Martell, CA Change


0 0
Matthew Hedger
06/26/2014 11:33 AM

The 2013-14 Amador County Grand Jury received nineteen complaints from citizens this year, and investigated eight of them.

Among the eight were allegations of inappropriate behavior by a single trustee and the entire ACUSD board, a synopsis of which can be found in a separate story on page…

Another complaint about the lease contract of the the county’s health and human services building was also examined in great detail, and a synopsis of which can be found on page…

The other six investigations dealt with 2 separate complaints about Child Protective Services, the permitting process of special events on public roads, two complaints Amador City Bridge replacement project and scheduling problems at the Behavioral Health department.

In a matrix listing all of the complaints and inquiries received included in their report, the G.J. said a complaint about inappropriate behavior by sheriff’s deputies was evaluated and determined to be unfounded. A similar complaint about the treatment of the public at the Amador Sheriff’s Office main counter was also determined to be unfounded, as was a question about the county’s General Services Administration bidding process and allegations of impropriety in the county Director of Public Works office.

This year’s G.J. spent a large portion of time looking into complaints surrounding the Amador City Bridge replacement project. Two that separately alleged impropriety of a single councilperson accused of “verbal abuse” of a constituent and “capricious” changes to cityscape plans without proper input was evaluated, and the conduct issue were referred to an “Education Committee,” but were not investigated fully due to time constraints.

Separate complaints about “Board of Supervisors, State Officials and allegations of criminal racketeering, Amador School reconfigurations, alleged foster child care abuses at Amador County Child Protective Services and the county’s regulation of a private water system were all listed as “no jurisdiction” by the G.J., although some of the complaints were referred to other departments for evaluation.

Some members of this year’s G.J. also developed their own complaints. One, about the Amador County Film Commission remaining from the 2012-13 G.J. was evaluated by the County Administration Committee, which declined to investigate further.

Another, about the county airports health and safety policies and code enforcement met the same fate from the administration committee.

An inquiry about providing language interpretation for arrested persons was referred to the Criminal Justice Committee, but no report was issued.

Separate inquiries about the state Fire Protection Fee and a plan for getting information on proposed high school consolidation received the “no jurisdiction” comment from this year’s G.J.

A complaint about excessive and unnecessary spending at the Probation Department was evaluated and investigated and was determined unfounded, as was a question about truancy within county schools.

A complaint that a General Education Examinatio not being offered in Amador County resulted in a letter being sent from the Education Committee to the ACUSD superintendent, who responded with a justification of the policy.

One complaint about the treatment of a mentally-ill arrestee at the county jail was recommended to be resubmitted after July 1 because it was received too late in the year for the 2013-14 G.J. to investigate.

A link to the full 187-page 2013-14 Amador County Grand Jury can be found at

Copyright © 2016 Amador Ledger Dispatch
Write a comment...