These are the Summaries, Findings, Commendations, Recommendations, and Requests for Responses only. All of the full Reports including this one can be found on the Shasta County Grand Jury's website here.
2023 - 2024
Shasta County Grand Jury
Final Reports
-To Recuse or Not to Recuse?: That is the Question Shasta County Board of Supervisors
-Igo-Ono Community Services District and the Misselbeck Dam
-Ensuring Anderson-Cottonwood Irrigation District Agricultural Water for the Next Century
-Cost of Outside Legal Counsel for Shasta County
-Citizen Oversight of Shasta County Elections
-Shasta County Eligibility Workers are Undervalued
To Recuse or Not to Recuse?
That is the Question
Shasta County Board of Supervisors
SUMMARY
The Shasta County Grand Jury received two complaints alleging wrongdoing by a supervisor of the Shasta County Board of Supervisors. When the grand jury investigates into wrongdoing and no wrongdoing is found, the grand jury need not write a report. However, in the case of the following complaints, because the perception of wrongdoing led to public discord and community distrust, the grand jury felt it was important to clarify any lingering misconceptions within the community.
The grand jury received two complaints alleging violations of rules and regulations pertaining to a Shasta County Board of Supervisors member's recusal. One complaint alleged a supervisor did not leave the board chambers after recusing from a matter in which the supervisor had a financial interest. Another complaint alleged the supervisor did not recuse on a matter that could financially benefit the supervisor.
The grand jury investigated both allegations as to the appropriateness of the supervisor's actions. After careful study of the Shasta County Administrative Manual, the California Code of Regulations, and the Fair Political Practices Commission's Political Reform Act, the grand jury determined there were no violations by the board, and the supervisor appropriately followed the above-mentioned rules and regulations.
FINDINGS
F1. After reviewing the minutes of the October 24, 2023, Shasta County Board of Supervisors meeting and reviewing the pertinent recusal rules and regulations, the grand jury found there were no violations of laws, rules, or regulations.
F2. Since removing Impact Fees for Shasta County affects at least 25% of all real property within Shasta County and there is not a unique effect on the supervisor's financial interest, the grand jury found the supervisor appropriately took part in the discussion and voting regarding impact fees.
F3. Although the grand jury found no wrongdoing, perceptions of wrongdoing created discord within Shasta County.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The 2023-2024 Shasta County Grand Jury recommends that:
R1. The Shasta County Board of Supervisors adopt a procedure by September 1, 2024. to direct county counsel to explain to the public the applicable government codes and rules governing recusals prior to any recusals at board meetings.
R2. The Shasta County Board of Supervisors adopt a procedure by September 1, 2024, to direct county counsel, when appropriate to an agenda item, to explain to the public any applicable government code sections that allow or disallow a supervisor to take part in any financial decisions that might benefit the supervisor.
REQUEST FOR RESPONSES
Shasta County Board of Supervisors:
F1, F2, F3
R1, R2
Igo-Ono Community Services District and the Misselbeck Dam
SUMMARY
When the 2023-2024 Shasta County Grand Jury began looking into various local government organizations, it found Redding Record Searchlight news articles from 2020 detailing the Misselbeck Dam emergency when the Dam's outlet drains plugged with debris from the 2018 Carr Fire. The blockage caused the lake to rise and wash over the 100-year-old dam's deteriorating spillway. This was not the first time the dam outlets plugged. Due to potential dam failure, the Shasta County Board of Supervisors declared the situation a local emergency. A month later, the debris around the outlets spontaneously unplugged, allowing proper drainage. At that time, the county declared an end to the emergency. At the time of the crisis, other ongoing deficiencies with the dam still existed. The grand jury has learned that although some progress has been made in repairing the dam's deficiencies, serious structural, seismic, and hydraulic problems remain unresolved.
The Igo-One Community Services District (district) is in charge of managing the dam. Through a series of flumes and ditches, the district provides non-treated water primarily for agriculture to the communities of Igo and Ono west of Redding. The district has one paid employee and is governed by an independent Board of Directors consisting of five elected volunteers serving staggered four-year terms. Though they are dedicated and do good work, the grand jury discovered two areas for district improvement: creating a district policy and procedures manual and hiring or contracting an independent business manager.
The grand jury found that the district admirably manages day-to-day operations of the dam but is slow in addressing the serious issues facing the dam. The district needs specialized technical support to move forward with the critical infrastructure improvements of Misselbeck Dam. The grand jury learned that the district is now using a grant application writer specializing in dam and irrigation canal needs. Once funding is secured, they should hire or contract with a person having technical skills to oversee the necessary infrastructure repairs.
