El Dorado County Grand Jury
2003-2004
From the annual report
The consolidated year-end volume. The individual investigations it contains are listed separately below.
📑 Year-End Report
The full consolidated volume; individual reports are listed below.
Individual reports (15)
Quick View
Full Details →
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Grand Jury strongly recommends that, in the future, the Board of Trustees of the EDUHSD develop a plan for the selection of a candidate for any administrative position and adhere to it. Entering into a contract and then subverting it by making a selection before the contract had expired is inproper. While this is not illegal and is the prerogative of the Board of Trustees, the short period during which this process took place leads the Grand Jury to wonder if the candidate was “pre-selected” from the start, which gives the air of impropriety. The EDUHSD Board of Trustees should promote policies which demonstrate fair and open communication, minimizing both secrecy and the appearance of favoritism. The fact that other people have stated that they would have applied if they had known the position was open indicates that this opportunity was not as widely available as the board has stated. The lack of any records as to whom and when the notices of the Board of Trustees’ meeting agenda were sent, and whether they were given the required time as mandated in The Brown Act, indicates a lack of regard for the law and gives the impression of contempt for teachers and the general public. The EDUHSD Board of Trustees should insure that proper documentation is kept on file, which indicates total, not selective, compliance with The Brown Act. The Board of Trustees is not an entity unto itself, but is supported by the people of El Dorado County through public taxes, and is therefore to be of service to the public, not the reverse. A response is required by the Board of Trustees, El Dorado Union High School District within ninety (90) days. See Tableof Contents, “Notice to Respondents”. 29
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
Rejected/Denied Medicare bills were improperly sent to patients. Additional effort was required by county employees to resolve disputes between Medicare Insurance and ABS.
F2:
ABS was requesting payments from patients through County Counsel even though the Medicare disputes were not resolved.
F3:
A number of these disputed bills are not being resolved properly and patients are being billed.
F4:
Different billing terminology between Medicare and ABS caused confusion among patients. These differences caused difficulty when patients called Medicare to resolve the disputes.
F5:
Lack of written policies and procedures in ABS resulted in improper handling of ambulance transport claims.
F6:
Lack of training resulted in improper coding on Medicare forms.
Additional Recommendations
5
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
ABS employees must be directed to resolve disputes with Medicare prior to billing the patients.
R2:
The County should exclude ABS from sending disputed payment notices to patients per Board Of Supervisors’ policy B-4 in collections.
R3:
County must resolve differences in terminology used by Medicare Insurance and ABS.
R4:
The County must immediately direct ABS to develop and implement written policies and procedures for detailed processing of ambulance transport billing.
R5:
ABS employees must be trained on the coding of Medicare bills and on the County’s written policies and procedures. 2003/2004 El Dorado County Grand Jury Investigations & Reports 2 The El Dorado County Board of Supervisors, coordinating with the above mentioned agencies, is required by Penal Code 933 and 933.05 to respond to all Findings and Recommendations contained within this report. See page vi for the proper method to respond to Findings and Recommendations. 2003/2004 El Dorado County Grand Jury Investigations & Reports 3
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
12 findings
F1:
Local law enforcement and CPS do not understand each other’s needs and responsibilities.
F2:
Budgetary cutbacks have reduced formal training in CPS.
F3:
The current evaluation and feedback system for probationary employees in CPS limits understanding of their progress in work performance and affects the services they are expected to provide.
F4:
Leadership fails to maintain effective communication between management and line employees leading to confusion and angst among employees.
F5:
Security rules for confidential information are ignored.
F6:
Inconsistent application of written CPS guidelines diminishes care and support of children and results in frustration of individual CPS workers.
F7:
There are no facilities for larger animals, such as horses, goats, etc.
F8:
There is no handrail.
F9:
Although three large lights shine on the stairs, the lights are blocked by tree branches or trunks.
F10:
No “direct” lighting was on the stairs.
F11:
The entire parking lot is poorly lit.
F12:
The security gate allowing access to the parking lot is non-operable.
Additional Recommendations
9
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Establish a formal training program between CPS and local law enforcement.
R2:
Additional formal training is required for CPS employees to understand the department’s needs and objectives.
R3:
Perform evaluations more than once a year for probationary employees. Feedback must be provided on a continuous basis.
