Calaveras County Grand Jury
2003-2004
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F1:
The Grand Jury received a lack of cooperation in the production of documents required to prove or disprove the Chief Counsel’s alleged self-dealing.
F2:
Witnesses claim that hiring of certain employees did not follow Board-approved policy. The Grand Jury found that, in one instance, an individual was selected, a job was created, and Board policy modified to accommodate the position. In a separate instance, a practice of handpicking employees resulted in the hiring of a senior staff member who did not meet the minimum qualifications of the position.
F3:
In-house legal counsel created a management unit benefit package, with an enhanced retirement benefit package, to include lifetime health, dental and vision coverage. This enhanced, lifetime package is available after only two years of service.
F4:
The California State Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) enjoyed a few years of over-funding due to favorable investments. CCWD pays both employer and employee contributions to the fund. During the period of over-funding, CCWD was not required to pay the employer contribution. After the terrorist acts of September 11, 2001, and subsequent stock market downswing, CalPERS notified all public agencies that employer contribution would not only be reinstated but also increased up to an additional 3% of employee’s annual salary, starting in 2004. This increase, up to10% of employees’ salaries in retirement contribution, was presented to the Board by management as having no financial impact. The pending rate increase and its financial impact should have been brought to the attention of the Board.
F5:
Staff advised management that it is bad financial practice to allow the water assessment revenues to support the sewer operations in order to avoid the impact of rate increases. 10
F8:
Establish a permanent office with regular hours and conduct District business from that location.
F9:
Reduce the Directors’ fees to bring them more in line with fees paid to Directors in similar districts
F10:
All contracts over $3,500.00 should receive a minimum of three bids and all subject bids should be posted in the local newspaper with the largest subscription base. No contractor should be accepted without a State license. Emergency work may be done on an on-call basis and, when feasible, should be done by a licensed contractor.
F11:
VSPUD legal counsel should thoroughly interpret the requirements of the Brown Act to each Board Director so they fully understand both their obligation to conform to the requirements and the penalties for non-conformance. RESPONSE REQUESTED VSPUD Board of Directors VSPUD Manager 8 CALAVERAS COUNTY WATER DISTRICT (CCWD) REASON FOR INVESTIGATION A complaint was filed against CCWD alleging, “the majority of Board discretionary activities are either unnecessary, inappropriate, frivolous, or outright boondoggles.” PROCEDURES The Grand Jury examined CCWD legislative platform approved by Board and compared this to a list of proposed CCWD projects prepared by management and presented to the Board for approval. FINDING CCWD has undertaken the pursuit of programs not consistent with its approved Legislative Platform, which is a violation of California Government Code 56824.12.
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
For each job opening, an application Screening Committee of at least two people is established. This committee selects from three to ten applicants for interviews. An applicant may be disqualified based on a lack of qualifications, skills or experience; incomplete or falsified application; or if the maximum number of qualified applicants has been received. For this particular job opening there were 12 applicants, six male and six female. Four applicants, one male and three female, were chosen for interview by a three-person panel.
F2:
The HRC’s Human Resource administrator followed all applicable guidelines as set forth in their board-approved recruitment and hiring policies.
F3:
There was no proof that discrimination occurred during the applicant screening process at the Human Resources Council.
Findings & Recommendations
2 findings
F1:
County Counsel should provide annual training to elected Board members to insure their understanding of the Brown Act and other applicable California government codes, and the penalties for non-compliance.
F2:
The District Attorney’s Office should take a more supportive role in the processing of requests for subpoenas by the Grand Jury. RESPONSE REQUESTED Calaveras County District Attorney Calaveras County Counsel 13
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
1 findings
F4:
Efforts must continue to locate the misplaced incoming checks and a better tracking system must be established to prevent future losses. RESPONSE REQUESTED Board of Supervisors County Administrative Officer 2 OUTSTANDING RESPONSES FROM PRIOR YEARS Pursuant to Penal Code 933, respondents have a specified period of time in which they must officially respond to the recommendations as set forth in the Grand Jury’s Final Report. Elected officials must respond to the Grand Jury’s findings within 60 days and appointed officials within 90 days. The current Grand Jury is responsible for ensuring that last years required respondents have submitted answers to recommendations. The current Grand Jury may also selectively investigate the progress and implementations of changes promised by these agencies and departments. After reviewing all responses received this year, the Grand Jury determined that several departments and agencies have either not responded or have not adhered to promises made in their official responses. Some of these matters remain unresolved after a period of two or more years. The Grand Jury also reviewed Grand Jury Final Report Recommendations from two previous years. This review disclosed that there are financial procedures that still remain unsettled. In the Management Report Year End June 30, 2002, BB&R made 51
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
Proof of conflict of interest was forwarded to the Fair Political Practices Commission for further investigation.
