LAKEPORT – An annexation proposal that would have added 157 acres to the City of Lakeport's boundaries was denied Wednesday by the Local Area Formation Commission (LAFCO).

LAFCO had put off the decision about the Parallel Drive/Adamson annex after a lengthy debate at its June 6 meeting.

At that time LAFCO commissioners asked the city for more information, which city Community Development Director Richard Knoll said they provided Wednesday.

Knoll said the city provided documentation from a registered civil engineer as to the current sewer plant flows. Tom Warnock, a civil engineer from the Redding-based PACE Civil Engineering, presented and explained a report to LAFCO on that, said Knoll.

Warnock also explained the additional capacity that would become available as a result of a new sewer expansion project the city is starting, said Knoll.

The City Council voted June 19 to award the $2.1 million project to TerraCon Pipeline Inc. of Healdsburg. It will add 90 acres to the city's irrigation fields, which is the city's major disposal method for its treated wastewater.

Warnock provided an “upper end estimate” of the city's sewer capacity, said Knoll, estimating that the project could add as many as 770 new sewer connections.

LAFCO also wanted to know how many sewer connections would be needed to accommodate the annexation.

Knoll said the city estimated the annexation would generate 200 new connections at buildout, including current residents switching from septic to city sewer, which isn't a given, he added.

The hundreds of new connections created by the irrigation expansion, Knoll said, would have been more than sufficient to meet current demands plus the annexation.

LAFCO wasn't convinced. The commission voted to deny the application 5-2, with only commission Chair Elizabeth Davis and Commissioner Bob Rumfelt – who is also a Lakeport City Council member – voting against the denial.

Supervisor and Commissioner Ed Robey said later Wednesday that the main reason for LAFCO's decision was that the commissioners didn't believe Lakeport's officials had demonstrated that they had the capacity to serve the annexed area.

The Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board in January issued a cease and desist order against Lakeport, coupled with a sewer hookup ban, because the city's sewer system had a controlled release of treated wastewater in April 2006 due to heavy rains and issues city officials attributed to a local trailer park.

The state lifted the hookup ban on the condition that the city finish certain projects by November, including the irrigation expansion project, as Lake County News previously reported.

The regional board's limitations on hookups and estimates of the city's true water capacity figured into the LAFCO decision, said Robey, because LAFCO concluded the annexed area couldn't be properly served based on the numbers the state provided.

The state has only granted the city 77 hookups, Robey pointed out. “That's not even enough to serve the undeveloped lots in the current city limits.”

“One of the things that LAFCOis supposed to do is determine whether or not an agency has the ability to provide services to an area that it's going to annex,” said Robey.

Commissioner John Engels made the motion to deny the application “without prejudice,” which means that Lakeport can reapply in the future when and if the regional board lifts the sewer system restrictions.

“We're disappointed of course by the decision,” said Knoll. “We felt we had provided LAFCO with the information that they had asked for and that that information was reliable.”

Robey said city officials haven't intimated whether, or when, they plan to reapply for the annexation. He added, there wouldn't be any point in them doing so unless they had new information about system capacity.

He added, “This isn't stopping development, this is just keeping the city limits where they are right now.” Which means, he added, that nothing has actually changed.

The Parallel Drive discussion took between two and three hours Wednesday, said Robey, and resulted in the commission holding over several agendized items to its next meeting.

E-mail Elizabeth Larson at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

{mos_sb_discuss:2}

LAKE COUNTY – An issue that could impact the future of agriculture in Lake County is expected to come up for debate Thursday among members of a committee formed to advise the county on agriculture's place in the new general plan.

The meeting of the Agriculture Element Committee will begin at 5:30 p.m. Thursday, July 19, in the Board of Supervisors chambers.

The committee was formed to advise the Board of Supervisors and the county on agriculture as it relates to the new general plan.

Members are James Austin, Ken Barr, Michael Barrett, Ron Bartolucci, Steve DeVoto, Bobby Dutcher, Margaret Eutenier, Bobby Gayaldo, Greg Hanson, Pamela Knispel, Paul Lauenroth, Philip Murphy, Toni Scully, Tim Strong, Victoria Brandon, Tommy Gilliam, Jon Ham, Katherine Harris, Diane Henderson and Joanne Van Eck.