FINDINGS
F1. The Misselbeck Dam is at risk of failure due to its poor condition, critical infrastructure problems, and seismic structural deficiencies.
F2. The Igo-Ono Community Services District is managed by a small board of volunteers and one employee, who do not have the time or expertise to address Misselbeck Dam's highly technical infrastructure problems.
F3. The Igo-Ono Community Services District's one employee and small board of directors have more duties than they can accomplish, leading to deficiencies, such as completing a policies and procedures manual as recommended by the Local Agency Formation Commission and required by California state law.
COMMENDATIONS
C1. The Igo-Ono Community Services District ensured that the Shasta County Board of Supervisors added Misselbeck Dam to the Shasta County Hazard Mitigation Plan in 2023, which will enable it to apply for grants formerly unavailable to the district.
C2. The Igo-Ono Community Services District's Board of Directors and one employee are dedicated and accomplish an enormous amount of work, especially considering the district's large area and age of the dam and canal. The Shasta County Grand Jury commends the district for its hard work, persistence, and dedication.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Shasta County Grand Jury recommends:
R1. The Igo-Ono Community Services District Board of Directors continue working with a grant writer who has the expertise to achieve grant funding for dam and irrigation canal needs.
R2. The Igo-Ono Community Services District Board of Directors hire or contract with a person having technical skills to oversee the needed infrastructure repairs when grant money is secured.
R3. The Igo-Ono Community Services District Board of Directors complete a policy and procedures manual for board members and its staff by December 31, 2024.
R4. The Igo-Ono Community Services District Board of Directors assign, hire, or contract with a qualified business manager to oversee district finances by December 31, 2024.
REQUEST FOR RESPONSES
Igo-Ono Community Services District Board of Directors:
F1 through F3
R1 through R4
Ensuring Anderson-Cottonwood Irrigation District Agricultural Water for the Next Century
SUMMARY
The Shasta County Grand Jury initiated this investigation after multiple local news agencies reported that the 2022 drought and 2023 heavy rainfall caused unprecedented negative impacts on the Anderson-Cottonwood Irrigation District's system, its customers, and others in its sphere of influence.
The Anderson-Cottonwood Irrigation District (ACID) is an independent special district, which has provided agricultural irrigation to southern central Shasta County since 1917. In 2022, for the first time in its history, the district's board of directors elected not to purchase water from the United States Bureau of Reclamation (USBR). Consequently, the district's ranch and agricultural water customers could not access district water during a drought year. Then, 2023 proved to be a year of heavy rainfall. The succession of drought followed by excessive rain had devastating effects on the irrigation canal system, property of ACID water customers, and other properties adjacent to the canal, as well as native wildlife and habitat.
During the course of this investigation, the grand jury found that much of the district's infrastructure is not up to modern standards, and the district lacks a comprehensive long-range plan to modernize it. Water enters the ACID canal at the diversion dam at Redding's Caldwell Park. The grand jury found that the ACID diversion dam is hazardous to maintain, impedes endangered fish migrating to spawning habitat on the Sacramento River, and is no longer in compliance with current safe fish screening criteria. Grant funding is available to remove the diversion dam.
To ensure ACID availability for the next 100 years, the grand jury believes the district needs a comprehensive modernization plan. The district would be wise to seek guidance from experts in the field when creating this plan. The grand jury agrees with state and federal agencies that removal of the diversion dam should be part of that plan.
FINDINGS
F1. The Anderson-Cottonwood Irrigation District lacks a long-range plan for canal modernization to ensure adequate agricultural irrigation for the future.
F2. The Anderson-Cottonwood Irrigation District does not have sufficient funds to finance system modernization.
F3. Removal of the Anderson-Cottonwood Irrigation District diversion dam can be accomplished with grant money and would bring Anderson-Cottonwood Irrigation District into compliance with federal mandates enabling passage for migrating fish on the Sacramento River.
COMMENDATIONS
C1. The Shasta County Grand Jury commends the 2023-2024 Anderson-Cottonwood Irrigation District Board of Directors for improving district communications by implementing a user-friendly website and sending text alerts to water customers.
C2. The Shasta County Grand Jury commends the 2023-2024 Anderson-Cottonwood Irrigation District Board of Directors for setting a tone of mutual respect during the district meetings.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The 2023-2024 Shasta County Grand Jury recommends the Anderson-Cottonwood Irrigation District Board of Directors:
R1. Direct the Strategic Planning Committee to start developing a comprehensive modernization plan by October 1, 2024, that includes removal of the diversion dam with an alternative draw downstream to ensure safe agricultural irrigation to south central Shasta County for decades to come.
