HomeMy WebLinkAboutGrand Jury Report, May 20, 2012�� CALI
May 20, 2012
GRAND JURY
COUNTY OF NEVADA
Eric Rood Administration Center
950 Maidu Avenue
;-- Nevada City, California 95959
L Phone Number: 530-265-1730
Email:grandjury@nevadacountycourts.com
Board of Directors
Truckee Donner Public Utility District
11570 Donner Pass Road
Truckee, CA 96161
Attn: Mr. Tony Laliotis, President
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Enclosed is a copy of the report prepared by the Grand Jury of Nevada County on the subject of the
Truckee Donner Public Utility District.
This report will be published two days after we confirm receipt of this letter, at 11:00 a.m. when it
will be posted on the Grand Jury's Website: www.civilgrandiury.com. Click on "Reports" link.
The California Penal Code (§933.05) prohibits disclosure of any portion of this report prior to its
publication by the Grand Jury.
California Penal Code requires that responses to Grand Jury reports must be addressed to
The Honorable Thomas Anderson
Presiding Judge of the Grand Jury
201 Church Street
Nevada City, California 95959.
To assist you in writing your response, we are enclosing a copy of Section 933.05 (a) of the Penal
Code and an example of correct format for responding. To assist you with responding, an electronic
formattable copy of this report can be obtained by request from the jury at:
grandjury a nevadacountycourts.com Please be advised that your response(s) are due on or before
the date 90 days after the publication of the report.
The Grand Jury appreciates your cooperation.
rley,
Robert T. Coats
Foreperson, 2011— 2012 Grand Jury
CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE
(EXCERPT FOR RESPONDENTS)
Section 933.05 (a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury
finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following:
1. The respondent agrees with the finding.
2. The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response
shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of
the reasons therefor.
(b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury
recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following
actions:
1. The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented
action.
2. The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the
future; with a timeframe for implementation.
3. The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and
parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for
discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or
reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when from the date of publication of thecable. This
grand jury
timeframe shall not exceed six months
report.
4. The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not
reasonable, with an explanation therefor.
(c) However, if a finding or recommendation of the grand jury addresses budgetary or
personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both
the agency or department head and the board of supervisors shall respond if requested
by the grand jury, but the response of the board of supervisors shall address only those
budgetary or personnel matters over which
hartment head shall decision-making
d es tali aspects of the
authority. The
response of the elected agency or his or her agency or department
findings or recommendations affecting g Y
A.L. 7
EXAMPLE: CORRECT FORMAT FOR RESPONDING TO A GRAND JURY REPORT
As required by Penal Code Section 933.05
FINDINGS:
1. Even when notification proceeds properly, the foster child's school records may not arrive at the
new school for as long as eight or ten weeks. During this time the child may not be permitted to
attend school
Disagree
Children are not denied education and a child's school record has to be requested by the
school of enrollment.
2. Our CPS is on record as demanding that foster parents not home school the foster children in their
care. CPS finds it difficult to enforce its own policy.
Partially agree
Nevada County CPS requires that its foster children be mainstreamed in education unless
there are exceptional circumstances.
3. There can be a number of possible reasons for the foster child's relocation to another county, i.e.,
the availability of foster homes, need for special care, relationships between foster parent and
foster child, the location of a desirable member of the child's extended family.
Agree
RECOMMENDATIONS:
6. The Board of Supervisors should consider taking back from the State the responsibility for the
approval and training of foster parents within the County.
The recommendation will not be implemented at the present time
The Board believes the current process for the approval and training of foster parents in
Nevada County is sufficient at the present time.
7. The Board of Supervisors should maintain funds and services to continue the County's model of
the transition of 18-year-olds in the foster care system into independent living.
The recommendation has been partially implemented
Additional initiatives to redesign the California Child Welfare System will be
implemented in Nevada County in conjunction with changes in State regulations.
A.L. 7
TRUCKEE DONNER PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT
Summary
The Truckee Donner Public Utility District is an independent special district providing
electrical power and water services in and around Truckee, California. The Truckee Donner
Public Utility District is governed by a Board of Directors elected by the district's voters.
