to the Grand Jury for review.
Background: The California Department of Water Resources (DWR) supervises and controls use of water from Baxter Creek for irrigation use. Users of that water pay fees through Lassen County and such fees are disbursed to the DWR to provide for a water master. The water master is responsible for ensuring that adjudicated allotments of water (diversions) are adhered to in accordance with a 1939 Lassen County Superior Court Decree No. 8174.
Investigative Procedure: The Grand Jury spoke with the District Attorney, appropriate agencies and reviewed documents.
Findings: The petition alleged, (1) water from Baxter Creek was not being fairly distributed by the DWR, (2) that the DWR water master was not adequately supervising, monitoring and controlling the adjudicated allotments, at certain diversions, from Baxter Creek irrigation system and, (3) that petitioners, although paying fees collected by the Lassen County Tax Collector’s Office, had not received services at a level consistent with the fees they had paid.
A review of the petition revealed that for an extended period of time, a dispute concerning delivery of water from Baxter Creek had arisen. The petition alleges that the water had not been delivered pursuant to Superior Court Decree No. 8174.
The petition indicated that DWR had performed an engineering investigation in order to perform repair work needed on the Baxter Creek irrigation system. The completion of these repairs would have allowed DWR to more accurately administer the court’s decree and allocate water conflicts between the water users. DWR, according to the petition, secured the engineering permits needed to make scheduled repairs on the Baxter Creek diversions.
After the Grand Jury made further inquiries to the DWR, it was discovered that there is a lawsuit pending. Due to this fact, the Grand Jury was not able to pursue the matter further.
Recommendation: None. Return to Menu
NOISE MONITORING AT HONEY LAKE MOTOCROSS PARK
Reason for Investigation: The Grand Jury received a complaint concerning the payment for noise monitoring at Honey Lake Motocross Park at Milford, California.
Background: In 2002, the Honey Lake Motocross Park (HLMP) was built by residents of Milford for the purpose of public off road motorbike meets and competition.
The Lassen County Board of Supervisors chose not to require an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The proponents’ initial use permit required that the project must comply with the Noise Element of the County General Plan. Opponents of the project initiated
litigation concerning a possible noise nuisance being created. HLMP hired a consultant and later Lassen County hired a consultant. The Superior Court ordered the HLMP owners pay for the noise monitoring fees. Fees and costs are in dispute and costs are being fully paid to the consultant by Lassen County. Lassen County has not obtained reimbursement for the cost of the professional noise monitoring consultants.
Investigative Procedures: The Grand Jury interviewed the Director of Lassen County Public Works Department, Lassen County Chief Administrative Officer, and Lassen County Treasurer/Tax Collector. Relevant documents were reviewed.
Findings: On March 29, 2003, Lassen County Superior Court ordered Lassen County to provide professional noise monitoring at HLMP to determine whether or not the noise was over specified limits. The monitoring has found some violations and the Board of Supervisors has continued with the monitoring.
According to the Consultant’s invoices, the total noise monitoring fees incurred by Lassen County are as follows:
2004 . . . . . . . . . . . .$46,500.00
2005 . . . . . . . . . . . .$54,000.00
Total costs incurred by Lassen County: $100,500.00
As of the end of the Grand Jury report deadline and to the best of the knowledge of the Grand Jury, Lassen County has not yet been reimbursed for any portion of the noise monitoring costs by the HLMP owners.
Recommendation: Lassen County should enforce noise monitoring at the expense of HLMP proponents as part of the permit process, and bear their own expense for county approved and qualified consultants. The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors take aggressive action to recover funds that are due and payable for services paid for by Lassen County.
Response Required: Yes. Board of Supervisors. Return to Menu
LASSEN COUNTY VETERANS SERVICE OFFICE
Reason for Inquiry: (1) Public interest. (2) Review of prior Lassen County Grand Jury reports indicated that the office had never been reported upon.
Inquiry Procedure: Attendance at a meeting of the Veterans Memorial Building Task Force by members of the Grand Jury.
Findings: The Task Force meets every two months at the Veterans Memorial Building at 1205 Main Street, across from Lassen High School. There are many committees, and each Task Force member is responsible for specified chores concerning various building repairs and projects.
Discussion at the meeting attended by Grand Jury members concerned the condition of the building regarding various items including: air conditioning, windows, yard projects, outside cleaning, parking lot cables and posts, and the handicapped access ramp. Various indoor projects were also discussed, including theater lighting, sound system acquisition, and installation of a ceiling for the stage. Rent is collected for use of the building and the Task Force can agree to building and/or improvement projects in lieu of rent.
Larry Rogers, who has been the Veterans Service Officer for many years, assists veterans and their families in all of the programs available to them. He keeps the public informed through his weekly Lassen County Times newspaper article. His column informs the public about current problems, pending legislation, benefits and health updates. He also coordinates the schedules for the van which makes two trips a week to the Veterans Hospital in Reno, Nevada.
Commendation: The Veterans Service Officer is commended for dedication to and management of the Veterans Memorial Hall. The members of the Task Force are commended for their dedication to improving the conditions of the Veterans Memorial Hall.
Recommendation: The County of Lassen should endeavor to increase rental use of the Veterans Memorial Hall so that more revenue can be used to maintain, repair and improve the building and grounds.
Response Required: None. Return to Menu
LASSEN COUNTY ANIMAL SHELTER
Reason for Inquiry: Public interest in the new Lassen County facility on Johnstonville Road near the Susanville Airport.
Background: A new and expanded animal shelter was needed. The project began in 1998 and opened for use in October, 2005.
Inquiry Procedures: Two members of the Grand Jury visited the Animal Shelter. Larry Millar, Director of Lassen County Public Works and Transportation was interviewed in April, 2006. Mr. Millar provided the April 5, 2006 report entitled “Animal Shelter Expansion Summary” which is attached.
Findings: The new facility is adjacent to the older building previously in use.
The older building is now used to house feral cats and quarantined animals. The new facility consists of 3,350 square feet with 20 indoor/outdoor pens for dogs, office space, lobby area, restrooms and a room for cat cages. The Rabies Control budget ($69,000) funds the Animal Control Officer. The Animal Control trust fund ($63,100) pays for two part-time staff and operations costs. The City of Susanville pays for 40% of the annual budget. The Susanville Indian Rancheria (Rancheria), an independent government authority, is not required to contribute to costs.
The new facility was built with an initial donation of $45,000 ($15,000 each from Lassen County, City of Susanville and Lassen County Humane Society). Prison Mitigation funds provided an additional $38,000 and $38,000 was received from the City of Susanville. The total materials cost was $176,442 and Lassen County labor was $75,000. Labor was also provided by local volunteers and inmate fire crews from the California Conservation Center Antelope Camp.
The Animal Control Officer responds to police and sheriff calls and searches for animals on her own, whenever time allows. The facility allows animals to be kept for one week or longer, but if the animal has a tag or an electronic ID chip, the owner is located and the animal is returned after impound fees are paid by the owner.
The facility is well ventilated, has indoor and outdoor animal runs, and the floor is heated. Large animals are housed at the Lassen County Fairgrounds. All feed for animals is donated by local merchants and residents. In addition, the community has been generous with blankets and chew toys.
Donations to the Animal Shelter Trust Fund are tax-deductible and welcomed by the staff. Donations can be made at the Shelter or at the Lassen County Public Works office at 707 Nevada Street in Susanville. Plans are in progress for posting photographs of adoptable animals on the Lassen County website.
Commendations: The Public Works Department is commended for its diligence and resourcefulness in coordinating volunteer workers and inmate crews for the construction of the new facility. The community volunteers are commended for their generous donations of money and labor, and also for providing feed and other necessities for the shelter.
