Jessica Cejnar Andrews / Wednesday, Dec. 14, 2022 @ 2:16 p.m. / Local Government, Youth
Supervisors Make the Probation Chief An Appointed Position; Fate of Del Norte's Juvenile Hall Still Uncertain
Image courtesy of the Del Norte County Probation Department
Previously:
###
With the fate of Del Norte’s juvenile hall still up in the air, county supervisors on Tuesday approved an ordinance to take on the appointment of the chief probation officer themselves.
In one of his final statements as board chairman, Gerry Hemmingsen said he didn’t people to view the decision as an act of retribution against the current chief, Lonnie Reyman. Hemmingsen said the ordinance was necessary for the Board to evaluate Reyman’s performance — a request the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Commission made in an Oct. 24 letter.
Though he acknowledged that probation chiefs in other counties are often appointed by Boards of Supervisors, Reyman told supervisors he was disappointed that the Board was focusing on his position rather than juvenile hall.
“Given the issues we’re having with staffing in my department, the struggles we’re having with juvenile hall, I would rather that had been the focus,” Reyman said. “Finding solutions to that and making some decisions surrounding that rather than spending time figuring out who’s going to continue to do my evals.”
Up until the Board’s unanimous decision, the Del Norte County Superior Court appointed the chief probation officer and had the power to remove them from that position. The county pays their salary and benefits and bears the cost of adult probation, juvenile hall and the chief probation officer’s subordinates, according to a county staff report.
Now, Reyman will be “treated as other appointed department heads,” the staff report states.
This decision comes after Reyman told supervisors on Oct. 11 that closing juvenile hall as a 24-hour facility was inevitable because the department couldn’t meet state-mandated staffing requirements. With only six probation officers working in the juvenile detention facility and six in adult probation, Reyman said his staff was suffering from burnout.
Reports to the court were regularly late because his adult probation officers were regularly called upon to work in juvenile hall, he told supervisors.
On Oct. 24, Reyman told the Wild Rivers Outpost that he would ask elected officials to close the facility by March 30.
On Oct. 25, supervisors Valerie Starkey, Susan Masten and Darrin Short asked Reyman for an interim solution so they and their colleagues could delve into the juvenile justice division’s staffing issues.
Short said he wanted to talk to presiding judge Darren McElfresh about concerns the Juvenile Justice Commission raised, which include employees filing federal hostile work environment complaints.
On Tuesday, Hemmingsen said he and his colleagues had a discussion with McElfresh who “had no issue” with the proposed ordinance removing Reyman’s evaluations from their purview. Hemmingsen said county staff was unable to reach Del Norte County’s second judge, Bob Cochran, but “it was indicated that he didn’t have an issue with going in this direction also.”
The newest member on the Board, District 5 Supervisor Dean Wilson, who took the oath of office earlier this month, said under the original structure, the judges can exert pressure on probation to ensure reports are submitted on time. He said he wanted to make sure the county had discussed the potential change with the judges.
According to Hemmingsen, the judges “didn’t want to present us with any kind of an evaluation.”
“Now there’s going to have to be steps of finding out still how we do an evaluation,” Hemmingsen told his colleagues. “I think that’s going to be an ongoing process, but hopefully we’re going to come up with something.”
On Tuesday, Paul Dillard, Juvenile Justice Commission chairman, said he and his colleagues strongly support the new ordinance. However, he passed around a packet to supervisors that included information on the 2005 opinion of California’s 4th District Court of Appeals in Penrod vs. the County of San Bernardino, which upheld the lower court’s decision in that case.
“The court decision does say you have a duty and a responsibility to supervise all county management people and hold them responsible to a high standard and ensure there’s no malfeasance of the taxpayers’ money,” Dillard said, adding that the court case had to do with the removal of an elected sheriff.
Dillard also referred to a definition from the San Francisco District Office of the Equal Opportunity Commission that states that not only could the county be held liable in harassment and hostile work environment cases, individual supervisors could be held personally responsible in court.
“We strongly support the contract because that’s an accountability issue,” Dillard said. “When you’re working behind a contract, you’re going to make sure you do the job.”
But Norma Williams, president of the Del Norte County Employees Association, echoed Reyman’s concerns about juvenile hall’s uncertain future. The DNCEA, which represents Probation Department employees, has made a formal “meet and confer” with county administrators and Reyman to discuss those staffing issues, she said.
Williams compared the issue to a volleyball game between the Board of Supervisors and the probation department. Department staff are the ball, she said.
“You have to understand, the staff over at the hall and at adult probation have gone thorugh the ringer,” she said. “They’ve been going through a big huge roller coaster since the end of September when the chief announced to staff in the union that it was his intention to close the facility as a 24-hour facility and make a recommendation to you to form a re-entry team, which would only be comprised of five people from juvenile hall.”
Documents:
• Chief Probation Officer Staff Report
• Chief Probation Officer Ordinance
CLICK TO MANAGE