On April 19, 2011, the Nevada County Grand Jury received a complaint from a member of
the public. The complainant asked the Nevada County Grand Jury to review the eligibility of
a Director of the Truckee Donner Public Utilities District to serve on the Board of Directors.
The Nevada County Grand Jury finds the Truckee Donner Public Utilities District does not
have written policy outlining procedures for an investigation of a complaint concerning a
member of the Board. The Nevada County Grand Jury finds there was a lack of
responsiveness to the complaint by the General Manager and the Board of Directors. The
Nevada County Grand Jury finds;
• the General Manager failed to advise the Board of Directors of the complaint;
• the Board of Directors, when it learned of questions concerning the eligibility of
the Director, failed to give direction to the General Manager or to seek advice
from its legal counsel.
The Nevada County Grand Jury recommends the Truckee Donner Public Utilities District
Board of Directors develop written policy which outlines procedures clearly defining the
roles and responsibilities of the General Manager, the Truckee Donner Public Utility
District's legal counsel and the Board in response to a complaint concerning a member of the
Board. The Nevada County Grand Jury also recommends the Truckee Donner Public
Utilities District improve communication among management, legal counsel and the Board
of Directors of the Truckee Donner Public Utilities District.
Reasons for Investigation
On April 19, 2011, the Nevada County Grand Jury (Jury) received a complaint regarding a
member of the Truckee Donner Public Utility District (TDPUD) Board of Directors (Board).
The complaint requested the Jury review the eligibility of a Director to serve on the Board at
the time of the November 2010 election or the date of the complaint.
The Jury has the authority to investigate special purpose assessment or taxing districts,
including those commonly known as special districts, in Nevada County.
2011-2012 Nevada County Grand Jury Page 1 of 5
Background
Special districts are a form of local government created by a community to meet specific
needs. Most of California's special districts perform a single function such as sewage
treatment, water services, fire protection, pest management or cemetery management. There
are approximately 2,300 independent special districts in California, each governed by an
independent board of directors elected by the voters of their district or appointed to a fixed
term of office by either a city council or a county board of supervisors. There are
approximately thirty independent special districts in Nevada County.
The TDPUD is an independent special district responsible for providing electrical power and
water services in and around Truckee, California. The TDPUD is a non-profit, publicly
owned utility. The TDPUD is governed by a five -member Board. The Board is elected by
district voters during the general elections held in November. In the general election to be
held in November 2012, three of the five Directors will stand for election. The members of
the Board serve four-year terms.
The Board is responsible for setting policy and general administrative procedures. The
Board selects and appoints a General Manager (GM). The GM is responsible for the day-to-
day operations of the TDPUD and is accountable to the Board.
The Board meets in regular session every month. These meetings are scheduled at 6:00 P.M.
on the first and third Wednesday of each month and are open to the public.
Procedures Followed
The Jury interviewed TDPUD staff, four members of the Board, the TDPUD's legal counsel,
United States Postal Service (USPS) personnel and residents of the TDPUD. The Jury also
reviewed related documents provided by the TDPUD and the USPS.
During the review of the complaint, the Jury also reviewed the policies and procedures of the
TDPUD. The Jury's inquiry focused on the time period between August 2010 and June
2011.
Facts
F.A.1. The TDPUD is governed by a five -member Board elected by the voters of the
TDPUD.
F.A.2. Only residents of the TDPUD who are registered voters are eligible to serve as
TDPUD Directors (California Public Utilities Code section 15952).
2011-2012 Nevada County Grand Jury Page 2 of 5
F.A.3. There is a governing document for the TDPUD titled District Code.
F.A.4. The District Code provides that;
• the GM is selected and appointed by the Board and is accountable to the Board;
• the GM administers the policies and procedures of the TDPUD as directed by
the Board;
• the GM is responsible for the day-to-day operations of the TDPUD;
• the Board is responsible for establishing policy, approving plans and programs
and delegating authority to the GM;
• the GM is responsible for responding to citizens' complaints and requests for
information;
• the GM is to keep the Board informed of customer complaints;
• the GM will inform the Board of significant problems so the Board can provide
necessary direction to District staff.
