Alpine County 2005-2006 - California Grand Jury Reports

F1: The jury believes that the conversation as stated in the complaint was subject to interpretation and not actionable. l. Purchase of Telephoto Lens SUMMARY A complaint was received by the Grand Jury regarding a questionable purchase of camera equipment by the Sheriff’s Department. The Grand Jury interviewed the Auditor and personnel in the Sheriff’s Department, and determined that the deputy was not making a personal purchase. FINDING The deputy was instructed to buy the camera equipment for the Sheriff’s Department using his own credit card. He was reimbursed for the entire purchase. One of the lenses was back ordered. This part of the order was then canceled by the Sheriff’s Department. The camera company reimbursed the cost of the lens to the deputy, who then reimbursed the County. This was a misunderstanding regarding who was the recipient of the equipment. It was also determined that there had been problems with County credit cards with some employees of the County. The Sheriff’s Department had already dealt with this issue by removing County credit cards from employees. The new policy is to use a purchase order or a receipt and reimbursement procedure. m. Anonymous Complaint re Sheriff SUMMARY A complaint was received regarding the Sheriff’s Department. The complaint was unsigned. The District Attorney advised the jury that, since there was no possibility of following up with the unnamed complainant, it was inappropriate for the jury to consider the matter. n. Conflict of Interest, Board of Supervisors SUMMARY A complaint was received alleging violation of Conflict of Interest rules by a member of the Board of Supervisors who was voting on matters in which the Supervisor’s spouse has a financial interest. The Grand Jury responded to the complainant by letter, stating that the complainant might wish to contact the State Fair Political Practices Commission. The FPPC is specifically charged with investigating such complaints and has greater authority than the Grand Jury to enforce its rulings. The complainant wrote back to the Grand Jury stating that the complaint was conveyed to the FPPC. The Grand Jury took no further action. o. County Counsel Conflict of Interest SUMMARY The Grand Jury received a letter from the Humboldt County Grand Jury, seeking an opinion as to the potential conflict of interest a County Counsel may have when advising the Grand Jury on matters concerning the Board of Supervisors. The Grand Jury responded with a letter based on its training manual and other advice from the Alpine County Superior Court Judges, stating that the County Counsel does indeed have a conflict of interest in matters involving the Board of Supervisors, since the Board is the County Counsel’s client. Our Grand Jury has been advised that it has other legal resources to call upon when it feels that it might be inappropriate to seek advice from one particular person. Those resources include the Superior Court Judges, the District Attorney, the State Attorney General, and in special cases with the Judge’s approval, an outside attorney hired for a specific matter. p. Sheriff’s Department Time Cards SUMMARY A complaint was received to the effect that a Deputy in the Sheriff’s Department was performing personal work of his own during times that he was on duty as a Deputy Sheriff and during times he was being paid to serve as an on-duty Deputy Sheriff (on shift). Members of the Grand Jury discussed this matter with the Sheriff, who consulted Department records concerning locations and activities of Deputies while on duty (on shift). The Sheriff informed the jurors that he trusted his deputies to be where those records indicated during the times indicated (such records being completed by each respective Deputy contemporaneously with the occurrence of the event). Also, later contact and correspondence received from third parties often verified such Department Records. The Sheriff indicated that he realized that proper adequate documentation was very important.

F2: In surveying nine surrounding counties, all but one has a CAO.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: The Grand Jury recommends that the Alpine County Board of Supervisors hire a CAO with administrative qualifications with an emphasis on financial transactions and personnel management. This would require a BA in Public Administration, Business Administration, Government, or Political Science. A Masters Degree in Public Administration would be desirable. Also required would be 5-7 years of increasingly responsible experience in city or county government and at least 3 years experience in a senior management position in another county. Response Requested: Bd. of Supervisors - 6 - b. Auditor job specifications

F3: The opinion of all surveyed in other counties is that a true CAO is positive. Those surveyed included people in counties which had upgraded to a CAO position in recent memory. Those surveyed felt that the extra money spent for the salary, benefits, and support staff of a CAO was more than compensated for by savings, grants, elimination of duplication, and avoidance of problems.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: The Grand Jury recommends that the Alpine County Board of Supervisors hire a CAO with administrative qualifications with an emphasis on financial transactions and personnel management. This would require a BA in Public Administration, Business Administration, Government, or Political Science. A Masters Degree in Public Administration would be desirable. Also required would be 5-7 years of increasingly responsible experience in city or county government and at least 3 years experience in a senior management position in another county. Response Requested: Bd. of Supervisors - 6 - b. Auditor job specifications