Chuck March, executive director of the Lake County Farm Bureau and one of the people instrumental in getting the committee formed, said the committee is set to discuss several policy issues Thursday, among them minimum parcel sizes for agriculture.

“If it gets to lot sizes, it will be heated,” said March.

It's an issue that has even divided the local Farm Bureau's board of directors, March explained.

Last year, a petition was circulated around the county suggesting that all agricultural land be rezoned to rural residential in the new Lake County General Plan, said March. That, in turn, would allow farmers to sell land which would result lots of ranchettes – with no viable farming – springing up around the county.

Such a policy change would necessarily do away with the 40-acre minimums for prime ag land, which is the current county policy, said March.

All but one of the 46 people to sign the petition were pear farmers, said March, who are reacting to a pear industry that hasn't been very profitable in recent years.

“I think the people signed it just to get the issue out in the open,” March said.

The Farm Bureau board voted to take a position against the proposal, although it wasn't a unanimous vote, said March. “My board was pretty undecided.”

While county planning staff was willing to suggest 20-acre minimums, the Farm Bureau requested the county form the Agriculture Element Committee to advise the county on agriculture.

Community Development Director Rick Coel couldn't be reached Tuesday for comment on where his department stands on the issue.

The 40-acre minimum has been violated in intent by legal loopholes in recent years, spawning a rash of manufactured homes to sprout up where orchards have been recently removed.

The loophole, referred to as "a certificate of compliance," currently allows landowners who can prove a land division existed prior to the county’s subdivision act of 1973, to re-divide land. Because each parcel is allowed to have one home, the number of potential homes increases dramatically as parcel size decreases throughout the ag zones.

March said the county hasn't put a stop to the certificates of compliance, which, in many ways, make meaningless the 40-acre minimums.

The California Department of Conservation's Division of Land Resource Protection's most recent study of Lake County's land use conversion shows that Lake County has 288,362 acres of farmland, of which 48,362 acres are listed as either unique, or of local or statewide importance. That number also includes 15,464 acres of prime farmland.

Committee members debate parcel size issue

One of the people who want to see the ag minimums changed is Ken Barr.

"You can’t mandate what someone will do with their property," said Barr, the single-largest pear farmer in Lake County. “You can only restrict it."

The 37-year veteran of Lake County pear growing owns and manages Adobe Creek Packing Co., one of just two pear packing facilities surviving in the county that claimed five such facilities less than two decades ago.

Barr is also a member of the Ag Element Committee.

"Philosophy has nothing to do with what is going on right now," he commented. "I think there should be a fairness doctrine involved."

Instead of putting the cost of open space on the backs of those who enjoy it, in Barr’s view, the 40-acre minimum would put the cost on the farmers who own it.

"Get off the back of agriculture," he recommended.

"My argument is not ‘ag versus non-ag,’" he explained. "The future of agriculture is in five- and 10-acre parcels."

Of the subdivision restriction to 40-acre minimums, Barr summed up, "I do not believe it’s something beneficial to agriculture."

Barr said just 58 parcels in the agricultural area at issue, namely Big Valley, fit the 40-acre minimum criteria. The average parcel size, he said, is more like 10.

"Take a look at who wants 40-acre minimums," he said. "What they really want is open space."

"If you want open space," he said, "go buy it."

The issue started to come up at the last Ag Element Committee meeting on July 2, said Kelseyville grape grower Steve DeVoto, another committee member.

DeVoto, who is farming the land his parents farmed before him, said there are certain minimum requirements needed for a farm these days, and land size is one of them. That's especially true as cities and farmland grow closer together, and farmers need to control dust, equipment noise and other issues that come with farming.

“Forty acres is about the minimum size for a viable farm,” said DeVoto. “That's the way it's been for years and years and years.”

Go below that, said DeVoto, and you have ranchettes and no actual farming.

DeVoto said he believes that the supervisors chose to add an agricultural element to the general plan because they wanted to see agriculture survive, not die off, which he believes would happen if the agricultural minimums went below 40 acres.

Permanent harm to county's agriculture

DeVoto isn't alone in believing that a change to minimum parcel sizes could cause irreparable harm to county agriculture.

