HomeMy WebLinkAboutTimeline for Grand Jury Responses ,Snxdeer,.Ash,I,!I,,',,
From: Pickett, Andy
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2016 1:08 PM
To: Alpert, Bruce, Bordin, Steven; Brown, Diane; Crump, Mike; Farrell, Sean; Gosselin, Paul;
Grams, Cathi; Grubbs, Candace; Hahn, Paul; Honea, Kory; Houser, David; Hunsicker,
Grant; Kittrell, Dorian; Lightbody, Melanie; Mendoza, Louie; Moak, Peggy, Mutters,
Randall; Raevsky, Cathy; Ramsey, Mike; Ring, Brian; Robison, Art; Ross, Rhonda;
Snellings, Tim
Cc: Bennett, Robin; Blenn, Tina; Borzage, Susie; BOS District 2; Connelly, Bill; Cook, Holly;
Gullickson, Carofl; Hahn, Paul; Kirk, Maureen; Lambert, Steve; Mason, Susan;Taber
Stephanie,-Teeter, Doug; Wahl, Larry,- Kim, Sang,- McCracken, Shari; Macarthy,Jennifer;
Jessee, Meegan,- Sweeney, Kathleen; Snyder, Ashley; Hatcher, Casey
Subject: Grand Jury Report Response
Attachments: Letter to DH for Response June 2016.pdf
All,
See attached memo regarding response requirements and timeline for the Grand Jury report.
Andy Pickett
Deputy Chief Administrative Officer
Butte County,Administration
25 County Center Drive, Suite 200, Oroville, CA 95965
T: 530.538.7052 1 M: 530.230.7762
Twitter Pacebook I YouTube I Pinterest
J
Ak)
QNY'> ) .'
Butte County Administration Raul Hahn, Chief Administrative Officer
Il r�� 25 County Center Drive, Suite 200 ( T: 530.538.7631 buttecounty.netladrninistration
Oroville, Capifornia 95965 F:530.538.7120
Members of the Board
C a�°r o�"'� " Bill Connelly I Maureen Kirk I Steve Lambert I Doug Teeter Larry Wahl
MEMORANDUM
DATE: June 27, 2016
TO: Department Heads
FROM: Andy Rickett, Deputy Administrative Officer
RE: Response to 2015-16 Butte County GrandJury Final Report
On June 24, 2016, the Butte County Grand Jury filed its 2015-1.6 Final Report with the Clerk-Recorder.
The Grand Jury Final Report may be accessed at:.
http:ZZwww.buttecounty.net/administrationZgrandiury.aspx
Renal Code Section 933 requires the following action:
• Elected' department heads: written response within 60 days;
• Appointed department heads:written response within 90 days;
• Board of Supervisors: written response within 90 days.
Every appointed and elected department head that is named as a respondent in any section must
submit a response directly to the Presiding Judge. Prior to doing so,we ask that each responding
department head submit a draft copy of their response to the Administrative Office.This will ensure
better coordination and consistency with the responses. The process and timeline for each response is
outlined below:
Elected Department Meads
ACTION DATE
Submit courtesy copy of final response to the Administrative Office August 5
Submit final response to the Presiding Judge August 23
Appointed Department Heads
ACTION DATE
Submit draft response to the Administrative Office for comment August 1
Submit courtesy copy of final response to the Administrative Office August 16
Submit final response to the Presiding Judge September 22
Board of Supervisors/Agency Response
ACTION DATE
Draft Agency Response compiled by staff August 5
Draft Agency Response reviewed and finalized by Board Chair, CAO, County Counsel August 8
Agency Response agendized for 8/23 Board of Supervisors meeting. If no changes, August 23
submit response to Presiding Judge. If revisions requested, bring back to following
Board meeting
Revised Agency Response agendized for 9/13 Board of Supervisors meeting. Submit September 13
response to Presiding Judge (if needed)
Submit final response to the Presiding Judge September 25
It should be noted that you must respond to all findings and recommendations even where the Grand
Jury's report states that no response is required. Penal Code 933,05 requires the responses to be
structured as follows:
For each "Finding", 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 must
explain the reason(s).
For each "Recommendation", report one of the following actions:
1. The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary of the implemented action;or
2. The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future,
with a timeframe for implementation; or
3. The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation of the scope, parameters,
and timeframe of the analysis.The timeframe cannot exceed six months from the date of
publication of the Grand Jury report; or
4. The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not
reasonable, with an explanation.
Thank you for your assistance in completing this task. If you have any questions regarding the
process of responding to the Grand Jury report, feel free to contact me at 538-7052.
cc: Board of Supervisors
Paul Hahn,Chief Administrative Officer