AgdaPkt 2006-10-09 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

9C Page 7 Findings , The prioz G?'and Tury ma.de tvvo xe-cnmmendations in its report, The first recommendation directed the RDA both to deveiop written guidelines for its staff on proper treatment of citizens and fo coriduct training sessions to acquaint the staff with these guidelines. In response,the City agrced with the prior Grand Jury and directed the RDA to develop �t�ritten guidel;nes and staff traini:�g sessions. The City indicated that they had a!reaciy recognized the problem before the Grand 7ury report,and appropriate documents rectifying the issue woutd be brought to the City Council wzthin three months. In the second recommendation,the prior Grand Jury asked the City to set up a mechanism for deaiing with citizen complaints concerning the RDA by appointing an RDA Onnbudsmati to assure that citizens are faizly treated;or, al.ternatively, to designate a member of the City Council as the poiz�t person for complaints concerning the RDA. In response,the City selected the second option and assigned a City Cauncil member to be responsible for remedying citzzen complaznts. In its letter responding to the prior Grand Jury,tha City Cauncil explained"tlaere were instances when the manner in which we gzoceeded,although well-intentioned,with anly the community's benefit in mind, aud scnzpulously ad.hering to the Iaw,was less-than sensitive as perceived by sorne of the individuals involved." The City Cauncil acknowledged that,with hindsight,they`.`... might have proceeded with more care and tact and coutd have done a better job recognizing and understariding the uniqueness of each property,its hisfory,its owners,and the intangible emotional and �eiso�ial attach�nents wlucu suu��grugeities a�i�body." Included in the response was a letter from the Mayor of Red.wood City to a property owner apologizing for the City's not showing appropriate respect for the owner's contributions tQ the commuxzzty. The response ciosed with the staternent that the writer is"truly saddened"that neither the City Council or City Mauager was interviewed and,consequently,the prior(`rrand Jury did nat appreciafe either the depth of concern felt by the City ar tl�e efforts being considered to improve the process.The response then snggested that the prior Grand Jury's recommendations might have been much different had they talcen the time ta include the City in its investigation.F 'This comment was reviewed with the prior Grand Jury,who rec2iled that a meeting was held with members of the 12DA staff and the Ckty Attorney's Of�ce on September 2,2Q04. Apparently this meeting was not reported to the City Council or City Manager. Page 3