John Gamper, the California Farm Bureau's director of taxation and land use policy, agrees with DeVoto.

Dropping the agriculture minimums “would be the death knell of agriculture in Lake County,” said Gamper.

Parcel sizes of 10 acres or less for prime agricultural land and less than 40 acres for nonprime use is too small for agriculture, according to the Williamson Act, which is a state measure created in 1965 to preserve agricultural land, said Gamper.

The county's 40-acre minimum for prime land is actually smaller than average, said Gamper, who noted that 80 acres for prime and 160 for nonprime are more average.

Other counties have increased their agriculture minimums or are seeking to do so, said Gamper. They include Sutter, which is seeking to increase their minimum orchard zones from 20 to 80 or more; and Humboldt, which in the 1980s raised their minimums from 160 to 600 to protect timber and rangeland.

Many general plans are being updated around the state now, said Gamper, yet parcel size isn't always an issue when it comes to saving, or significantly altering, agriculture. Often, the land is rezoned and then subdivided for other purposes, such as building homes or commercial developments.

And in the case of the Williamson Act, Gamper said increasingly that land is being sold off and becoming home sites, in 40-, 80- and 160-acre parcel sizes.

“It's really a drag,” said Gamper, who added that such home sites creates issues for wildlife, watersheds and fire protection.

March agreed with Gamper that dropping the parcel sizes would devastate local agriculture.

“Ultimately, I don't think a five-acre parcel size would fly,” he said.

March said the Ag Element Committee's final position on the parcel sizes will be “just a recommendation” that the Board of Supervisors could accept or overturn.

E-mail Maile Field at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. or Elizabeth Larson at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

{mos_sb_discuss:2}

LAKE COUNTY – Dalmation toadflax. Skeletonweed. Hydrilla.

No, they're not characters from a Harry Potter novel, but for agriculture officials they can be just as scary.

They're invasive weed species – both terrestrial and aquatic – that have made themselves right at home in Lake County. In the process, they've disrupted local species and, in the case of hydrilla, cost the state Department of Food & Agriculture millions in an eradication effort.

This week is Invasive Weed Awareness Week, which will include a public meeting this evening at 6 p.m. in the Board of Supervisors chambers in Lakeport (see “How you can get involved”) and a driving tour of the county on Thursday to point out weed species and eradication efforts.

Invasive weed species arrive in a new area through a manner of avenues, including traveling in water, coming by air as thistles do, in animal fir and in hay or seed, said county Deputy Agriculture Commissioner Chuck Morse. Travel from farther distances usually results from human involvement, whether intentional or not.

When it comes to aquatic weeks, hydrilla is probably the best known. Food and Agriculture has given the weed an “A” rating because it's so pernicious, said Morse.

A-rated weeds like hydrilla warrant help from the state. Food and Agriculture Jay Van Rein said in recent years the agency has spent $2 million annually in its statewide battle against hydrilla.

“Over the last several years we've had about 20 infestations in about 10 counties,” said Van Rein, who didn't have the specific breakdown of how much money has been spent just in Lake County.

The governor declared an emergency in the mid-1980s because of hydrilla, said Van Rein. Since then, Food and Agriculture, the state's Boating and Waterways division, federal agencies such as the Army Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation, and local agriculture and public works departments have joined forces to eradicate hydrilla.

The infestation on Clear Lake was discovered Aug. 1, 1994, during a routine inspection survey conducted by Food and Agriculture and the county agricultural commissioner's office, said Van Rein. Treatment started within days.

Clear Lake was the largest body of water where hydrilla was found, said Van Rein, and because of the lake's size the potential for impacts was high.

Initially, the infestation was between 175 and 200 infested surface acres throughout the lake's upper arm, said Van Rein. By 2001, that had grown to 1,150 surface acres of the lake presumed infested.

However, the number of plants had already peaked by that point, with the largest number – 210 – found in 1997 and going steadily downhill from there, said Van Rein, thanks to a variety of control methods including small-scale dredging, hand removal, biocontrol and registered aquatic herbicides.

Van Rein said hydrilla is now mostly controlled in Lake County. “It is still infested, but it's at a fairly low level.”