R2. Direct the Strategic Planning Committee by October 1, 2024, to utilize guidance from experts, such as the California Polytechnic Irrigation Training and Research Center, the United States Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the Sacramento River Settlement Contractor Non-Profit Corporation, for engineering expertise and funding sources.
REQUEST FOR RESPONSES
Anderson-Cottonwood Irrigation District Board of Directors:
F1 through F3
R1 through R3
Cost of Outside Legal Counsel for Shasta County
SUMMARY
The Shasta County Grand Jury received a complaint alleging the Shasta County Board of Supervisors spent an excessive amount of money for contracted outside legal counsel. The complaint was based on comments made during a Shasta County Board of Supervisors meeting on September 26, 2023, indicating the board had spent $16,426,293.80 for outside legal counsel over 31 months.
The comment immediately raised concerns from members of the public, who did not believe that the board could spend $12,000 per day for outside legal services. The complainant suggested this type of spending might be an indication of corruption and requested the grand jury provide information to the residents of Shasta County about how and why the board had spent this money.
The grand jury found the actual amount of funding by the county for outside legal counsel was in fact less that reported in the board meeting, and the time span for the reported expenditures was longer than was stated. There were a series of errors on the data collection and the reporting of that data to the board, which resulted in an overstatement of the costs of outside legal counsel. This report presents the data over a four-year period and dispels the misconception that the board spent $16.4 million on outside legal counsel over 31 months.
FINDINGS
F1. The amount of funding spent by Shasta County for contracted outside legal services was overstated in a Shasta County Board of Supervisors meeting which elicited strong reactions from the public and further undermined public confidence in the board's judgements.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The 2023-2024 Shasta County Grand Jury recommends:
R1. The Shasta County Board of Supervisors identify and enroll in an annual training program focused on improving communication and transparency during board meetings. The first annual training is to be completed by January 31, 2025.
REQUEST FOR RESPONSES
Shasta County Board of Supervisors:
F1
R1
Citizen Oversight of Shasta County Elections
SUMMARY
The Shasta County Grand Jury launched an investigation into alleged violations of elections codes prompted by a complaint submitted to the grand jury by a concerned citizen. The complainant alleged that on Tuesday, October 24, 2023, elections officials of the Shasta County Elections Office violated elections codes when staff did not allow election observers to "see the ballot envelopes nor challenge signature verification" of mail-in ballots. The grand jury feels it is important to clarify any lingering misconceptions within the community about election observations.
The grand jury conducted interviews with elections management, toured the elections office, and reviewed pertinent elections laws. The investigation found that the elections officials adhered to the requirements of the relevant sections of the California Elections Code. This code allows observers to view the verification process, with limitations.
FINDINGS
F1. The Shasta County Grand Jury found that the Shasta County Elections officials adhered to the relevant sections of the California Elections Codes and California Bill of Rights on Tuesday, October 24, 2023.
RECOMMENDATIONS
None.
REQUEST FOR RESPONSES
Registrar of Voters:
F1
Shasta County Board of Supervisors:
F1
Shasta County Eligibility Workers are Undervalued
SUMMARY
Eligibility Workers are the first contacts for the underserved population needing assistance in Shasta County. The Shasta County Grand Jury found the Shasta County Health and Human Services Agency (HHSA) entry-level Eligibility Worker position has a high vacancy rate and decided to investigate the problem. In the course of its investigation, the grand jury found that Eligibility Workers express a high job satisfaction rate but leave because of low wages and job stress. "Eligibility Worker 1" (EW1) is defined as an entry level position, but the career has changed over the past few years and now requires complex special skills. The current job description has not been updated to include the complexity of the current position, nor the time and training required to learn and master the job.
Though an upper management HHSA employee proposed a comprehensive reclassification almost 18 months ago, the county has not approved it. The grand jury recommends that the county reclassify the EW1 position to reflect the true complexity of the job.
The high vacancy rates for EW1s have resulted in EW staff working excessive overtime, which contributes to staff burnout and causes workers to resign or transfer to other county jobs that are less stressful. The county would benefit from doing a cost analysis to more clearly understand how the agency spends limited funds.
In addition, HHSA lacks a permanent training space. The current training center is too small to train a sufficient number of new employees to fill vacancies, complicating the problem. In spite of an adequate applicant pool, only 16 new hires can be trained every four months. The grand jury recommends that the county secure a larger permanent training facility to accommodate more trainees.
FINDINGS
F1. Reclassification of the Eligibility Worker 1 position to match the current complexity of the job is necessary to increase wages.
F2. Increasing the wages of the Eligibility Worker 1 position to match the current complexity of the job would improve retention and lower vacancy rates.
F3. Inadequate staffing leads to additional stress for the workers and delays services for clients.
F4. The small training facility limits the number of trainees per class, which contributes to the insufficient number of new hires.