R4:
Refine the program guidelines making them clear and concise. Leadership must monitor and evaluate application of the revised guidelines.
R5:
CPS must comply with confidentiality rules and laws. The El Dorado County Board of Supervisors, coordinating with the above mentioned agencies, is required by Penal Code 933 and 933.05 to respond to all Findings and Recommendations contained within this report. See page vi for the proper method to respond to Findings and Recommendations. 2003/2004 El Dorado County Grand Jury Investigations & Reports 5 County Public Buildings
R6:
Provide additional ventilation for the animal runs to dry more quickly.
R7:
Additional facilities are needed for larger animals. 2003/2004 El Dorado County Grand Jury Investigations & Reports 7 ASSESSORS OFFICE, PLACERVILLE
R8:
Install additional overhead lighting in the parking lot.
R9:
The security gate needs to be repaired and maintained.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
12 findings
F1:
The heat/air conditioning ceiling vents are dirty.
F2:
The modular building adjacent to the Agriculture Building has a doormat with ragged edges, possibly causing someone to trip and fall.
F3:
The carpet between the public area and office has an open seam.
F4:
The public restroom is located at the rear of the main staff office. This causes cross traffic and disrupts productivity.
F5:
There is an inadequate exercise area. Only one animal may exercise at a time.
F6:
The cement runs stayed wet or damp and did not dry out very well. This is a safety hazard for the public, staff and animals.
F7:
There are no facilities for larger animals, such as horses, goats, etc.
F8:
There is no handrail.
F9:
Although three large lights shine on the stairs, the lights are blocked by tree branches or trunks.
F10:
No “direct” lighting was on the stairs.
F11:
The entire parking lot is poorly lit.
F12:
The security gate allowing access to the parking lot is non-operable.
Additional Recommendations
9
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The heat/air conditioning ceiling vents need to be cleaned.
R2:
Replace the existing doormat.
R3:
A carpet strip needs to be installed in the doorway over the open seam.
R4:
Access to the public restroom should be redirected from the main staff office.
R5:
Provide additional space for animal exercise.
R6:
Provide additional ventilation for the animal runs to dry more quickly.
R7:
Additional facilities are needed for larger animals. 2003/2004 El Dorado County Grand Jury Investigations & Reports 7 ASSESSORS OFFICE, PLACERVILLE
R8:
Install additional overhead lighting in the parking lot.
R9:
The security gate needs to be repaired and maintained.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
The BOS has no long-term vision pertaining to the future of information technology. 2003/2004 El Dorado County Grand Jury Investigations & Reports 12
F2:
IT does not lead the county in technology advancements, nor does IT coordinate the needs of each department into a county-wide, prioritized, technology program.
F3:
The IT Steering Committee meets irregularly and provides no direction to the county’s decision makers (ie: the BOS and CAO).
F4:
The lack of coordination between departments causes duplication of IT purchases.
F5:
Individual departments make expenditures without coordinating the main frame interface needs of their new systems resulting in major impacts to the county’s existing hardware, software, and IT personnel.
F6:
The County does not aggressively pursue the use of technology as an advancement in methodology of doing county business for the purpose of economy, speed, or efficiency.
Additional Recommendations
6
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The County must work toward standardizing its software, hardware, and systems to insure all county employees can work together on the same systems efficiently.
R2:
The BOS, CAO and the IT Director must take the lead on the IT Steering Committee with participation by other key department heads.
R3:
The BOS, CAO and Director of IT must create a multi-year strategic technology funding plan.
R4:
The IT Steering Committee must be assigned the responsibility for integrating, prioritizing, and approving county technology projects, purchases, and funding.
R5:
The IT Steering Committee must revise and update controls on purchasing of technologies, so that redundant systems are not purchased or adversely affect IT infrastructure.
R6:
The County must aggressively pursue technological advancements with the objectives of reduction in cost and improvement in efficiency. The El Dorado County Board of Supervisors, coordinating with the above mentioned agencies, is required by Penal Code 933 and 933.05 to respond to all Findings and Recommendations contained within this report. See page vi for the proper method for responding to Findings and Recommendations. 2003/2004 El Dorado County Grand Jury Investigations & Reports 13
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F1:
By not enforcing the State mandated recycling requirements the County faces a $10,000 a day fine.