In the last three years, a total of only three plants have been found in all of Clear Lake.

“That's pretty amazing progress,” said Van Rein.

Especially considering what a tough weed it is to eradicate. Van Rein said it reproduces easily and can become both a water supply and water quality issue, and can be a nuisance for dam operators. “This thing is nobody's friend.”

The battle on land

Morse said the county agriculture department focuses on the state's A- and B-rated weeds, which require certain enforcement actions. He said he is working on about 14 such weeds.

They include Scotch thistle, Dalmatian toadflax, plumesless thistle and the recently found skeleton weed, all of which affect agricultural environments and are extremely hard to eradicate, said Morse. Luckily, he added, these more pernicious weeds don't have large populations locally.

B-rated weeds in Morse's sites are purple star thistle – “like yellow star thistle on steroids,” he said – as well as artichoke thistle, perennial pepper weed and dyer's woad.

In the 2005-06 fiscal year, Morse said the county spent $7,000 from its general fund on weed eradication, in addition to grants used to fund the program.

One place where they've been successful is attacking the population of Arundo donax, the false bamboo often seen growing along the lakeshore.

Morse said they took Arundo donax on because they believed they could control it, and because of Clear Lake's location at the top of the Cache Creek watershed. That effort also is being supported through grant funding through Food & Agriculture, even though it only has a C rating.

“We're making really great progress,” said Morse.

They've had a tougher time with oblong spurge, a B-rated pest that has infested a large area from Buckingham to Anderson Road off Point Lakeview.

It became completely unmanageable, said Morse, and with expensive treatments not working, the agriculture department stopped the treatments.

Morse said it's important for landowners to keep a watch for invasive weeds, because early action is one of the most effective control methods.

Early treatment combined with ongoing and consistent followup and monitoring is the best strategy for success, he added.

The county's weed management area is now applying for grant funding to help expand its efforts to include other invasive species like Scotch broom.

How you can get involved

Go to the meeting

A public meeting on invasive weed species will be held at 6 p.m. today, Wednesday, July 18, in the Board of Supervisors chambers at the courthouse in Lakeport.

Deputy Water Resources Director Pam Francis will discuss the zebra mussel and hydrilla, as well as other invasive water plants, algae an viruses and offer a question and answer session.

Deputy Agricultural Commissioner Chuck Morse will discuss terrestrial weeds including yellow star thistle – “everyone's favorite weed to hate”– Arundo donax, salt cedar, tree of heaven, perennial pepper weed, brooms, Italian thistle, bull thistle, fullers teasel, Himalayan blackberry, Goatshead and more. A question and answer session will follow.

Take the tour

The Lake County Weed Management Area will lead an invasive weed tour on Thursday, July 19, beginning in Lakeport and proceeding to Nice, Rodman Slough, Main Street Bridge in Kelseyville, ending in Lakeside Park as their final “weed” stop and barbecue lunch.

Participants will see a demonstration areas where invasive weeds have been successfully controlled through a variety of methods.

Registration begins at 8:15 a.m. at Lake County Department of Agriculture’s parking lot (883 Lakeport Blvd.). The tour will leave from the parking lot at 8:45 a.m. and end by 11:30 a.m. at Lakeside Park. Please RSVP at 263-0217 if you plan to attend.

While the end-of-tour lunch is free of charge, a donation to offset the costs of the lunch and refreshments would be appreciated.

Keep your eyes open

Morse said the public has an important part to play in controlling invasive weeds.

If you see something unusual, contact the county agriculture department and get it identified, he suggested.

“If it's an unusual native that's not an issue, water it and nurture it,” he said.

But if it's something that doesn't belong here and can hurt the local environment, eradicate it immediately.

For more information call the Lake County Agriculture Department, 263-0217.

E-mail Elizabeth Larson at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

{mos_sb_discuss:2}

LAKE COUNTY – The county's Social Services director on Monday said she was disappointed by the new grand jury report's criticisms of her department and its Child Protective Services (CPS) division, saying the report didn't take into account many of their accomplishments and improvements.

Carol Huchingson was responding to Friday's release of the 2007-08 grand jury report, which examined Social Services and CPS in the wake of a 2005 child abuse case.

