The Plumas County Board of Supervisors is speechless when it comes to the Grand Jury Report. At the Sept. 12 meeting, the board strategized the best way to respond to the findings and recommendations of the report.
“I have to sit down twice with this and I really have no idea how to respond to it,” said District 3 Supervisor Sherrie Thrall. “I am very unhappy with it. I don’t know how to respond to it and I think it is the strangest Grand Jury Report I have ever seen.”
County Counsel Craig Settlemire walked the board through the response process, including the 90-day timeframe in which the board must write a response, which is expiring in the next two weeks.
The board has four response options. The first would be to respond that the recommendation has been implemented. The second is the recommendation has not been implemented, the third is the recommendation requires further analysis, and the fourth is the recommendation will not be implemented because it is unwarranted or unreasonable.
“I like that one,” said Thrall.
Thrall specifically cited the review of the probation department. The county grand jury report states, “In the absence of a Chief Administrative Officer, it is the Board of Supervisors’ responsibility to directly supervise the probation department.”
“Pardon me,” Thrall said. “Whether we have an executive officer or not, he is not responsible for the success of probation. The board is always responsible.”
“It is very concerning,” said Simpson. “Personally I’d like to write my own response.”
“There is a lot of hidden agenda here … I think part of this is slanted towards trying to get a CAO,” said District 1 Supervisor Michael Sanchez.
The board members will work on unifying their final response to the report at the next meeting.