F2:
In a letter to VSPUD, the Water Quality Control Board directed that VSPUD comply with regulations requiring a water system to mail or otherwise deliver a copy of each year’s Consumer Confidence Report to each customer.
F3:
Establish a Policy and Procedure Manual, which outlines precise hiring procedures, and includes job descriptions, minimum requirements for each position, and Board-approved salary schedules in accordance with Equal Opportunity Commission regulations. This would validate that each employee hired is the most qualified candidate available for the position, thereby diminishing the perception of impropriety.
F4:
Maintain strict compliance with regulations relating to advertising meeting dates and agendas per Government Code 54954.2.
F5:
VSPUD Board Meetings must follow posted agendas, and meeting minutes should clearly detail the business conducted in order to verify compliance with the Government Code 54950 et seq.
F6:
VSPUD must upgrade accounting and record keeping procedures to comply with Government Code.
F7:
The Grand Jury recommends that the District revise its rate structure to benefit the water user and VSPUD. For example, the minimum usage base rate should be removed; and the per-gallon rate should be increased from $0.005 to $0.006, with a $3 meter fee (surcharge) per customer per month. 7
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
F1:
There is a dual conflict of interest in one Director’s position as a member of the Board of VSPUD. This Director has a financial interest in the district since the District employs the Director’s spouse. Further, the Director’s spouse was promoted by Board action in which that Director voted.
F2:
VSPUD did not distribute Consumer Confidence Reports in accordance with State Water Quality Control Board regulations.
F3:
A perception of impropriety exists because of the many familial relations between Board members, management, and employees of the VSPUD.
F4:
There is a lack of effort on the part of VSPUD to raise consumer awareness of District business. Agendas are not published in time period prescribed in Government Code Section 54950 et seq.
F5:
VSPUD Board Meeting records are not maintained in compliance with Government Code 54950 et seq. Personnel actions are voted on without reference to prior Board discussion, which is a violation of Government Code 61226.
F6:
VSPUD bookkeeping and general record keeping is confusing and in violation of California Penal code 933.1. When asked to produce personnel records, including applications, performance evaluations and exit interviews, VSPUD staff responded that no personnel files are kept. Absence of this documentation is in violation of Government Codes 19800, 19801, 19992, 1992.1, 1992.2, 6200, 6201, and 6203.
F7:
Seventy-six of the District’s 276 consumers are using less than 2,000 gallons of water per month but are being charged a base rate of 6,000 gallons per month. This translates into a very high cost-per-gallon for low-volume consumers.
F8:
The VSPUD office is located in the home shared by a Director and the District Manager. This marital relationship promotes privatization of a public utility and raises issues of 6
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
The Grand Jury submitted the results of this investigation, including documentation, to the California State Bar Association, in connection with allegations that the CCWD Chief Counsel engaged in self-dealing with public tax dollars in violation of the State Bar Code of Ethics.
F2:
The Board of Directors must insure that hiring practices are stringently followed.
F3:
Since this is an increased expense to the District, which will impact rate payers for many years, the Board of Directors must examine whether two years employment is an appropriate vesting period by doing a comparison study of retirement benefit packages in similar special districts in California.
F4:
Management must present complete and accurate pertinent data, including potential financial impact on the District, to the Board. The Board of Directors must be diligent in efforts to verify information presented by management and adhere to their mission statement, which reads in part, “The governing body is dedicated to protecting, enhancing, and developing our water resources to the highest beneficial use for Calaveras County, while maintaining cost-conscious, reliable service, and our quality of life, through responsible management.”
F5:
Board should audit financial practices regarding sewer operations.
F6:
Management and staff must not censor correspondence addressed to members of the Board of Directors. A policy should be established whereby correspondence can go directly to the Board rather than through staff and management. The original letter in question should be made available to the Board for review and consideration.
F7:
The Board of Directors should respond to all communications from the public and employees, and must encourage communication and complaints by constituents. 11
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
F1:
Citizens of Calaveras County are encouraged to participate in the Advisory Council of the Area 12. There are currently five vacancies. For applications and information on the Council, call 209-532-6272 or 209-754-5575.
F2:
The Board of Supervisors must demonstrate commitment to and active participation in the providing of services to seniors through the JPA.
F3:
The Board of Supervisors must authorize an audit to determine amount of money owed, if any, to Area 12, and must pay any deficit or justify the non-payment.