That case involved two Nice boys, ages 4 and 2, who had been abused by 23-year-old Tony Wayne Hernandez, their mother's boyfriend, as Lake County News reported in two previous stories on this recent grand jury report.

Hernandez was given a nine-year prison term last year for beating the 4-year-old and leaving him with 11 broken ribs, a damaged liver and numerous other injuries.

Huchingson said she hasn't yet compiled a detailed response to the report – which she has 60 days to do – but noted, “I was disappointed by the tone of the report.”

That's because, according to Huchingson, she had attempted to work “openly and constructively” with the grand jury over the past two years.

She said she's met with the jury, explained to them her department's general processes and made staff available to assist them.

What she hasn't been able to do, she said, is discuss the abuse case's specifics with the grand jury.

One of the grand jury's chief issues had been that access had not been granted to confidential case records.

Huchingson said she's not only responsible for protecting the physical and emotional health of the children served by CPS, but also must ensure the circumstances surrounding their cases are kept confidential.

The grand jury report explained that it petitioned the Juvenile Court for access to the records, which Huchingson said was the appropriate step. “The court has the authority to release information if they deem it appropriate to do so.”

She added, “As the code reads, I can't turn over those records.”

Juvenile Court Judge Vincent T. Lechowick ruled that the grand jury needed additional justification in its request, according to the report and Huchingson.

The grand jury report said the investigation into CPS would continue during the new grand jury's term, and that they would once again petition the court for access.

Huchingson said she hasn't been notified that another petition has been filed, and added, “We don't know what the court will ultimately do.”

Grand juries in other counties, such as Solano, have been given records, which both Huchingson and the report reference. However, Huchingson said she wasn't familiar with the specifics of that Solano County case and whether or not it was similar to the one in Lake County.

Explaining federal, state investigations

The grand jury report said the Hernandez abuse case triggered state and federal investigations.

Huchingson responded that a newspaper article from the time that quoted her on the protocol her department used in child abuse cases caught the eye of a federal official and prompted their concern.

The article, she said, “didn't accurately represent what we were trying to convey.”

Nevertheless, the federal Department of Health and Human Services asked the state Department of Social Services to look into it. The state came to Lake County to look at the case, while simultaneously conducting a routine review of the county's procedures as part of a statewide review, Huchingson said.

The state suggested a corrective action/system enhancement plan, said Huchingson, who added that “any system can be improved any time.”

She said she didn't see anything out of the ordinary about the review or the state's suggestions, and denied that she dismissed its importance, as the grand jury report said she was guilty of doing.

Increasing pay, adding positions

Some of the grand jury's recommendations, such as those about Social Service and CPS staffing, are already in progress, Huchingson said.

In its findings, the grand jury said CPS is chronically understaffed. Huchingson said staffing has been addressed through modifying and adding positions.

In the last few years, Huchingson said the Board of Supervisors has helped the department by supporting new staff positions, including four new CPS social worker spots and three aid positions, which assist social workers.

As a result, the vacancy rate is not what it used to be. There are four social worker vacancies, said Huchingson, as opposed to the eight reported in the grand jury report.

County Chief Administrative Officer Kelly Cox confirmed that social workers positions have been added to Social Services. In the 2006-7 fiscal year Social Services had a total of 156 positions, with the proposed budget for next year adding 12 more positions to the department.

The grand jury report also noted that the chief of the California Children's Services Operation and Evluation branch “thought there was a huge pay gap between Lake County social workers and its adminstration.”

“In fact, the Chief stated Lake County 'is at the top of the worst' for social workers as far as compensation is concerned,” the report stated.

“I don't know how a state official would know that unless they had conducted a salary survey of all the counties,” said Huchingson.

The report compared said social worker 1 positions require a bachelor's degree and have a pay range of of $2,192 ant $2,664 per month. A social worker IV mus have a master's degree in order to receive $2,937.60 to $3,571.20 per month.

The report compared those numbers to Huchingson's salary range, which according to the grand jury ranged between $7,120.31 and $8,654.78 per month. That range differs from numbers Cox gave for Huchingson's position, from $7,298 to 8,871 per month.