Recommendations:
(1) The Board of Supervisors should endeavor to stabilize and ensure adequate permanent funding for the Animal Shelter.
(2) The Board of Supervisors should negotiate an agreement with the Rancheria, an independent government authority, to recover costs associated with animal control services on its land.
Response Required: Yes. Board of Supervisors. Return to Menu
LASSEN COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS
Reason for Inquiry: (1) Public interest. (2) Inquiry was made for possible Grand Jury storage and administrative space. (3) Refer to the report concerning the Lassen County Animal Shelter. (4) Refer to the report concerning Lassen County Historic Jails.
Background: The Lassen County Public Works Department is responsible for buildings and grounds, maintenance, parks, animal control, county surveyor and cemeteries.
The Grand Jury shares a small, inadequate storage room with the County Clerk. Grand Jury meetings are held in a room which does not have disabled access.
Inquiry Procedures: The Grand Jury interviewed Larry Millar, Lassen County Public Works Director, and Pete Biden, Buildings and Grounds Supervisor. The Grand Jury toured the Animal Shelter and the two jails located on the Lassen County Complex property.
Findings:
The Grand Jury inquired into availability of buildings for possible use by the Grand Jury. All buildings currently owned by the County include:
Alexander Street. Formerly used for the Drug and Alcohol Program. The building is condemned.
707 Nevada Street.
Roosevelt Pool property. The building is condemned.
Brashear Street house.
Health Department on South Street.
Jolly Elders building in Janesville.
Office leases on Paul Bunyan Road and Chestnut Street.
Historic jails. Refer to the report entitled Lassen County Historic Jails.
Within Lassen County, there are fourteen cemeteries and four airports or airstrips. The Johnstonville Airport is owned by the City of Susanville. There are community parks in Bieber, Long Valley, Lake Forest, Clear Creek, Johnstonville, Janesville, Milford, Doyle, Herlong, Susanville and Westwood. The Public Works Department oversees many areas including transportation, capital projects, new facilities and
animal /rabies control. A 100 acre parcel on Richmond Ridge is dedicated to wildlife habitat as part of development mitigation.
There are approximately 50 employees, and extra staff is required during snow removal season. The Department needs one or two more employees, and in particular, is needing assistance in the cemeteries and for ground maintenance. Assistance is received
from inmates from the California Conservation Center (CCC) who are located at California Department of Forestry (CDF) Antelope Camp. Assistance is also received from the Lassen County Adult Detention inmates.
An inquiry into adequate Grand Jury storage space or a meeting room did not result in any recommendations of possible locations that would be appropriate. The Grand Jury needs space that is “disabled accessible” for its members, as well as for county and city employees, witnesses, court reporters, and others.
Janesville Park is in need of additional water in order to maintain its current and future water needs. A new water well was constructed, however, it has never been placed into service due to test pump equipment being lodged within the well. Until that equipment has been removed, the current condition of the well remains undetermined. The Department of Public Works is currently seeking bids to drill a third well. It appears to members of the Grand Jury that the pump contractor should remove its test pump equipment in order to determine the well’s condition before drilling a third well.
Commendation: Utilizing the CCC (CDF) Antelope Camp inmates for work on the cemeteries, parks and the Animal Shelter saved the County a considerable amount of money.
Recommendations:
(1) An inventory of all surplus equipment should be made and appropriate action taken, such as disposal or sale. The County should take action concerning the use of vacant, condemned or uninhabitable property.
(2) The County should plan for future office space. Plans should be made for adequate storage use by the Grand Jury and a meeting room that has disabled access.
(3) The County should evaluate the damaged well in Janesville Park to determine the condition prior to drilling a third well. All expenses and alternatives should be examined prior to taking bids for an additional well.
Response Required: Yes. Board of Supervisors. Return to Menu
LASSEN COUNTY HISTORIC JAILS
Reason for Inquiry: (1) Public Interest. (2) The Lassen County Grand Jury needs a permanent location for meetings and secure storage space.
Inquiry Procedures: The Grand Jury interviewed Larry Millar, Lassen County Public Works Director and Pete Biden, Buildings and Grounds Supervisor. Tours were taken of the two buildings previously used as jails and detention facilities located on the Lassen County Complex property.
Findings: In January, 2006, tours of the “original” historic jail next to the Lassen County Courthouse and the “old” jail behind the Courthouse were taken. Information obtained from the interview and the physical evidence derived from the tours revealed:
For at least a decade, studies have been done with regard to the condition of those building. Past efforts to make the “original” jail a historic building have failed. There is no funding available and the building is beyond possible repair. The roof is not repairable and the masonry is not reinforced. According to the Director of Public Works, tearing down the building and replacing it with a new two story building is an option and would solve the county’s usable office space crisis.
The “old” jail behind the Courthouse is in dire need of immediate repair. The space is currently the depository for unused, outdated or broken office equipment and files. A thorough assessment of the items for surplus and disposal is needed. The Grand Jury was informed that the building may be strong enough to support a second story. It may be possible that new construction may preserve the historic flavor of the County Complex.
Recommendations:
(1) Efforts to get the original jail designated as an historic building should be continued.
(2) Efforts to obtain grants should be continued.
(3) A feasibility study should be conducted to add a second story to the jail behind the Courthouse.
(4) The Grand Jury needs adequate space for storage of files. It needs disabled accessible space for meetings and interviews of witnesses.
Response Required: Yes. Board of Supervisors Return to Menu
Department of Public Works.
Lassen Community College Complaints
Background: The Lassen County Grand Jury became aware of some of the problems that Lassen Community College was experiencing after reviewing the Minimum Conditions Complaint Investigation and Apportionment Review: the Preliminary Findings and Conclusions dated June 16th, 2005, as reported by the State of California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office. After reviewing the “Chancellor’s Report” the Grand Jury became very involved in learning more about Lassen College. Several members attended each Board of Trustees meeting, we also reviewed Board of Trustee meeting minutes from 2003, 2004 and 2005. The Grand Jury reviewed reports, investigations, evaluations, letters, memos, budgets and ledgers. We read over 2,000 pages of information on the college. In seeking to understand and comprehend many of the problems that existed at Lassen Community College (LCC) we interviewed over 20 witnesses. The Grand Jury also received 5 complaints about Lassen Community College.
Lassen Community College was established in 1925, with classes being held on the Lassen High School campus. Due to increasing enrollment, a new facility was built next to the high school campus in 1945. In 1965, the Lassen Community College District was established, a Board of Trustees was elected and the planning of the construction of a new Lassen College campus began. The 165 acre campus was opened in 1971, at its current location over looking the city of Susanville.
Currently the college has over 700 full-time students and 800 part-time students enrolled. This total includes approximately 246 male inmates taking over 40 correspondence classes in High Desert Prison, California Correctional Center, Herlong Federal Prison, Corcoran Prison and Pelican Bay Prison.
The college is awarded state appropriation funds after completing credit and noncredit appropriation applications which detail the course numbers, section numbers, credit information, weekly contact hours and attendance. Before sending the application in for state apportionment funds, the registrar is responsible for the collection of course data, completing the apportionment application, and obtaining the required signatures on the applications Each full-time equivalent student (FTES) is apportioned at $4,200 a year. An FTES can only be awarded to credit classes. Noncredit classes are based on weekly student contact hours (WSCH) equaling 60% (FTES), or $2520 in state apportionment. The inmate correspondence classes are funded like noncredit classes, with only 60% apportionment for weekly student contact hours awarded.