F5. As a result of not tracking the cost of overtime or the loss of Eligibility Workers during training, the county is not able to calculate the investment lost every time a worker leaves.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The 2023-2024 Shasta County Grand Jury recommends:
R1. The Shasta County Board of Supervisors approves and implements the existing reclassification proposal of the Eligibility Worker position by December 31, 2024.
R2. The Shasta County Board of Supervisors establishes a permanent training center, large enough to supply a full contingent of new Eligibility Workers by December 31, 2024.
R3. By June 30, 2025, the Shasta County Board of Supervisors conducts a cost analysis of overtime and attrition of the Eligibility Worker 1 position during training and during the first year of employment.
REQUEST FOR RESPONSES
Shasta County Board of Supervisors:
F1 through F5
R1 through R3
Addressing and Arresting MRSA Behind Bars:
Shasta County Jail Management of MRSA Poses Risk to Inmates and Those Who Look After Them
SUMMARY
A complaint from a concerned citizen prompted the Shasta County Grand Jury to investigate the medical treatment of Shasta County Jail inmates. The complainant's son was an inmate with a skin infection and a history of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). The complainant alleged that initially there was delay in addressing her son's condition, followed by incorrect treatment, which led to additional and unnecessary suffering. The complainant alleged that many other inmates were also suffering with MRSA.
Skin and soft tissue infections are common in correctional facilities, including the Shasta County Jail. The overwhelming majority of these infections are caused by MRSA. Medical personnel, working in correctional facilities, must have sufficient medical knowledge to control and treat MRSA infections.
The Shasta County Sheriff's Office (SCSO) is responsible for the health and safety of inmates. Shasta County contracts with an outside healthcare organization, Wellpath, to provide healthcare services in the jail. Wellpath's policies and procedures for infectious disease prevention and control do not address the control and treatment of MRSA skin and soft tissue infections. Wellpath and the SCSO correctional staff inconsistently follow standard practices for the reduction of MRSA transmission, putting inmates and staff at risk for developing infections.
The grand jury determined that deficiencies of policies and procedures to minimize MRSA transmission and unreliably following standard medical practices to treat skin and soft tissue infections lead to unsafe and unsanitary conditions and put inmates and staff at increased risk for MRSA.
Though both SCSO and Wellpath need to address these shortcomings, the grand jury discovered that Wellpath is not fully meeting several of its contractual obligations to Shasta County. By meeting these terms of the contract, Wellpath would remedy many of the present problems regarding MRSA skin and soft tissue infections within the jail.
FINDINGS
F1. As a result of inadequate policies and procedures for MRSA prevention and control, staff and inmates at the Shasta County Jail are at increased risk for developing skin and soft tissue infections.
F2. As a result of inmates not being routinely examined unclothed at intake and prior to work clearance, skin and soft tissue infections are not reliably identified.
F3. As a result of the Wellpath staff unreliably following intake policies and procedures, identification and treatment of inmates arriving to jail with infections is delayed, thus putting staff and other inmates at risk of becoming infected.
F4. As a result of Shasta County Jail correctional staff not monitoring and ensuring adequate inmate cleaning of common areas and cells, unsafe and unsanitary conditions exist that enable the spread of MRSA.
F5. As a result of some Wellpath staff having insufficient knowledge of MRSA and standards to treat active skin infections, staff is putting infected inmates at increased risk of delayed healing.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Shasta County Grand Jury recommends:
R1. By December 31, 2024, the Shasta County Sheriff-Coroner direct Wellpath to develop and implement facility-wide policies and procedures for standard practices, delineated by NIOSH, for the prevention and control of MRSA skin and soft tissue infections.
R2. By December 31, 2024, the Shasta County Sheriff-Coroner direct Wellpath to develop a policy and procedure by which inmates entering jail and being cleared for work duty have their skin fully examined.
R3. By December 31, 2024, the Shasta County Sheriff-Coroner direct Wellpath to create a system-wide policy whereby every inmate with an open skin infection receives a daily change of clean clothing, bedding, and towels to reduce the spread of MRSA.
R4. By December 31, 2024, the Shasta County Sheriff-Coroner update the policies and enforce daily environmental cleaning of all surfaces in common areas and cells to reduce the spread of MRSA, and to regularly inspect and document the cleaning to ensure it was performed to standards.
R5. By December 31, 2024, the Shasta County Sheriff-Coroner direct Wellpath to provide in-service training, preferably by a local physician with expertise in wound care, on standard practices for the prevention, assessment, treatment, and documentation of MRSA skin and soft tissue infections.
REQUEST FOR RESPONSES
Shasta County Sheriff-Coroner:
F1 through F5
R1 through R5