To Huchingson's knowledge, the state hadn't contacted her department to ask about salaries, although they may have called the county's Personnel Department instead.

Lake County's salaries for all positions are somewhat low when compared to other counties, said Huchingson, and the Board of Supervisors are trying to address is. In the past year alone, the county has given staffers several cost of living increases.

In addition, the county recently conducted its own salary survey to make itself a more competitive employer; Huchingson said County Administrative Officer Kelly Cox's office is staying abreast of salary issues.

The trouble with salary surveys Huchingson said, is that they're moving targets.

Cox said that, while he hasn't specifically checked other counties' pay rates, he said he had a hard time believing Lake's social workers ranked among the state's worst paid, although he said the county is open to reviewing the grand jury's recommendations about salaries. He pointed out that there are seven social worker classifications – the grand jury report only looked at two, levels one and four.

Thanks to increased focus on recruitment and retention, Huchingson said she's seen a change for the better in the number and quality of job candidates.

Report left out program initiatives

Huchingson said the findings of the grand jury report are notable for what goes unmentioned – such as some of Social Services' initiatives to improve and expand services. “We were concerned that it didn't really acknowledge any of that.”

Some of those items include:

– A new pilot differential response program, which serves families that have neglect or other child care issues which don't rise to the level of CPS intervention. That might include children who appear at school extremely disheveled or complain about being hungry but don't show signs of malnourishment.

A special state grant is funding the program, said Huchingson. “It's going to enable prevention in a way hat we have not had before in Lake County.”

– Social Services is working with the courts and with Alcohol and Other Drug Services to implement a new drug court program, where dependency issues will be dealt with through family case plans.

– A grand jury recommendation which Huchingson said has been at work for about a year is use of a structured decision software, which is a risk assessment tool to help social workers decide how to evaluate the safety of children in their homes.

– Use of the special “Nurturing Parent” curriculum to show parents how to be solid and stable influences in the lives of their children. The curriculum is used among agencies countywide, said Huchingson.

In addition to those four items, Huchingson said Social Services recently was invited to a state meeting to showcase some of its programs.

Huchingson said that, despite the grand jury's criticism, she and her staff believe that they're setting a positive example for other counties with similar demographics.

E-mail Elizabeth Larson at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

{mos_sb_discuss:2}

LAKE COUNTY – Despite a stern report by the Lake County Grand Jury on the management of the county's Social Services Department and its Child Protective Services division, one county supervisor is defending the agencies.

The grand jury's 2006-07 report, released Friday, took to task Social Services Director Carol Huchingson and CPS, which she oversees, for the handling of a 2005 child abuse case and the state and federal investigations that followed in its aftermath.

The abuse case involved two young boys from Nice who were abused by their mother's boyfriend, Tony Wayne Hernandez, then 23.

Hernandez was sentenced to nine years in prison last year for severely beating the older child, age 4, and sending him to the hospital with numerous injuries, most serious among them an injured liver, 11 broken ribs and missing fingernails.

That case generated a complaint to the grand jury about how Social Services and CPS handled the case. When the case first came to public attention, daycare providers and foster parents came forward to say that their reports to CPS on the danger to the children went unheeded.

The recent grand jury report also included a complaint from one of those care providers who had been attempting to adopt a child through the CPS system in fall 2005. She stated that she was later advised, verbally, by a Social Services staffer that her adoption application had been terminated because she and her mother had been a part of the negative publicity following the abuse case.

The grand jury eventually found that the decision was made according to state code, but it took them five months to get Huchingson to provide them with information on the case.

Prevented from seeing the records

As it investigated the handling of the abuse case, the grand jury found that the federal Department of Health and Human Services requested the state Department of Health Services investigate Lake County CPS and find out whether it followed protocols and how it investigated the reports of abuse.

The grand jury states in its report that, in order to “complete a balanced investigation,” it wanted access to the CPS records on the two abused children. County Counsel Anita Grant and then-District Attorney Gary Luck advised and assisted the grand jury as it began preparing petitions to the court in October 2006 to get the records.

Because of another CPS-related complaint investigation, the grand jury's records petition wasn't completed until March, at which time new District Attorney Jon Hopkins filed the petitions and represented them in Juvenile Court.