Lassen Community College has had a history of management, trustee and faculty problems. In 2001, a college accreditation team evaluated LCC citing the above problems for possible decertification. In the past three years the college has experienced significant declining enrollment. The Chancellor’s Office has conducted a Minimum Conditions Complaint and Apportionment Review from 2003 to the present. The review states that the college violated various minimum conditions for the receipt of state aid and other requirements for claiming state apportionment funding. The review extended from the summer of 2003 through the spring term of 2005. The Chancellor’s Office investigated Lassen College and found that the college owed the state over 2 million dollars due to reporting apportionment for “illegal classes,” using teachers that were not minimally qualified to teach, over-charging the state for students’ hours in the class and other issues. The Chancellor’s review estimated that the college staff had identified approximately 283.21 credits and 295.24 non-credits (FTES) that could be decertified. The review from the Chancellor’s Office initially resulted in Lassen College being required to repay the state $2,022,933, however the Chancellor offered a “good faith” apportionment adjustment. The Chancellor’s Office “will adjust future apportionment claims to pay the $2,022,933.,” This amount could be reduced if the college meets the specific goals and requirements as outlined in the February 6, 2006, Final Determination of Minimum Conditions Complaint and Review of Apportionment and the Resolution Agreement with Chancellor’s Office
. The college’s repayment schedule will effect the college’s future apportionments. To adjust to the college’s overpayment of apportionment the college’s future apportionment claims will be repaid according to the Resolution Agreement as follows:
2006-2007-reduced by $50,000 2013-2014-reduced by $250,000
2007-2008-reduced by $100,000 2014-2015-reduced by $250,000
2008-2009-reduced by $150,000 2015-2016-reduced by $250,000
2009-2010-reduced by $200,000 2016-2017- reduced by any remaining
2010-2011 reduced by $250,000 balance as described in the agreement
2011-2012 reduced by $250,000 2017-2018-reduced by any remaining
2012-2013 reduced by $250,000 balance as per the resolution agreement
This overpayment schedule will effect and will impact Lassen Community College for the next 12 years.
Documents and Reports reviewed by the 2005-2006 Grand Jury
1.) California State Chancellor’s Office Report of Lassen College Minimum Conditions Complaint and Review of Apportionment, dated August 30, 2005, (first Chancellor’s Report)
2.) Lassen Community College Management Review, dated January 30, 2006, as reported by the Financial Crisis Management Team (FCMAT Report)
3.) California State Chancellor’s Office Report of Lassen College Final Determination of Minimum Conditions Complaint and Review of Apportionment, dated February 6, 2006, (second Chancellor’s Report) or (FD)
4.) Resolution Agreement between the Chancellor of California Community Colleges and the Lassen College Board of Trustees, dated February 6, 2006
5) Interview from JDX radio station between Mike Smith and Dr. Homer Cissell, fall, 2004, (CD)
Complaint Number One-Carpentry/Cabinetry Class CT 64, section 0947, Fall of 2003
Beginning Carpentry-CT 64
A complaint was received that stemmed from questions regarding the misuse of instructors time and enrollment practices at Lassen College in the Chancellor’s Report. Two part-time instructors with signed contracts were paid $2300 each for teaching carpentry/construction trades classes at the direction of the president. Both instructors stated that they fulfilled their contractual agreement even though there being only one student in the class. Dr. Cissell stated that LCC policy is to cancel classes when enrollment falls under 15 students. According to witness testimony the carpentry class was not cancelled due to there being only one student enrolled because after the class was cancelled by the Office of Instruction, Dr. Cissell reinstated the class.
One instructor constructed the rolling plant dividers for the cafeteria and a podium for Middleton Hall. The construction trades instructor consulted with the President on blueprints and the materials for remodeling the horse barn. The instructor removed and replaced the barn poles and built new stall gates. With Dr. Cissell, the instructor installed woodwork between the stalls. The class met on Tuesdays and Thursdays between October 14th and December 18th, 2003. Dr. Cissell received a grade, an A, for the 83 credit hours that he attended. The college claimed .19 credit FTES, representing $703 in apportionment from the state.
When Dr. Cissell was interviewed by the Grand Jury, he denied that he had taken the Beginning Carpentry Class. Before interviewing Dr. Cissell, the Grand Jury had listened to a taped interview on a local radio station between a news reporter and Dr. Cissell. In the interview the reporter asked Dr. Cissell if he had taken a carpentry class in 2003 in which he was the only student, Dr. Cissell replied that he had taken the carpentry class. We reminded Dr. Cissell of the radio interview, but the President continued to deny that he was enrolled in the class or attended the class. However, he did admit that “he set an eight by eight post” for the barn. When the president was asked who remodeled the barn, where he keeps two horses, he stated “that someone did, but he didn’t know who.” Witnesses stated that since this matter has become so controversial all Carpentry Classes have been cancelled at Dr. Cissell’s request.
The FCMAT report stated that, “senior management should set an example during the regular weekday of being productive and should never put personal gains over the needs of the college. The attendance of a high level college employee as a single student in a carpentry class that meets for an eight hour period on a normal work day is inconsistent with educational policy and financial, operational and ethical statements.”
Complaint Number One was forwarded to the Lassen County District Attorney who referred it to the State Attorney General’s Office for review.
Complaint Number Two- The Kato Generator Sale from the Cogeneration Plant
An electric generator from the co-generation plant, an asset owned by LCC, was sold to Sierra Pacific Industries (SRI) in January, 2003. In December 2002, the generator was picked up by SRI prior to Board approval of the sale of the generator to Sierra Pacific Industries. This is contrary to Board policy and procedures. ED Code 81450 states “the method used to dispose of surplus property shall be that which provides the district the greatest financial gain.” Dr. Cissell arranged for the sale and requested that an instructor contact an equipment dealer to obtain a fair market value for the Kato generator from the cogeneration plant. The dealer provided the instructor with a low, sight unseen estimate of $18,000. The generator was sold to Sierra Pacific Industries without the required bidding process for $1,000, on the condition that Sierra Pacific Industries donate $17,000 to the Lassen College Foundation. The FCMAT Report stated that the $18,000 received for the generator should have been placed in the Lassen College general fund rather than being given as a gift of public funds to a private non-profit Foundation.
Complaint Number Two was forwarded to the Lassen County District Attorney who referred it to the State Attorney General’s Office for review.
Complaint Number Three- Violation of Firearms Reporting at LCC
Early in 2006, pictures of students posing with firearms in the Lassen College dormitory appeared on “My Space.com.” The possession of firearms in the college dorms is a violation of state law. According to Lassen College staff the “standing directive” issued by the President, stated that problems or law violations which occurred in the dormitory were to be reported to him, and not to the local police. The Susanville Police discovered and picked up a confiscated shotgun that the dorm manager had kept in his office for six weeks. There have been recent arrests of Lassen College students for drug and weapons possessions charges.
Complaint Number Three was forwarded to the Lassen County District Attorney who referred it to the State Attorney General’s Office for review.