F4: The small-to-medium sized counties surveyed do combine the CAO functions with the personnel manager functions. Combining the functions can result in savings for the taxpayers. And the Grand Jury found nothing which precludes the combination from a structural standpoint. There is no conflict of interest, since both positions are management positions hired by the Board of Supervisors.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: The Grand Jury recommends that the Alpine County Board of Supervisors hire a CAO with administrative qualifications with an emphasis on financial transactions and personnel management. This would require a BA in Public Administration, Business Administration, Government, or Political Science. A Masters Degree in Public Administration would be desirable. Also required would be 5-7 years of increasingly responsible experience in city or county government and at least 3 years experience in a senior management position in another county. Response Requested: Bd. of Supervisors - 6 - b. Auditor job specifications

F5: Regarding how many consecutive years the Board of Supervisors uses the same outside audit firm for county audits, the Grand Jury sees no reason to accelerate the turnover of outside audit firms.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: More open bidding for audits, allowing more than one firm to compete in the bidding

F6: Did the District Board reject a Site Council recommendation to use Title I dollars for ongoing jobs? The Grand Jury found no evidence that such a recommendation was made by the Site Council.

F7: In a response to an evaluation, the principal requested that the response not be shown to the Superintendent. The District Board gave the response to the Superintendent. Was this a procedural violation? The response was specifically stated by the respondent as an official response to an evaluation. As such, the Superintendent was entitled to see it. The request to the Board to withhold it from the Superintendent was not a request the Board was obliged to honor. The refusal to share the response would not have been appropriate administrative practice.

F8: One emergency District Board meeting (March 1, 2005) was held with 25 hour notice. What is the Brown Act requirement for notice for an emergency meeting? Was the ACUSD Board meeting of March 1, 2005, properly noticed? The Brown Act requires 24 hour notice for an emergency meeting. The meeting was properly noticed within the letter of the Brown Act. The notice included the required notice of proposed actions. The Grand Jury finds that there was no violation of the Brown Act regarding the notice requirements for this meeting.

F9: The complaint alleged that unanimous votes without discussion by the School Board at Board meetings were evidence of Brown Act violations, as in collusion or serial meetings before Board meetings. The complaint alleged that this was evidence of undue influence on the Board by the Superintendent. In interviews, the Superintendent and School Board members appeared to understand Brown Act prohibitions against serial meetings in which three or more Board members discussed their votes before the meetings. All denied any such meetings, and explained their customary procedures to prepare for meetings. All the Board members offered plausible explanations for their votes on various matters, and all insisted that they reached their decisions independently, based on their personal evaluations of the merits of the issues. Board members expressed a willingness to disagree with the Superintendent when they felt it appropriate, and some Board members offered examples. Board members demonstrated in interviews a general familiarity with the issues including the ability to explain coherently their reasons for budgetary and administrative decisions in question. The Grand Jury found no evidence of violations of the Brown Act. This complaint was based on the dubious assumption that the only explanation for a unanimous vote without discussion is that the Board members had illegally agreed to the vote beforehand. Some of the Board members took exception to the implication that their votes were made without due consideration solely on the basis of the Superintendent’s desires.

F10: District bylaws stipulate that the Board President is to run meetings. Was it a violation of these bylaws that the Superintendent appeared to be running meetings? Is the Board President allowed to delegate responsibility for running meetings? The Grand Jury found no rule prohibiting the Board President from delegating responsibility for running Board meetings, as long as it is understood that the Board President may intervene at any time and assume control. The Superintendent and Board members appeared to understand this prerogative of the Board President. The Grand Jury finds that there is not strictly a procedural violation when the Superintendent runs a Board meeting. There is, however, the matter of the perception which may arise from such a procedure. The complaint demonstrates that such a procedure may lead to the assumption by the public that the Board which follows the Superintendent’s lead in simple matters of meeting conduct may also do the Superintendent’s bidding in more substantive matters.

F11: The Board declined to read the text of resolutions during meetings. Was this a violation of Board bylaws, the Brown Act, or of Roberts’ Rules of Order? Roberts’ Rules of Order state that resolutions should be read if anyone present requests it. Board bylaws state that Roberts’ Rules of Order should be followed during meetings, in the absence of any countermanding Board bylaws. The Grand Jury finds, therefore, that the resolutions should have been read. The Brown Act contains no requirement that the text of a resolution be read at a meeting, so there was no violation of the Brown Act in this regard.