The petition was heard in April, with the Juvenile Court judge ruling the grand jury's request was too broad and not specific enough, according to the report.

Counsel representing Huchingson and Social Services argued against granting access, arguing that the California Department of Social Services was responsible for monitoring the local agency, and the grand jury “need not be involved.”

During this same time, the grand jury report noted it continued to receive CPS-related complaints, even with the state's oversight of Social Services and CPS.

Members of the grand jury's Public Health and Social Services Committee in May interviewed the bureau chief of the state's Department of Social Services Children's Services Operations, who followed up on the case and said the county agencies appeared to be operating satisfactorily.

But the grand jury said it has been unable to determine whether or not Social Services is, indeed, operating in accordance with state and federal policy, and is refiling its petition with the court to access the case records. One of its 10 recommendations on the case includes continuing the investigation during the 2007-08 grand jury's tenure.

In defense of Social Services, CPS

Supervisor Rob Brown defended Huchingson and her department, including CPS.

He said the county has received reports back from the state that show that any concerns have been resolved.

Those reports, he said, were relayed to the supervisors by Huchingson. Brown added, raising the issue of whether or not he and the board trust Huchingson.

For his part, Brown said he does.

And as to how CPS responded to protect the two children at the heart of the November 2005 abuse case, Brown said, “Unfortunately, there's not enough policies in place or laws in place to protect people against evil.”

Brown, himself a foster parent, said he knows personally about the efforts CPS and Social Services make to protect the county's children.

“Being the one board member who is involved in the foster care system, I have nothing but absolute confidence in CPS and Carol and her staff,” he said.

He said he works intimately with them, and has nothing but good things to say about the departments.

As for the grand jury's attempts to receive access to confidential documents related to the abuse case,

Brown said he's sure that has been a frustration for the grand jury, but says Huchingson is only doing her job in not releasing the documents.

He added that not even the Board of Supervisors has access to some of the information the grand jury is seeking.

“I don't believe for a minute Carol did anything devious” in preventing the grand jury access to the records, Brown said.

While it's the grand jury's mission to investigate issues, Brown said he doesn't agree with some of their findings or recommendations, which he says sometimes are unrealistic.

The little boys who were removed from their mother three times and returned to her custody before the 4-year-old was taken to the hospital with severe injuries didn't exactly fall through the cracks, in Brown's opinion. “The system that is in place by state law is not infallible.”

Part of that is because of the push to reunite children with their natural parents, he said, even when those parents have a history of problems. “That's not always good,” he said.

Brown added that he feels, in some cases, that the legal system treats abused animals better than abused children. Abused animals, he said, usually get new homes, with abused children all too often going back to the homes of those who hurt them.

Grand jury makes recommendations

The grand jury offers the following recommendations on the case:

• The 2007-08 grand jury should continue the investigation.

• The county should create a paid ombudsman position for CPS to deal with complaints and other concerns.

• Create an independent advisory board to oversee CPS. The board would include one county supervisor, the CPS ombudsman, representation from the Children's Council, care associations such as Easter Seals, licensed day care providers and agency consumers.

• The Board of Supervisors should “face head-on the staffing and management problems at Lake County CPS.” That includes assessing its performance and ensuring oversight of its operations.

• Lake County CPS management should implement use of structured decision making software.

• Develop a Court Appointed Special Advocates program to advocate for children in the court system.

• Fill vacant social workers and implement a “realistic pay scale” to attract qualified staff.

• Social Services should engage in “active recruitment” for vacancies, including working with local schools, offering signing bonuses and assisting current employees with tuition to pursue classwork to reach social worker eligibility.

• Social workers should personally answer their phones.

• Have the CPS after hours hotline work more quickly and efficiently to deliver emergency information. The line is answered by a phone tree, not individuals.

E-mail Elizabeth Larson at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

{mos_sb_discuss:2}

LAKE COUNTY – The Lake County Grand Jury's new report offers a tough assessment of the county's Social Services Department and Child Protective Services division, and reveals that state and federal officials investigated those county agencies in the wake of a 2005 child abuse case. 

