Newspaper Archive of
Feather River Bulletin
Quincy, California
Lyft
June 23, 2010     Feather River Bulletin
PAGE 64     (64 of 68 available)        PREVIOUS     NEXT      Full Size Image
 
PAGE 64     (64 of 68 available)        PREVIOUS     NEXT      Full Size Image
June 23, 2010
 

Newspaper Archive of Feather River Bulletin produced by SmallTownPapers, Inc.
Website © 2019. All content copyrighted. Copyright Information.     Terms Of Use.     Request Content Removal.




Plumas County Grand Jury Report Page 14 jurisdiction of this Grand Jury, under advisement from California Superior Court Judges Kaufman and Hilde, and with concurrence of complainant, the Grand Jury referred the complaint to the California State Attorney General. The Attorney General determined that no action was required. The Plumas County Grand Jury closed the complaint. Complaint 7 092209 Complaint against a Plumas County Board Supervisor and a Planning Department Director regarding approval of a new housing development in the countY. The complaint alleges collusion and con- flict of interest in the process. The Plumas County Grand Jury had determined to review land development processes in Plumas County and had formed an investigative committee for said purpose. Refer to Development Approval investigative report which is part of this Final Report. The Plumas County Grand Jury also interviewed County Counsel regarding conflict of interest when a Board member sits on boards of other county enti- ties, such as a water district. Refer to Development Approval investigative report which is part of this Final Report. Complaint 8 111809 Complaint against a Plumas County community development employee; judicial assistance was requested. The Plumas County Grand Jury is civil in nature. The complaint did not fall under the jurisdiction of this Grand Jury and was, therefore, closed. Complaint 9 111709 Complaint against Plumas County Animal Services requesting removal of a county employee for endan- gering the welfare of animals and the safety of peo- ple. Complaint content acknowledged that Plumas County Human Resources was expected to take disci- plinary action for a recent infraction. Complaint included communication with Plumas County department heads regarding this subject. Plumas County Grand Jury members visited the Plumas County Animal facility, unannounced. Jury members were professionally received, were impressed with the .personnel and facilities, and observed proper care and feeding of the animals. The Plumas County Grand Jury determined that no further action was required, and the complaint was closed. Complaint 10 011810 (1 of 3) Complaint against members of LAFCO for illegal award of benefits to LAFCO board members. The Plumas County Grand Jury is civil in nature. This complaint did not fall under the jurisdiction of this Grand Jury and was, therefore, closed. Complaint 11 011810 (2 of 3) Complaint against Portola City Manager and City Councilman for Brown Act violation when meeting with GLRID and Plumas County employees. The Grand Jury determined that the Brown Act was not violated by any parties attending the private meeting, as there was no quorum of the individual Boards/Councils/CSD's participating. The Grand Jury closed the complaint. Complaint 12 011810 (3 of 3) Complaint against Plumas County Board of Supervisors for settling a court case in the termina- tion of an employee. The Plumas County Grand Jury is civil in nature. This complaint did not fall under the jurisdiction of this Grand Jury and was,'therefore, closed. Complaint 13 031710 Complaint against county law enforcement employ- ees and a private physician for alleged mistreatment during arrest, failure to make a deal with the com- plainant during arrest and responsibility for involv- ing the complainant's automobile in an accident. The complainant requested that the Grand Jury dis- bar a deputy district attorney, revoke retirement benefits from a former sheriff's department employ- ee and force a private physician to pay for automo- bile damages. The Plumas County Grand Jury is civil in nature. This complaint did not fall undeL: the jurisdiction of this Grand Jury and was, therefore, closed. Complaint 14 042810 It is the policy of the Plumas County Grand Jury that all complaints must be filed using the Grand Jury Citizen Complaint form. The complainant did not use the form. The complaint was not considered by the Grand Ju although a letter was sent to request the complaint be resubmitted using the form. Elections Department Review of Procedures Election Scanning Department Report Report of inspection of ballot scanning procedures requested by Plumas County Clerk/Recorder's Office conducted on 9/25/09 Supervisors: Kathy Williams, Deputy Clerk Recorder/Registrar of Voters Marcy DeMartile, Election Coordinator Tina Aubrey, Department Clerk Recorder Procedures: Ballots are printed and tallied by precinct Polling places are limited to 1000 voters A tape records all votes and it is saved Memory card is used to show election tallying on computer screen In counting ballots, the machine will spit back any ballot with no votes on it. Security: Multiple verification approaches used Machines re-set for each election. No ballot goes through without verification. The memory card is saved in the safe Tapes are held for several months as a record; 22 months for federal elections and 6 months for local for any challenges Tapes are then destroyed During the ballot count, red plastic locks secure the machines. Lots of checks and balances. The machines can't be uploaded twice, and they are not connected outside the room. The subcommittee that made the requested inspec- tion believed that the election process was well-orga- nized and the processes were reliable. Jail Inspection Report Reason for Inspection: The Plumas County Grand Jury is annually required to inspect any jail within the County in accordance with the California Penal Code. Procedure: The Plumas County Grand jury conducted an inspec- tion of the Plumas County correctional facility (jail), accompanied by the Sheriff and a Staff Sergeant. Background: The jail was constructed in 1976 for a maximum of 37 inmates. In the 1990s it was expanded to accommo- date 67 inmates. Unfortunately staffing of the jail was not increased to accommodate the nearly dou- bling in the number of inmates. This dangerous situ- ation has existed for more than a decade and needs to be remedied. The location of the jail is in East Quincy and is adja- cent to a maintenance yard, a transfer station and a recycling facility, The jail is bordered in the back by the access road to the aforementioned facilities. Findings and Recommendations: The Grand jury recognizes that with the current eco- nomic downturn it is difficult to provide adequate funding for a new jail or to facilitate improvements to the existing facility and to increase the staffing needed to improve the efficiency and safety of cur- rent working conditions. However, there are very critical needs that must be addressed somehow before a serious incident involv- ing injury or death occurs. We request that the County take a very hard look at the conditions pre- sented in the following report. Facility: Finding 1: The current jail is one of the last linear designed jails in California. The design has the cells and other rooms in a straight line where it does not permit the staff to easily observe inmates in differ- ent locations of the jail or to be able to respond to emergencies. Finding 2: In addition, due to the poor construction design, radio communication within the facility is spotty, allowing potentially dangerous situation to develop with weak response. Finding 3: Another concern, which is due to occa- sional overcrowding are the forced early release of inmates into the community. A larger facility would alleviate this reoccurring problem. Finding 4: The perimeter fence in.the exercise yard is bordered by a public access road. Outsiders have clear access to the fence enclosing the exercise yard. They can then place drugs, weapons and other con- traband where inmates can retrieve them. There have been two escapes (one being abetted by an accomplice) in the past dozen years, but both were soon captured. Finding 5: There are risks involved in transporting prisoners to the courthouse. Video arraignment, where the inmate is arraigned from the jail was tried, but poor acoustics in the jail precluded its use. Finding 6: The washer and dryer need replacing but