Complaint Number Four- Wrestling Camp Agreements with Lassen College
Without Board approval, Lassen Community College entered into an agreement with John Smith Wrestling Corporation (Smith) and High Sierra Wrestling Corporation (Sierra) for the administration of an intensive wrestling camp, a team wrestling camp and a technique wrestling camp to be held at University of Nevada, Reno from July 20th , to August 2nd, 2003. The students enrolled in the camp paid the fee of $14.50 per credit for 64 hours of intensive, team or technique wrestling instruction. The intensive camp occurred July 20th, 2003 to August 2nd, 2003, the team wrestling camp took place from July 27th, 2003 to August 2nd, 2003 and the technique camp took place from July 20th, 2003 to July 27th, 2003. The district contracted to administer and to provide one instructor for every 75 students who attended the camp. According to the John Smith Wrestling Corporation’s agreement LCC would pay $80.00 for each California wrestler. Per the High Sierra Wrestling agreement LCC agreed to pay $20.00 for the same California wrestler who attended. Since LCC paid both John Smith Wrestling and High Sierra Wrestling it appears that LCC paid twice for the same instruction that took place at the same time and at the same place. Even though the contract with Lassen College stated that High Sierra Wrestling was a corporation, the Grand Jury could not find any evidence that High Sierra Wrestling was a corporation or registered under a fictitious name in either California or Nevada. Both contracts were signed by the same person; one as the director of John Smith Wrestling Corporation and one as the president of High Sierra Wrestling Corporation. It was also unclear to the Grand Jury whether High Sierra Wrestling had the financial resources to support the camp activities. The Chancellor’s Office questioned the FTES claim for apportionment and the college responded by removing the claim.
Complaint Number Four was forwarded to the Lassen County District Attorney who referred it to the State Attorney General’s Office for review.
Complaint Number Five- J. Robinson Wrestling Camp Foundation Donation
J. Robinson paid the Lassen College wrestling staff to administer and instruct its California Intensive Wrestling Camps. J. Robinson signed an Instructional Service Agreement with the college president. J. Robinson rented the facilities, the dormitory, the cafeteria and transportation at a discount. J. Robinson agreed to send the wrestling coach a check to cover all the college costs of the wrestling camp including; the facilities, dormitory, cafeteria, transportation and instructor’s salaries. According to the FCMAT report the college was unable to locate the supporting documentation for the $21,000 that was donated to the Lassen College Foundation, on January 31st, 2003. The information found in the Foundation minutes FCMAT noted was conflicting and confusing. Per the Foundation minutes, the donation of $21,000 came from an anonymous donor and the donation was unrestricted. The President stated that the $21,000 was donated by the head wrestling coach and went into the Wrestling Boosters account. The head wrestling coach testified that he received the $21,000 from J. Robinson and he donated it to the Foundation for unrestricted use. The Grand Jury obtained a copy of the check for $21,000, to the Lassen College Wrestling from J. Robinson and was transferred to the Foundation Fund 83 per H. Cissell. The Grand Jury could not determine in this investigation how the college expenses for the wrestling camp were paid.
Complaint Number Five was forwarded to the Lassen County District Attorney who referred it to the State Attorney General’s Office for review.
Lassen Community College Investigations
Reason for Investigation: The Grand Jury received reports that the college president, Homer Cissell, received preferential treatment during the hiring process.
Investigative Procedures: The Grand Jury interviewed a number of Lassen Community College staff members.
Background: Dr. Cissell was hired as president of Lassen Community College in 2002.
Findings: In the course of the interviews with many different witnesses the Grand Jury determined that Dr. Cissell received what appeared to be preferential treatment during the interview/hiring process at the college. The day before Dr. Cissell went to Susanville to be interviewed for the position for president of the college, he met with several faculty and staff members from Lassen Community College, including members from the hiring committee. Witnesses stated that no other candidates for this position were offered the same treatment.
Reason for Investigation: The Chancellor reported that LCC has outdated faculty hiring practices
.
Investigative Procedures:
1) Review of the California State Chancellor’s Office Final Determination of Minimum
Conditions Complaint and Review of Apportionment, dated February 6, 2006
2) Interviews with Lassen College staff
3) Review of the FCMAT Report
4) Review of the Chancellor’s Office Report on the Minimum Conditions Complaint
and Review of Apportionment, dated August 30, 2005
Background: According to the Chancellor’s Report, Lassen Community College has not updated its hiring procedures since August of 2001. Title 5 regulations concerning equal opportunity hiring practices significantly changed in 2002.
Findings: According to the state Chancellor’s report the college needs to develop a hiring and selection process that adheres to current state law and regulations. Faculty and staff recruitment, that “uses word of mouth” advertisement needs to be replaced with public job announcements that include job descriptions and requirements. To ensure that the most qualified person is hired for a job or a position the college must establish a verifiable hiring process for assessing applicant qualifications and experience. Top level management has a history of by-passing the hiring procedures. In the past, management has hired applicants without considering the individual’s level of experience or training, and without following the hiring committee’s recommendations or procedures.
Recommendations: The Chancellor’s Report stated LCC must submit to the state a revised College hiring document that is consistent with current statues and equal opportunity regulations.
There must be a commitment by upper level management and the Board of Trustees to follow the proper hiring procedures, and to trust the judgment of the Director of Human Resources and the hiring committee.
The College must develop appropriate recruitment processes for part-time faculty, including proper advertising.
It must use only part-time faculty pools that comply with Title 5 requirements.
The state chancellor’s office is requiring that the College implement a system to ensure only faculty who meet minimum qualifications teach college classes. According to state law, the college risks more than the denial of state funding when it allows unqualified faculty to teach credit classes. Students cannot receive credit or grades when the credit classes are taught by faculty who do not meet minimum qualifications. The Grand Jury recommends that the College continue to follow the FCMAT and Chancellor’s recommendations and time-lines for hiring procedures.
The college needs to use a standardized procedure for employment with the Director of Human Resources leading and managing the process without exceptions to the procedure.
Commendations: The College has hired a new Human Resources Director and a new Dean of Instructional Services. They are working hard to establish new selection and hiring procedures that adhere to state law and resolve qualification issues using the guidelines outlined by the Chancellor’s Office.
The Dean of Instruction, who was hired September, 2005, is qualified and experienced in California Community College ED Code and procedures. The Dean restored the department heads and worked to reorganize and update faculty assignments. After evaluating all the full-time and part-time staff the Dean created a list of qualified full-time and part-time faculty.
Reason for Investigation: The Grand Jury received complaints that LCC apparently committed numerous unfair labor practices and violated agreements.
Investigative Procedures:
1) The Grand Jury attended all the Board of Trustee Meetings in the 2005-2006 school year.
2) The Grand Jury reviewed Board of Trustee minutes from 2003 to present.
3) The Grand Jury interviewed several witnesses
4) The Chancellor’s Reports
5) The FCMAT Report
Background: Several witnesses interviewed by the Grand Jury expressed reservations meeting with the Grand Jury because those faculty members who had previously met with the Grand Jury appeared to have been retaliated against by the President and/or by some members of the Board of Trustees. On April 18, 2006, a grievance was filed by the LCC Faculty Association charging the LCC administration with retaliation (see Attachments).
Findings: The Grand Jury observed that during open public sessions of Board of Trustee Meetings the college president or a member of the Board of Trustees would read a letter or were verbally critical of those faculty members who had been witnesses before the Grand Jury. After the Grand Jury interviewed two Deans, both received letters from the President stating that he would not recommend to the Board of Trustees that their contracts be renewed. Dr. Cissell stated he did not want their contracts renewed because “he could not work with them.” The Board of Trustees agreed that one of the contracts would be renewed and the other contract would not. Neither of the Deans’ had received an evaluation by the Board of Trustees or the President as required by Board policy before the letters from the president were issued.
The faculty and staff responded to the presidents’ action with a petition signed by 70% of the Lassen College faculty and staff stating that they “had no confidence in his ability to lead the college.” The petition in response to the President’s action against the Deans was presented to the Board of Trustees during an open session of the Board of Trustee meeting.