The 158-page 2006-07 Grand Jury report was released Friday. It includes a seven-page section focusing on its Public Health and Social Services Committee's investigation of Lake County Child Protective (CPS) Services, which is housed within the county's Department of Social Services.

“While this report originated with investigations of specific child abuse and neglect and the performance of CPS, it has grown into a question of oversight and of one of the largest and most important departments in Lake County,” the report states.

Saying the report on CPS is a “work in progress,” the grand jury report explained that the investigation is continuing, because it has been unsuccessful in its efforts to gain access to confidential case files.

The report said the Department of Social Services argued in court against granting access to documents the grand jury said was necessary to its investigation, that Director Carol Huchingson downplayed the severity of state and federal investigations into CPS, and that she was slow to respond to other grand jury requests for information.

Lack of oversight, staffing shortages and extreme pay gaps between administration and social workers, were among a lengthy list of issues plaguing CPS, the report found.

Carol Huchingson, director of Lake County's Department of Social Services, was out of the office on Friday. Lake County News called her deputy director, Janice Hubbell, who deferred all questions on the report to Huchingson.

Supervisor Rob Brown, who is himself a foster parent, said he's worked closely with Huchingson and her staff, and that he's confident in their ethics and service to the county's children.

Brown also said he was concerned that the grand jury may have overreached its authority in trying to gain access to some of the abuse case's records.

The heart of the study

The Grand Jury examination of CPS resulted from a complaint against CPS alleging neglect during the jury's 2005-06 session.

The complaint, the report explained, followed a much-publicized story of two young Lake County children who were seriously abused.

That case involved two boys, ages 4 and 2, of Nice who were abused by their mother's boyfriend, 23-year-old Tony Wayne Hernandez of Upper Lake.

Hernandez was arrested after the 4-year-old was taken to Sutter Lakeside Hospital in November 2005 with numerous serious injuries, including 11 broken ribs and an injured liver, a bruised torso, an infected cornea and some fingernails missing from both hands. His injuries were serious enough that medical personnel had him airlifted to Oakland Children's Hospital.

Hernandez, while high on methamphetamine, had reportedly kicked and beaten the child. At the time of the abuse the boy's mother also was reportedly strung out on meth.

The extent of the abuse, along with revelations that the two children had previously been removed from their mother's custody as many as three times, resulted in an outpouring of rage from the community and drew attention to the performance of CPS.

Sheriff Rod Mitchell, Social Services Director Carol Huchingson, then-District Attorney Gary Luck, and CPS officials went before the Board of Supervisors to explain how those agencies react to child abuse cases.

Day care workers and foster parents came forward at the time to say they had repeatedly warned CPS about the boys' abuse, in some cases begging social workers not to send the children back to their mother's custody.

Hernandez eventually pleaded guilty to felony child abuse with a special allegation of causing physical pain on a child under age 5.

In March 2006, Hernandez received a nine-year prison sentence for the abuse.

Grand Jury report takes on case

The Hernandez case resulted in a complaint to the Grand Jury. But the jury's report said they weren't the only ones looking at the case.

California's Department of Social Services began investigating CPS in late 2005. The grand jury contacted the state Department of Social Services in September 2006, and three months later received correspondence that had passed between local, state and federal agencies over the abuse case.

The paperwork revealed that the case's severity, as well as a statement from the local CPS deputy director about protocol, prompted a federal investigation into whether CPS acted in accordance with state policies and procedures in reacting to the case.

California's Department of Social Services conducted an on-site and online review of the county's Child Welfare Services program in January 2006. That agency, along with Lake County CPS, jointly developed a “Corrective Action Plan” to address deficiencies the state's investigation uncovered, with focus placed on training and clarifying the local CPS's authority to remove children from homes.

Another result was that CPS recorded a memorandum of understanding with all Lake County law enforcement, the report noted.

The grand jury report noted that in a letter written, after the state's on-site visit, Huchingson “dismissed the gravity of the visit and refers to it as an ordinary 'technical assistance review' that other counties would also receive rather than the urgent request from the Federal Department of Health and Human Services.”

Next, the grand jury outlines its findings and Supervisor Rob Brown defends the county's Department of Health Services.

E-mail Elizabeth Larson at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

{mos_sb_discuss:2}