F.A.S. There is no written policy in the District Code outlining the roles and
responsibilities of the GM, the TDPUD's legal counsel or the Board when a
complaint is made concerning a member of the Board.
F.A.6. On December 15, 2010, the TDPUD legal counsel received a complaint questioning
the residency of a member of the Board (Director).
F.A.7. The Board met in a regularly scheduled meeting on December 15, 2010.
F.A.B. At the December 15, 2010 Board meeting, the Director made a public statement and
said he was aware of questions regarding his residency status. He further stated he
was a resident of Truckee.
F.A.9. Prior to the Director's public statement, the GM was aware of the complaint which
questioned the residency of the Director.
F.A.10. The GM met with the Director and TDPUD legal counsel prior to the Director's
public statement. At that time, the Director told the GM that he was a resident of
Truckee.
F.A.11. The GM accepted the Director's statement that the Director was a resident of
Truckee
F.A.12. The GM did not further investigate the complaint.
F.A.13. The GM did not advise the Board of the complaint or of any actions taken to
investigate the complaint in any open or closed session of the Board.
F.A.14. After the Director's public statement at the December 15, 2010 Board meeting, the
Board failed to seek advice from its legal counsel regarding the issues raised by the
Director's statement.
2011-2012 Nevada County Grand Jury Page 3 of 5
F.A.15. After the Director's public statement at the December 15, 2010 Board meeting, the
Board failed to give direction to the GM regarding the issues raised by the
Director's statement.
F.A.16. The Board met in a regularly scheduled meeting on February 16, 2011
F.A.17. At the February 16, 2011 Board meeting, the Director made a public statement that
he still considered himself a resident of Truckee.
F.A.18. At the February 16, 2011 Board meeting, after the Director's public statement, the
President of the Board stated the Board was glad to keep the Director on the Board,
"as long as we can."
F.A.19. After the Director's public statement at the February 16, 2011 Board meeting, the
Board again failed to seek advice from its legal counsel regarding the issues raised
by the Director's statement.
F.A.20. After the Director's public statement at the February 16, 2011 Board meeting, the
Board again failed to give direction to the GM regarding the issues raised by the
Director's statement.
F.A.21. The District Code does not require the Board or the GM to notify the complainant
of the disposition of a complaint made concerning a member of the Board.
F.A.22. The TDPUD did not notify the complainant of any disposition of the complaint.
F.A.23. The Director resigned from the Board on June 22, 2011.
Findings
F.IA The District Code does not specifically address the process for responding to a
complaint concerning a member of the Board.
F.I.2 The District Code does not specifically require the GM to keep the Board informed
of a complaint concerning a member of the Board.
F.I.3 The GM's failure to notify the Board of the complaint regarding the Director denied
the Board an opportunity to address the complaint.
F.I.4 After the Director's public statements at the December 15, 2010 and February 16,
2011 Board meetings, the Board showed a lack of engagement and responsiveness
by failing to address the issues raised by the Director's statement.
F.I.5 The District Code does not require the complainant be notified of the disposition of
a complaint made concerning a member of the Board.
2011-2012 Nevada County Grand Jury Page 4 of 5
Recommendations
The Nevada County Grand Jury recommends:
Rl. All members of the Board should seek out and attend training regarding the roles
and responsibilities of Board members in special districts.
R2. The Board should develop written policy which clearly defines the roles and
responsibilities of the GM, the TDPUD legal counsel and the Board in response to a
complaint concerning a member of the Board.
R3. The Board should amend the District Code to require the complainant be notified of
the disposition of a complaint made concerning a member of the Board.
R4. The Board should develop written policy that requires the GM to keep the Board
informed of a complaint concerning a member of the Board.
R5. The Board should improve communication among TDPUD management, TDPUD
legal counsel and the Board.
Responses
Truckee Donner Public Utility District Board of Directors: Date: [Date 90 days after date of
publication to be inserted], 2012
2011-2012 Nevada County Grand Jury Page 5 of 5