During an open session of the Board of Trustees meeting the president and a board member read a letter specifically mentioning staff members by name. This resulted in the degradation and humiliation of that staff member. College staff expressed their fear of being retaliated against by the President and some of the Board members for meeting with outside agencies. Numerous witnesses that the Grand Jury had interviewed were extremely concerned about losing their jobs. Some of the witnesses have written “hostile work environment” complaints in response to the stress and the pressure on campus.
Another example of unfair treatment by top level management is exemplified by how the carpentry/ construction trades instructors were treated. In response to the second Chancellor’s Report ordering the President to get the two instructors to pay back their salary of $2300 each, the President had the college attorney send the instructors letters. The letters asked them to return the $2300 within 10 days, they earned teaching the President carpentry/construction trades in the Fall of 2003. If the instructors did not repay the money, the college attorney acting in behalf of the college, stated he would take the instructors to small claims court. During this time the Business Director was calling them at home asking for the $2300. Both instructors were very upset and confused by the attention they received regarding this action because they thought they had done their jobs. After investigating this matter thoroughly, the Grand Jury felt that both instructors had fulfilled their contractual obligations to the college.
The Grand Jury forwarded this matter to the Lassen District Attorney who referred it to the State Attorney General’s Office for review.
Reason for Investigation: The Chancellor Report found LCC course approval and course advertising are deficient
.
Investigative Procedures:
1) Review of the Chancellor’s Office Final Determination of Minimum Conditions Complaint and Review of Apportionment, dated February 6, 2006.
2) Interviews with Lassen College staff
3) FCMAT Report
Background: In the past the college has experienced difficulties in course planning, course approval and course scheduling.
Findings: Lassen Community College has occasionally offered courses before the college administration had secured approval from the Board of Trustees. This is a violation of Title 5, section 55002, a minimum condition for state aid.
In the past, the college has had difficulties with offering classes for the two year plan. This was due to the lack of qualified instructors and the classes being offered sequentially, which resulted in students taking more than 2 years to complete a 2 year academic program.
The college has a poor record of advertising classes to the public in violation of open course requirements, Title 5, sections 58102-58108. The Chancellor reported that the inability of the college to provide meaningful information to the public was apparently responsible for declining enrollment at the college and for the college’s current fiscal problems.
Recommendations: Lassen Community College needs to develop a consistent procedure to ensure that appropriate course approvals from the Board are secured before courses are offered because unapproved courses do not qualify for apportionment.
The college needs to create reliable course information that is available to the public. The college should continue to follow the Chancellor’s recommendations and time-lines.
Commendations: The Office of Instruction is making meaningful strides in updating the scheduling of classes and the modernizing the college course catalog. Lassen Community College has begun to develop an up-to-date website that can be easily accessed by the public. The college administration understands the value of being online and plans to make full use of internet access for college applications and registration. The website contains updated school information, program details and course outlines. The Datatel System is improving the college’s ability to produce schedules and course catalogs. Recently, the college published a new catalog that adhered to Title 5 provisions that described the academic and vocational programs at Lassen College. Two year academic plans for certificates and degrees were created to identify the sequence of courses that would be offered in the fall or spring semester and which courses would be offered once every 4 semesters. The “two-year plans” are a critical component in determining the sequence of courses that are offered in the fall and the spring. This June, the Office of Instruction prepared and distributed the Fall Class Schedule for 2006. The first enrollment management plan at the college for two year academic plans for certificates or degrees has been instituted.
Reason for Investigation: The Chancellor reported irregularities in reporting PE apportionment.
Investigative Procedures:
1) The Grand Jury interviewed several witnesses
2) Reviewed the FCMAT Report and both Chancellor Reports.
Background: Most of the apportionment problems occurred in PE 179. From the summer of 2003 to the summer of 2005, PE 179 was improperly offered in the course catalogs as a sports course. PE 179 was a noncredit PE course entitled “Lifelong Health and Fitness.” Title 5, section 58130 expressly prohibits the claiming of apportionment for noncredit classes in recreational physical education.
Findings: LCC had previously been notified by the state Chancellor’s Office in a letter dated March 13th, 2001, that stated “sports classes are not available for noncredit state apportionment.” Despite the restrictions as outlined in Title 5, section 58130, the college continued to use PE 179 as a sports class and reported attendance for non-credit apportionment. Many of the PE 179 classes were listed in class schedules without course content descriptions. Classes routinely met by arrangement or “DHR” and classes were often “stacked” noncredit and credit classes together which allowed nonresident students the opportunity of taking credit classes without paying fees. Samples of nonresident student schedules confirmed that nonresident students were enrolled in one or more PE 179 classes in their sports, and no other classes. In effect, according to the Chancellor, PE 179 was used to circumvent the limitations on noncredit apportionment for sports and the requirements for charging nonresident tuition.
One year a student took 34 credit and noncredit classes: 23 of the classes were in PE with 14 enrollments in wrestling. The Chancellor’s Report noted that several students had been allowed to take PE classes more than four times. These students improved their GPAs markedly by taking identical courses repeatedly. Title 5, section 55763 prohibits students from improving their GPAs by repeatedly taking classes that they have already passed.
Additionally in the spring of 2004, the college offered PE 16, section 4966, a credit course, “Walking for Fitness.”103 students enrolled in the class without paying the required enrollment fee or the required health fee. The faculty who taught the class understood that they would not be paid for the class but were told by the President that they could teach the class to raise funds for their Booster accounts. The college had an MOU with the Foundation whereby the college would pay the Foundation $3.00 per student contact hour for the class. After the class was over the two instructors assessed the class apportionment to be $15,450. The President then authorized a transfer of $15,450 from the college general fund to the Foundation. The President then transferred $5,506 from the Foundation account to each of the faculty’s Booster accounts, and $1,994 was used to pay for student enrollment and health fees. This left $4,747 unaccounted for. The Chancellor observed that the college used general fund money to pay students fees in order to artificially inflate enrollment and the resulting apportionment claim. This class circumvented the requirement that students pay enrollment and health fees. The Chancellor questioned why the college would have a MOU to pay the Foundation $3.00 per student contact hour when the Foundation was not providing the instructors or facilities. The Chancellor’s Office also questioned what services the Foundation provided to receive $15,450 from the college general fund and questioned why college general fund money was transferred into a private non-profit corporation.
In the summer of 2004, the college offered PE 179, section 8364 with 97 students enrolled and section 8367 with 29 students enrolled. In May of that year the Board of Trustees met to approve a Memorandum of Understanding with the Foundation that required the college to pay the Foundation $1.26 for each noncredit hour for the above sections of PE 179. Under the agreement the college paid the Foundation for “the organization, recruitment and compensation of the staff” as well as for “facility usage and staff costs.” Since the Foundation has no facilities or staff the Chancellor questioned what the Foundation did to earn the money. The Chancellor’s Office reported that the college allocated general fund money to a private nonprofit corporation.
In the Summer of 2004, PE 179 sections 8440 and 8441 were taught. 106 of the same students were enrolled in both sections taught from July 27th, 2003 to August 10th, 2003. The same 106 students were also enrolled in the J. Robinson Wrestling Camp. The Instructional Service Agreement that the college had with J. Robinson Wrestling Corporation required that the “campers register for 160 hours of district courses with California students registering for credit courses and that other students would register for noncredit health and fitness courses.” The camp was held at the University of Nevada, Reno with Lassen College providing lodging and transportation for the campers and staff. Lassen Community College paid J. Robinson Wrestling Corporation $30,000 to administer the camp and enrolled its campers in PE 179. The Chancellor’s Office reviewed the J. Robinson Intensive Wrestling Workbook and could not find anything that equated to a course outline. The J. Robinson Wrestling Camp, the John Smith Wrestling Camp and the High Sierra Wrestling Camp were all held at the University of Nevada, Reno, at the same time and using the same instructors and administrators. The college withdrew its apportionment claim of $75,561 for the courses/camp.
