Tuolumne County Grand Jury Highly Critical Of Senior Administration Actions
Sonora, CA — Alleged differential treatment to a certain group of close employees and poor hiring practices were highlighted in a new Tuolumne County Grand Jury Report.
The Grand Jury is a government watchdog group reviewing citizen complaints about government in Tuolumne County.
A new report released, notes, “Early in its term, your Grand Jury received a complaint alleging that hiring and personnel practices in county government were unfair, unprofessional, and created morale problems. It was alleged that individuals in senior positions were engaging in questionable behavior that was having a detrimental effect on government function and overall cohesion within county government.”
The report was completed prior to recent changes in county government, including the resignation of longtime CAO Tracie Riggs and the appointment of Acting CAO Roger Root.
The report also referenced statements by senior staff made about preferential projects, such as those related to homelessness, and a fear of speaking out against those.
Below are some quotes included in the 22 page report: (Click here to view the report in its entirety)
“Different witnesses used different language to describe this situation. Several witnesses used the term “like mean girls from high school” to describe those on the inside. Others used the term “confidants” while others described “good old boys club versus the not good old boy club,” and others used the term “playing favorites.”
“If you were a Department Head and there were issues with the quality of work in your department or if there were concerns from the Board of Supervisors or citizens during Board of Supervisors meetings, that friendship could protect you from fallout.”
“Even elected county employees faced backlash. Multiple department heads, including several elected department heads indicated they felt Senior County Administration would go “behind my back” to Board Members and the Department Head would not have an opportunity to state their case.”
“This was not a case where each employee was entitled to their own opinion; it was a situation where “how dare you take sides against me” was stated. That kind of reaction created not only fear for one’s job, but also was a warning to never speak against the Senior County Administration.”
“A Department Head which was part of the “inner circle” came to Senior County Administration complaining that a Board of Supervisor member was creating a hostile work environment. The Senior County Administration hired an outside special investigator at $70,000. After many hours of review, the outside investigator concluded there was no hostile work environment as alleged by the Department Head against the Board Member.”
Several findings and recommendations were included in the report. The report was broken into eight sections:
1. Differential Treatment by Senior County Administration
2. Retribution by Superiors for Legitimate Action or Opinions
3. Treatment of the Board of Supervisors by County Employees
4. Misrepresentation of Information to and from the Board of Supervisors
5. Growth of the Executive Confidential Unit
6. Undue Control by Senior County Administration
7. High Performance Organization as a Framework Used by County Management
8. Hiring Irregularities.
FINDINGS
Findings for Section # 1:
F 1-1
There is an overall belief and feeling by Tuolumne County Employees that “friends: of those highly placed in Tuolumne County Administration were given pay raises hidden from the public, and possibly from the Board of Supervisors on the consent calendar.
F 1-2
There is an overall belief and feeling by Tuolumne County Department Heads that some Department Heads were not given the necessary access and time by Tuolumne County Administration and/or Board of Supervisors. Another significant issue in this finding is that many of those interviewed told your Grand Jury that the Tuolumne County Administration policy is to meet with each Department Head at least once per month. Unfortunately, the reality was that the policy was not followed for a multitude of reasons. Sometimes the Department Head held the belief that the meetings were not productive. Sometimes the Department Heads held the belief that Senior County Administration did not support the Department Head’s positions. Sometimes the Department Head held the belief that Senior County Administration actively attempted to hinder the Department Head.
F 1-3
Some Tuolumne County employees felt that Senior County Administration was spreading rumors about poor work by Senior Department employees, including Department Heads. Your Grand Jury found through a great many interviews that these rumors, according to other Department Heads, were frequently false and spread for reasons to support “friends.”
F 1-4
Tuolumne County has used the practice of posting job positions only internally and for very limited durations. While some jobs do not require highly specialized training or education, other jobs do require such training or education. It appears from interviews that management level jobs, the ones that require the most specialization and experience, were the same jobs that were only posted internally and only for the minimum time. We find that obtaining the best candidate for high-level positions, including Department Heads, is not done by limiting the number of applicants or only posting those positions for a limited time.