F12: Board members declined to answer questions put to them by audience members during meetings, sometimes deferring to the Superintendent for answers. Was this a violation of Board bylaws or the Brown Act? Is the Board required to allow audience participation in discussions during meetings of matters which are not designated as public hearings? Board bylaws, State rules for Board conduct, and the Brown Act leave it to the Board chair or President’s discretion whether to allow public discussion of Board agenda items, except in the case of designated public hearings where the chair may set reasonable rules for public testimony but must allow all to speak who wish. There is no requirement to allow interrogation of Board members by members of the public during meetings, even in a public hearing, and therefore no requirement for Board members to respond to questions from the audience at any time during a meeting. Board members therefore exceeded the minimum required of them in asking the Superintendent to answer questions put to them. In interviews, Board members stated that they felt more comfortable having the Superintendent answer audience questions sometimes, especially when the questions were very technical or contentious. As with the matter of who runs the meeting, this matter raises the issue of perception. Public meetings in Alpine County tend to offer more opportunity for public participation, since there are usually fewer attendees than in bigger counties or cities, and participants often know each other. Departure from this happy tradition may create a less productive atmosphere.

F13: The complaint alleged that the Superintendent exercised undue influence over Board members. Is there any evidence of such improper influence, such as specific instances of the Superintendent using condescending, demeaning, threatening, or confusing language toward Board members? Is there any evidence of the Superintendent trying to change Board members’ votes after such votes were taken, whether by scolding, threatening, or demeaning Board members? The Grand Jury found no evidence of such behavior. As noted above, in interviews all Board members insisted that they studied their meeting packets, asked questions of District staff and others when they felt it appropriate, and drew their own conclusions. While they expressed respect for the Superintendent’s abilities and allowed that his input was important to them, none was willing to concede an unwillingness to disagree with him. And none agreed that the Superintendent had ever behaved inappropriately to secure their agreement with him. One Board member expressed regret in hindsight over the hiring of the Superintendent’s wife, due to the unanticipated reaction it provoked with the teachers. But this Board member insisted that the decision seemed reasonable at the time and was made based on administrative principles. All Board members insisted that the foremost principle guiding their decisions was the good of the children.

F14: How do the Board members feel about the Superintendent’s relation with them and his job performance in general? Do they feel that the Superintendent gives good understandable explanations of matters that come before them? The Board members when interviewed expressed general satisfaction with the Superintendent’s job performance. They feel that the Superintendent explains matters appropriately.

F15: What do the Board members say about allegations of retaliation? Do they feel that actions taken had good reasons other than retaliation? When interviewed, as noted above, Board members took full responsibility for their votes and felt that they always had good reasons for doing what they did, without any consideration of retaliation.

F16: Did the Board refuse to meet with staff? There was one occasion when the Board declined to meet with staff. Staff asked to talk with the Board on a matter which was the subject of negotiations and a PERB action. Board members said they felt it would have been improper to go outside the established procedures for the negotiations and the PERB hearing. The Board was under no obligation to meet with staff on these matters outside established procedures for such negotiations, and may in fact have exposed the Board to charges of procedural violations if they had.

F17: The Board sometimes votes on matters without discussion. Is this a violation of Board bylaws or the Brown Act? Do Board members appear to understand meeting rules? Is there a requirement for discussion, either before or after a motion is made? There is no requirement for Board discussion on motions. Roberts’ Rules of Order state that the meeting chair should call for Board discussion after a motion is made and seconded and before the vote is taken. But there is no requirement that any discussion should take place. This is another instance where perception might be taken into consideration. A wise chairman will take measures to insure that all present understand the proceedings, including clarification of a motion and one last opportunity for the presentation of new information. Before a motion is accepted, it is usually a good idea to make sure all viewpoints have been aired, including those of audience members. Going beyond the bare requirements of meeting procedure to include the audience is usually healthy for the democratic process.

F18: The District Board cited declining enrollment at Diamond Valley School as a reason for layoffs. The complaint implied that the decline in enrollment was exaggerated. The Grand Jury examined attendance figures and determined that the decline in enrollment was as reported by the Superintendent, and did in fact result in decreased revenue to the District. Layoffs proposed by the District did not appear to reduce student/teacher ratios below acceptable levels.