The Chancellor’s Office notified the college dated March 13, 2001, that noncredit sports classes could not be offered for state apportionment. Even though the college was forewarned that it would be ineligible for funding the college continued to offer noncredit sports classes
The Chancellor’s Report lists other examples of misuses of PE courses for appropriation by the college: “The Little Britches Rodeo,” the “Fitness Center,” 307 players in a basketball league, bowling, skiing, snowboarding, cross-country skiing, volleyball golf, soccer, swimming and wrestling. The Chancellor’s Office found the “Fitness Center” courses raised an additional question of how a course which relied on the use of the “Fitness Center” equipment at Lassen College for attendance purposes could be offered in Nevada or elsewhere.
Recommendations: Lassen Community College needs to follow the requirements for sports and recreational classes as described in Title 5, the FCMAT Report and the Chancellor’s Report.
The college should not offer any PE classes that are not recommended by the college Academic Senate and the Curriculum Standards Committee, and approved by the Board of Trustees.
Reason for Investigation: The Chancellor and FCMAT reported that Lassen Community College lacked effective controls over attendance accounting procedures as per Title 5, section 58007.
Investigative Procedures:
1) Review of the Chancellor Reports
2) Review of the FCMAT Report
3) Interviewing pertinent witnesses
Background: According to the Chancellor’s Report, Lassen Community College instructors did not record actual attendance information for noncredit classes on the Official Register.
Findings: Since apportionment for noncredit classes is given on a per hour basis, the instructor must record which students are present at each course meeting. The Chancellor’s report stated that accurate attendance was not kept on the college Official Register maintained in the Registrar’s Office. Positive attendance for classes which recorded the class hours met for each student and the total hours attended were not completed by instructors at the end of the semester. The Chancellor could not find a procedure that advised the faculty to retain background data and day-to-day records for apportionment purposes.
Recommendations: The Chancellor’s Report recommended that the college implement a process to ensure that the college faculty is familiar with attendance responsibilities including the recording and retaining of accurate attendance information. The college by June 30th, 2006, must submit to the Chancellor a fully developed training program that ensures that appropriate attendance records are retained. The installation of a software program Datatel will aid in maintaining enrollment and attendance information for all courses.
Reason for Investigation: The FCMAT Report detailed declining enrollment problems at LCC
Investigative Procedures:
1) Review of Chancellor Reports
2) Review of the FCMAT Report
3) Interviewing several witnesses
Background: Enrollment has declined for the past three years. Multiple solutions have been proposed by the staff, faculty, the FCMAT Report and the Chancellor’s Report.
Findings: Several witnesses stated there was a relationship between not having a published schedule and the decline of enrollment at the Lassen Community College main campus and the outreach centers. The President’s requirement of having 15 students enrolled in a Lassen College Class has also had a negative effect on college enrollment. Additionally, the lack of general student and vocational student recruitment has also had a negative impact on enrollment. Since on-campus college enrollment declined the past few years. The college in looking for new revenue sources has increased the amount of correspondence classes to 40. Each correspondence class being offered averaged 28 students. The correspondence classes are open to the general public and to prison inmates from the California Correctional Center, High Desert Prison, Herlong Federal Prison, Corcoran Prison and Pelican Bay Prison. Currently there are 246 male inmates enrolled in Lassen Community College. While the correspondence classes have been increasing, other on campus academic programs and vocational programs have been reduced or cut. The college has reduced the amount of classes offered in cosmetology. The Construction Trades Program, the Women’s Conference and SPOT Program (steam powered technology) have been discontinued.
On July 1st, 2006, the college will no longer have a full-time, general funded counselor to help the general student population to create a two year academic plan for a degree or a certificate. Recommendations: The college must continue to develop a realistic Enrollment Management Plan.
The college should use numerous methods of outreach and advertising to inform the community of its offerings. Commendations: Lassen Community College has developed a successful correspondence education program. Lassen College has also become involved in creating a Native American Studies Program. A part-time Native American Studies Coordinator has been hired. With 95 reservations in California alone, a partnership with the tribes could benefit the college culturally, as well as economically. Additionally, the college has planned to reopen the Fire Science Program.
Reason for the Investigation: The Chancellor found that Lassen Community College co-mingled funds with the Foundation.
Investigative Procedures:
1) Review of the Chancellor’s Reports
2) Review of the FCMAT Report
3) Witnesses interviews
4) Review of the Lassen College general ledger
Background: The Chancellor’s Office and FCMAT reviewed the finances of Lassen Community College and the Lassen College Foundation and found what it believed was a co-mingling of funds.
Findings:
8-8-04 $7,687.50
9-10-04 $15,759.00
9-23-04 $16,598.64
10-31-04 $73,356.23 (reclassified monies)
Because of this, the Chancellor’s Office stated that “until June 30, 2009, the college must secure written approval of the state Chancellor or his/her designee, prior to any transfer of money from the college’s general fund to the Foundation.”
B. Prior to 2005, most of the Foundation business was conducted using the college
business office staff and systems. No charges for personnel salaries or supplies
were ever billed to the Foundation. After the Foundation bought the Eagle Lake
Marina, the college business office handled all the ordering, purchasing, salaries
and taxes for the Eagle Lake Marina Store on a no charge basis. The FCMAT
reported that general fund fees to the Foundation were a gift to a private nonprofit
corporation.
These transactions were referred to the Lassen County District Attorney who forwarded them to the State Attorney Generals Office.
Reason for the Investigation: Lassen Community College’s potential fiscal shortfalls
Investigative Procedures:
1) Review of the FCMAT Report
2) Review of the college general ledger
3) Lassen Community College Audits from the year 2003-2005
4) Witnesses interviews
Background: According to the FCMAT Report the college is projected to end the 2005-2006 fiscal year with an approximate $472,124 deficit in the general fund. Combined with the $2.2 million apportionment repayment this could all but eliminate the college’s reserve fund.
Findings: The FCMAT Report states that the use of multiyear financial planning promotes long-term fiscal stability. The college had not been audited for 4 years. LCC didn’t have the audit reports from 2003-2004 and 2004-2005 it would seem that the President and the Board lacked reliable information and data to develop college goals and priorities. Without this vital budget information the FCMAT questioned what processes the Board had used in the past to make decisions. The budget reflects the real priorities of the college as to what programs the college will or won’t fund. The budget is considered the single most important policy document that the Board controls. Budget development needs to be a collaborative process that includes all the parties responsible for the educational and financial performance of the college. To create a multiyear budget there must be participation and input from the Board, administration and staff.
Recommendations: Lassen College needs to create a budget process that will provide key personnel with information relating to projected enrollment, projected revenues, cost of living allowances, projected pay, benefit changes and all other information pertaining to preparing the budget. With this needed financial information the college could develop budget guidelines that would be approved by the Board of Trustees, and be communicated to the Dean of Instruction, the Department Chairs and Department Supervisors.
Each department could then develop priorities and goals for their specific area using time-lines and key dates to guide the process.
The college needs to follow the guidelines that have been set down by the Chancellor’s Office and FCMAT in developing a rolling 3 year plan for the college.
Even though Board members and staff members often express visions and goals, they are not discussed and documented as part of the overall process.
The college should conduct strategic planning and goal setting activities between management, the Board and the staff.
Commendations: LCC hired the Fiscal Crisis Management Assessment to prepare a 3 year budget plan.