F4:
The Grand Jury reiterates its recommendation that Calaveras County Board of Supervisors authorize an audit to determine whether these discrepancies do exist.
F5:
Area 12 should continue the training and monitoring of service providers. Penalties should be imposed upon service provider agencies for non-compliance with training and procedural requirements.
F6:
During the needs-assessment process and the meal-delivery process, it must be made clear to the meal recipients that they are expected to pay for the meals to the extent that they are able. Procedures for collection and recording of collection must be instituted.
F7:
Common Grounds should institute fundraising programs in Calaveras County to help offset the cost of delivering meals to seniors.
F8:
No recommendation. 17
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
The 1999-2000 Grand Jury report states, “The error which led to the issuance of the permit for this building represents a failure of local government to protect the interests of both property owners and their neighbors by maintaining and enforcing reasonable building requirements.” However, the property owner applied for and received all necessary building permits, and built the structure in accordance with them.
F2:
The Planning Department has acknowledged that errors were made in the permit process and has agreed to more strictly adhere to local government building codes. The Planning Department attempted to appease the complainants by offering to landscape the property to improve its aesthetics. The Building Inspector requested the owner determine the cost of removing 15 feet of the building covering the front easement encroachment. The owner of the structure has not cooperated with either suggestion.
F3:
The Board of Supervisors should institute Review Standards for Code Compliance as soon as possible to ensure fairness and protect neighborhoods as well as the County. 22
F4:
The Calaveras County Planning Variance Request Application form should be changed to reflect that a public hearing and notification does not apply to all variance requests. RESPONSE REQUESTED Board of Supervisors Planning Commission Calaveras County Planning Department 23 PERFORMING ANIMALS WELFARE SOCIETY (PAWS) ARC 2000 REASON FOR INVESTIGATION A complaint was made against the Calaveras County Planning Department regarding its oversight and review of the PAWS Arc 2000 project. The Performing Animal Welfare Society is an organization dedicated to the health and welfare of abused, neglected and retired exotic animals. This non-profit organization owns a 2,800-acre parcel located near San Andreas. The facility is designed to replicate the animals’ natural habitat. The complainant states that Arc 2000 failed to meet conditions set forth in the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and the Planning Department failed to adequately monitor the project. There were five alleged violations cited in the complaint: 1. Development is within the 100-foot non-development buffer zone. 2. A river crossing was created without required streambed alteration permits. 3. There is inadequate inclusive fencing. 4. Roadways within the project do not meet CUP specifications. 5. The Planning Department staff provided false information to the Calaveras County Board of Supervisors. PROCEDURES The Grand Jury reviewed documentation from the Planning Department, and maps and aerial photographs of the above-mentioned property and adjoining parcels. The Grand Jury interviewed the director and staff of PAWS and toured the grounds of the San Andreas site. FINDINGS 1. The Conditional Use Permit states that no development can occur within the buffer zone. This issue was addressed by the Department of Fish and Game. That department determined that moving the eight-foot chain link fence within the buffer zone would likely result in a greater impact on the integrity of the buffer zone than to leave it in place. The Department of Fish and Game considers this issue closed. 2. The river crossing in question is not part of the PAWS project and does not fall under the CUP. Agreements regarding river crossing and the new easement road were made between previous property owner and the adjacent landowner. This legal contract was a pre-condition of the sale of the property to PAWS. PAWS has agreed to maintain the road for fire access. 3. The enclosure fencing is an eight-foot chain link fence and is in compliance with the CUP. Inspection and maintenance of the fence is performed and documented on a 24 regular schedule. United States Department of Agriculture has inspected the fence and made recommendations, which were promptly addressed. No citations were given. 4. The Grand Jury found that the roadways within the project met the CUP specifications. 5. The Grand Jury was unable to find any evidence to substantiate the claim that false information was provided by the Planning Department staff to the Calaveras County Board of Supervisors.
F5:
The Grand Jury was unable to find any evidence to substantiate the claim that false information was provided by the Planning Department staff to the Calaveras County Board of Supervisors.
Additional Recommendations
5
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Development is within the 100-foot non-development buffer zone.
R2:
A river crossing was created without required streambed alteration permits.
R3:
There is inadequate inclusive fencing.
R4:
Roadways within the project do not meet CUP specifications.
R5:
The Planning Department staff provided false information to the Calaveras County Board of Supervisors. PROCEDURES The Grand Jury reviewed documentation from the Planning Department, and maps and aerial photographs of the above-mentioned property and adjoining parcels. The Grand Jury interviewed the director and staff of PAWS and toured the grounds of the San Andreas site.