F 1-5
There was differential treatment between the “in crowd” and the “out crowd” in how reclassifications were done.
Findings for Section # 2:
F 2-1
The current reporting structure for complaints creates concerns when the complaint is about someone in the chain of command for the complainant. Your Grand Jury has interviewed multiple employees who have received backlash for making valid complaints.
Findings for Section # 3:
F 3-1
Senior County Administration did not behave in a professional manner regarding at least one member of the Board of Supervisors.
Findings for Section # 4:
F 4-1
Your Grand Jury heard from several witnesses that the Board of Supervisors appeared to allow Senior County Administration to function with little or no oversight.
F 4-2
Your Grand Jury heard from several witnesses that Senior County Administration misled the Board of Supervisors during Board meetings by misrepresenting the total amount of specific employees, raises, and if Grant funded positions were impacting the General Fund.
F 4-3
Your Grand Jury learned that Senior County Administration caused confusion and mistrust among the individual Board of Supervisor members by misleading them as to the opinions of individual Board members on pertinent issues to be voted on.
F 4-4
Your Grand Jury learned that Senior County Administration misrepresented instructions from the Board of Supervisors to Department Heads. This caused misalignment of direction for County Employees.
Findings for Section #5:
F 5-1
Your Grand Jury finds that the Tuolumne County government does not consistently interpret and apply the definition given in the Executive Confidential Unit Compensation Plan when hiring and reclassifying for an Executive Confidential position.
Findings for Section #6:
F 6-1
Your Grand Jury has found that there is inconsistency in Senior County Administration’s support for department heads, leading to concerns about fairness and transparency.
F 6-2
Your Grand Jury found a breakdown in communication between Senior County Administration and department heads, leading to significant tension and distrust.
F 6-3
Your Grand Jury found systemic discouragement of staff and department heads for speaking out that suggests a culture of fear within the organization.
F 6-4
Your Grand Jury found an inability to gain consensus on urgent issues with employees’ reluctance to speak out for fear of reprisals.
Findings for Section #7
F 7-1
Your Grand Jury found that Senior Leadership at the County did not practice High Performance Organizations methodology.
F 7-2
Your Grand Jury found that implementation of the High Performance Organizations methodology was not uniform across county departments for whom this would be appropriate.
F 7-3
Your Grand Jury found that no effort has been made to evaluate the effectiveness and benefit of High Performance Organizations
F 7-4
Your Grand Jury found that no effort has been made to determine how much has been spent on High Performance Organizations implementation in the county. Your Grand Jury has estimated the cost was over $100,000.
F 8-1
Your Grand Jury has uncovered credible allegations of nepotism and favoritism in hiring for the county of Tuolumne. This includes many examples of relatives and friends of relatives leading to a profound appearance of improprieties. This also included hirings completed against recommendations for hiring panels.
RECOMMENDATIONS
R 1-1
The Tuolumne County Board of Supervisors should consider eliminating all pay raises on the consent calendar. While this could lengthen some Board of Supervisors meetings, there would be a significant benefit to Tuolumne County Employee morale.
R 1-2
Your Grand Jury knows that there is no easy answer to Finding 1-2. The greatest limitation to Grand Jury Investigations and Recommendations is the one-year time frame. Your Grand Jury had enough time to investigate this problem with morale but did not have enough time to provide answers, even suggested answers. The best we can do is request the Board of Supervisors conduct interviews through annual evaluations themselves or by a hired consultant to better understand the issue of Department Heads feeling they are being hindered by Senior County Administration. Because this is such a large undertaking, your Grand Jury requests this be accomplished within 12 months of publication of this report.
R 1-3 No recommendation
R 1-4
Your Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors create a policy that all management level positions be posted internally and externally and increase the minimum time those positions are posted to three weeks. Your Grand Jury requests that this policy be created and enacted within 90 days of the publication of this report.