Reason for the Investigation: The FCMAT report questioned the role of the Lassen Community College Board of Trustees
Investigative Procedure:
1) Review of Board of Trustee meeting minutes from 2003 to today
2) Grand Jury Attendance of Board of Trustee Meetings
3) Review of the FCMAT Report
4) Review of the Resolution Agreement between the Chancellor’s Office and the Lassen College Board of Trustees
5) Review of the Final Determination of Minimum Conditions Complaint Review of Apportionment Claims (FD)
Background: The Board of Trustees at Lassen Community College is currently involved with following through with several recommendations from the FCMAT Team and the Chancellor’s Report (FD).
According to Board policy only the Board of Trustees has the responsibility for hiring and/or firing faculty and staff.
Findings: According to the FCMAT Report, a Board approved budget is a policy document, as well as a fiscal document. The budget is the college’s financial blueprint for the management and staff to follow during the year. The budget reflects the real priorities of the college through which the Board approves funding. This results in the Board being responsible for approving the single most important policy document at the college. FCMAT reported that the Board of Trustees does not receive fiscal information from the President in a timely manner so it cannot make informed and educated decisions. Throughout the 2005-2006 school year, several members of the Grand Jury observed that during the Board of Trustees meetings, the Board made many after the fact decisions related to budgetary and hiring issues. During this past year, the college had staff members who had been working at the college for months before the Board approved their contracts. According to the FCMAT Report, information on job positions is one of the most critical areas requiring the Boards’ attention. This information is necessary to effectively establish checks and balances between personnel decisions and budgeted appropriations. A few of the Board members have repeatedly asked the President to present to the Board information regarding approval of contracts before the individuals had begun to work. During Board meetings, some members of the Grand Jury observed that the Board was still presented with hiring contracts after the fact. The inability of the Board to monitor the jobs within the college will contribute to wasteful expenditures that quickly exceed budgeted levels and create financial problems.
The President of the Board of Trustees and the President of the college both read derogatory letters about faculty members in the open session of the Board of Trustees in violation of the Brown Act. The Brown Act states that personnel issues are to be dealt with during the closed session of a Board of Trustees. After the President of the College read the second letter critical of staff members at the next meeting the Board of Trustees discussed the appropriateness and legality of the issue. The Board decided that in the future such letters will not be read in open meetings.
Recommendations: The Lassen College Board needs to get more involved with fiscal strategic planning and demand that budget and hiring information be provided to them in a timely manner.
The Lassen College Board should continue to oversee implementing the Resolution Agreement to resolve the college financial and management problems.
The Board of Trustees also needs to look into the role of the attorney at the college to determine if the attorney is attending to the best interests of the college as a whole. In April of 2006, the President stated that the college had already spent $170,000 for attorney fees this year.
The Board of Trustees should hold “Conflict Resolution” training to help work through the management-staff differences.
Commendations: Some members of the Lassen College Board of Trustees have become more vocal and outspoken in the Board of Trustee meeting process. Several of the Board members have requested that the president provide them with more information and data.
The Lassen Community College Foundation
Reason for Investigation: According to the Chancellor’s Report and the FCMAT Report during the past few years the Foundation appeared to have received several questionable contributions.
Investigative Procedures:
1) Review of the Chancellor Reports
2) Review of the FCMAT Report
3) Interviewing several witnesses
4) Review of the Foundation general ledger
5) Review of Foundation Audits
Background: The Foundation at Lassen Community College was founded in 1977, as a non-profit, tax-exempt corporation whose purpose is to enhance the educational and cultural opportunities available to the citizens of Lassen County as well as the college’s outlying service areas. The 1977, mission statement of the Lassen College Foundation maintains that “the Foundation will provide financial support to deserving students through partnerships with individuals, businesses or organizations.”
In January of 2003, a Kato generator valued at $18,000 was sold to Sierra Pacific Industries. The President arranged for Sierra Pacific Industries to pay the college $1,000 and to pay the Foundation $17,000. This sale represented a gift of public funds to a nonprofit corporation. See Complaint Number One
Also in January of 2003, $21,000 was donated to the Foundation from J. Robinson Wrestling Corporation. See Complaint Number Five
In July of 2003, the Foundation accepted the donation of the vacated Lassen Banner Hospital along with its contents. The Foundation said that college nursing program could be taught in the vacated hospital. According to the Chancellor’s Report, some members on the Foundation Board stated that the hospital donation agreement was based on false pretenses and upon insufficient research regarding the usefulness of the facility. This spurred several of the board members to resign in protest. Even though there was disagreement over the donation of the hospital, the Foundation accepted the donation. According to the Lassen County Assessors Office, the hospital had an assessed value of $703,800.
That fall, the college maintenance staff advised the President that the pipes in the hospital needed to be drained. Most of the pipes in the hospital were drained that fall. In November, a valve in a section of the hospital that had not been drained broke, spilling water throughout the south section of the hospital. After the pipes broke substantial damage occurred to the hospital for which the Foundation received $280,000 reimbursement from the college’s insurance company. Of that amount, $60,000 was used to clean up damage in the hospital. During the cleanup there appeared to be no special precautions taken to deal with the asbestos found in the wraps for the pipes and the mud for the sheet rock. The remaining $220,000 went into the Foundation account. Since Lassen Community College paid the insurance for the Foundation it would seem that the insurance reimbursement should have gone into the college general fund. This transaction appeared to be a gift of public funds to a private nonprofit corporation. This matter is still being investigated and will be forwarded to next years Grand Jury.
In January of 2006, the vacated Lassen Banner Hospital was sold to an unregistered corporation from Salt Lake City, Utah for $390,000. According to the Foundation Board, the vacated hospital was sold for such a low price because the buyer would have to pay for the asbestos abatement and removal
The Chancellor and FCMAT reported that there was an MOU between the college and the Foundation whereby the college would pay the Foundation for holding classes. Since the Foundation has no facilities or staff the Chancellor’s Report questioned what services the Foundation provided to earn $1.26 per weekly contact hour for a noncredit class and $3.00 per weekly contact hour. The college paid the Foundation $7,459 from the college general fund for the noncredit class and $15,759 for the credit class. For further information read the PE investigation section.
Lassen College staff reported that the Lassen College Foundation paid for tuition, books and supplies for male prison inmates. The male inmates in Lassen County, Corcoran and Pelican Bay Prisons were eligible to receive these awards, even though Corcoran and Pelican Bay are outside the Lassen College district limit and are high security prisons. In order to qualify for the Foundation scholarship an inmate would have had to be turned down by the Board of Governors Grant and the Extended Opportunity Program and Services Program. The President stated that the Foundation owned about $18,000 worth of books that it could loan inmates.
The Foundation offers three types of scholarships: the $2000 High School Senior Scholarship for two years at Lassen College, the Senior Citizen Scholarship for class tuition, and a non-cash general scholarship for athletes which pays their tuition and fees, the dormitory, cafeteria and book store debts. In June of 2006, the Foundation awarded 9 Lassen County High School Seniors scholarships. In past three years the Foundation has awarded a total of12 Lassen County Students Senior Scholarships. Senior Citizen Scholarships were also available to those who applied.
All scholarships awarded were non-cash awards. The scholarship money is credited to the recipients account to pay for tuition and fees. There appeared to be no clear-cut method of applying to the Foundation for a scholarship that ensured equal access to non-athletes. The Grand Jury could find no evidence that the general student population was even aware of these opportunities. The President stated that if a student needed money he or she was told to write a letter of need to the President asking for a scholarship or loan. FCMAT reported that the President would often issue money to the scholarship recipients without Foundation Board approval. In 2004, the Foundation awarded 27 general scholarships. The majority of the students awarded Foundation general scholarships were athletes. In 2004, the Grand Jury discovered that 3 students were paid Foundation scholarships totaling $2,116 out of the college general fund. In addition, in the summer of 2004, 27 Foundation scholarship recipients were paid $25 an hour from the general fund as summer recreational aids and was credited to their scholarship accounts.
The FCMAT further noted that there was no distinction in the Foundation General Ledger stating whether a transaction was a scholarship or a loan. Nor did FCMAT observe that there to appeared to be evidence that the students repaid the loans to the Foundation. In addition, the Foundation scholarships were not cash awards, but instead the awards were credited towards expenses in their school accounts which were apparently from the college general fund. The Chancellor’s Office reported that the college provided money to the Foundation for unclear reasons and “improperly cycled general fund moneys through the Foundation to pay student fees.” The reason the college provided general fund money to the Foundation the Chancellor’s Office noted, was “to boost enrollment or FTES and apportionment.”
These scholarship irregularities were forwarded to the Lassen County District Attorney who referred them to the State Attorney Generals Office.
In July of 2004, using the vacated hospital as collateral, the Lassen College Foundation purchased the assets and the rights to operate the Eagle Lake Marina from the Chico State Foundation. This business would provide income for the Foundation to fund their scholarships and other college programs contributions. The first year the Marina was in operation the net profit was $85,000. The second year’s net profit was $30,000. In January of 2006, the college Foundation paid for the rights to manage Lassen National Forest Campgrounds in the Eagle Lake area. Due to the inactivity of the LCC Foundation in the past, the Chancellor’s Office questioned the legality of the auxiliary status of the College Foundation.
Recommendations:
The Lassen College Foundation needs to follow the recommendations of the Chancellor’s Office in order to determine if the Foundation complies with current auxiliary organization laws.
Commendations: The Lassen College Foundation has spent much of 2006, rewriting and retooling the Lassen College Foundation mission statement, by-laws and scholarship criteria.
The Lassen College Foundation has transferred their funds into its own accounts and hired an independent accountant to do their books.
The Foundation has created standard criteria for the Foundation High School Scholarship and distributed Foundation Scholarship applications to all the Lassen Community College District high schools.
The Lassen College Foundation has hired an experienced manager to supervise the Eagle Lake Marina and an experienced campground manager to run the campgrounds. Both managers adopted the FCMAT general accounting recommendations for doing the inventory and cash totals.
Investigative Conclusions
1) The Investigation of Lassen Community College and the Lassen College Foundation will be forwarded to the 2006-2007 Grand Jury.
2) The Grand Jury recommends that a special fraud investigation look at the
financial transactions of the Foundation from 2002 through 2005.
3) Next years Grand Jury will need to obtain detailed analysis and information for
accounts payable and accounts receivable from the Foundation.
4) The Grand Jury could not confirm that the money that went from the college
general fund into the Foundation account had been paid back to the college.
5) The Grand Jury recommends the 2006-2007, Grand Jury interview the Lassen College Foundation President and any other Board members it may deem necessary to further its investigation.
6) The Grand Jury recommends the 2006-2007 Grand Jury interview the Lassen College District Board of Trustees President and other Board members it may deem necessary to further the investigation.
Response required: The President of the Board of Trustees, Lassen Community College
The President/Superintendent of Lassen Community College
GRAND JURY HISTORY AND FUNCTION
The first formal Grand Jury was established in 1635 by the
Massachusetts Bay Colony which considered cases of murder, robbery, and wife
beating. By 1683 Grand Juries in some form were established in all colonies.
By the end of the Colonial period, the Grand Jury had become an indispensable adjunct of government. Grand Juries proposed new laws, protested against abuses in government and wielded tremendous authority in their power to determine who should and should not face trial.
Originally, the Constitution of the United States, written in 1787, made no provision for a Grand Jury. The Fifth Amendment, ratified in 1791, added this protection:
“No person shall be held to answer to a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except for cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia when in actual service in time of War or public danger. . . ”
Through the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868 most of the provisions of the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution have been made applicable to the states. As interpreted by some states, this amendment meant that prosecution of crimes no longer mandated a Grand Jury indictment.
The first California Penal Code contained statutes providing for a Grand Jury. Early Grand Juries investigated local prisons, conducted audits of county books, and pursued matters of community concern. The role of the Grand Jury in California is unique in that pursuant to statutes passed in 1880, the duties include investigation of county government.
The Grand Jury system in California is unusual in that Federal and County Grand Juries in most states are concerned solely with criminal indictments and have no civil responsibilities. Grand Jurors serve for one year and are impaneled in the first week of the fiscal year to coincide with the county’s budget year. Up to 10 Grand Jurors may be held over for a second term.
All of California’s 58 counties are required to have Grand Juries, and recent changes in Section 904.6 of the Penal Code (1991) permit any county to have a special Grand Jury at the discretion of the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. The County District Attorney has the option of utilizing special Grand Juries chosen from the regular petit trial jury pool to handle criminal cases and thus ensure indictment by those who present a random cross-section of the community.
The Lassen County Grand Jury is a judicial body of nineteen (19) citizens impaneled to act as a community “watchdog”. Forty-two states have some form of Grand Jury; however, only California and Nevada mandate the impaneling of a Grand Jury each year.
The primary function of a Civil Grand Jury is to oversee all aspects of the legislative and administrative departments that make up county, city and special district governments. The Civil Grand Jury has the power to investigate them to ensure that they are efficient, honest, fair and dedicated to serving the public and individual citizens. The Civil Grand Jury is an arm of the court and has subpoena powers.
By law, Grand Jurors may not disclose the evidence obtained in their
investigations or reveal the names of complainants or witnesses. Similarly,
witnesses are prohibited from disclosing any proceedings of the Grand Jury.
When investigations are completed, the Grand Jury decides what recommendations should be made to increase efficiency, improve services to the public and save tax-payer dollars. Department or agencies may be singled out for special commendation for well- managed operations. As with all investigations, it takes 12 votes to release a report to the public. The results of investigations are collected in a Final Report at the expiration of the Grand Jury’s term of office.
The Lassen County Grand Jury report is distributed to the public and to public officials, the Lassen County Times newspaper, KSUE radio station, the Susanville Library and is available in the Jury Commissioner’s Office at 220 S. Lassen Street, Susanville, California 96130. The telephone number is (530) 251-8109.
INFORMATION FOR RESPONDENTS
Effective January 1, 1987, there was an extensive change in the law affecting respondents to Grand Jury findings and recommendations. The requirements are contained in the California Penal Code Section 933.05, summarized as follows:
How to Respond to Findings:
The responding person or entity must, within ninety (90) days, respond in one of two ways:
1. That you agree with the finding(s).
2. That you disagree wholly or partially with the finding(s), in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding(s) that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons for the disagreement.
How to Report Action in Response to Recommendations:
Recommendations by the Grand Jury require action. The responding person or entity must, within 90 days, report action on all recommendations in one of four ways:
1. The recommendation has been implemented and provides a summary of the implemented action.
2. The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a specified time outlined for implementation.
3. The recommendation requires further analysis. If a person or entity reports that further analysis is required, the law requires a detailed explanation of the analysis or study and the time frame, not to exceed six months. In this event, the analysis or study must be submitted to the officer, director or governing body of the entity responding.
4. The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable and provide an explanation of the reason.
Budgetary or Personnel Recommendations:
If either a finding or recommendation deals with a budgetary matter or matters concerning a Lassen County department headed by an elected officer, both the elected officer and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if the Grand Jury so requests. However, the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those budgetary or personnel matters over which it has authority to make decisions. The response of the elected department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her department.