F2:
Instead of enforcing the State mandated recycling requirements, of 50%, the County continues requesting extensions. Currently the recycling is approximately half of the mandated requirement.
F3:
The County has proposed a new Agreement with Waste Management, Inc.
F4:
Non-recycled materials are not hauled away within 24 hours as required by state law.
F5:
The County is no longer making on-site inspections of the MRF operations on a regular basis.
F6:
The camera system, monitored at the Environmental Management Department, does not provide adequate monitoring of the recycling activities.
F7:
The animal carcass bin is not always properly closed.
F8:
The MRF does not have the State required animal carcass freezer.
F9:
County residents can incur long wait times to drop off their refuse.
Additional Recommendations
6
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The County must enforce the state-recycling requirement of 50%.
R2:
The County must expedite the new Agreement with Waste Management, Inc., or contract with a company that will meet state AB939 mandates.
R3:
The County must enforce California State Regulations requiring all non-recycled material be removed within 24 hours, including weekends. 2003/2004 El Dorado County Grand Jury Investigations & Reports 15
R4:
The County must not rely exclusively on camera monitoring of the MRF activities, and must re-instate on-site inspections to ensure AB939 compliance.
R5:
The County must enforce compliance with state law regarding a freezer for animal carcasses.
R6:
The County must direct Waste Management, Inc., to improve non-commercial customer service at the MRF. The El Dorado County Board of Supervisors, coordinating with the above mentioned agencies, is required by Penal Code 933 and 933.05 to respond to all Findings and Recommendations contained within this report. See page vi for the proper method for responding to Findings and Recommendations. 2003/2004 El Dorado County Grand Jury Investigations & Reports 16
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
11 findings
F1:
The Ranch Marketing Ordinance is open to interpretation and is confusing to those attempting to comply with its requirements.
F2:
The Ranch Marketing Ordinance is open to interpretation and is confusing to those who are attempting to explain and enforce its requirements.
F3:
There is inconsistency in the methodology of measuring acreage (manual versus global positioning satellite also known as GPS), resulting in possible disqualification.
F4:
The County generally does not enforce the Ranch Marketing Ordinance unless a complaint is received, resulting in a lack of standardized enforcement.
F5:
Confusion between Agriculture and Planning Departments delays an applicant’s qualification or rejection for Ranch Marketing.
F6:
Without regular meaningful performance evaluations, the county lacks the ability to evaluate employees for promotion and discipline. Evaluations would also provide feed back to the employees.
F7:
Training is often neglected due to budget limitations.
F8:
The Human Resources Department leadership, along with other county department leaders, are not enforcing policies and procedures. This lack of leadership fosters violations and misconduct by county employees.
F9:
The County does not attract sufficient qualified applicants due to lack of positive working environment and competitive compensation policies.
F10:
Electronic technology is not being utilized to its fullest.
F11:
Workplace values, such as pride, respect, responsibility, and professionalism are not always held in high regard. 2003/2004 El Dorado County Grand Jury Investigations & Reports 20
Additional Recommendations
12
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The County contract with cable TV signal providers should contain requirements for uniform basic services to all the communities it serves. The El Dorado County Board of Supervisors, is required by Penal Code 933 and 933.05 to respond to all Findings and Recommendations contained within this report. See page vi for the proper method for responding to Findings and Recommendations. 2003/2004 El Dorado County Grand Jury Investigations & Reports 29 South Tahoe Redevelopment Agency
R2:
The Agricultural Department should lead the expeditious rewrite of the Ranch Marketing Ordinance to make it complete, clear and concise.
R3:
The Agricultural Department needs to become proactive rather than reactive regarding enforcement of the Ranch Marketing Ordinance.
R4:
A specific timeframe should be set by the County to approve or disapprove Ranch Marketing applications. The El Dorado County Board of Supervisors, coordinating with the above mentioned agencies, is required by Penal Code 933 and 933.05 to respond to all Findings and Recommendations contained within this report. See page vi for the proper method for responding to Findings and Recommendations. 2003/2004 El Dorado County Grand Jury Investigations & Reports 18 Review Of County Government
R5:
Meaningful performance evaluations must be done regularly. Each department director must establish standards and goals that actually measure the effectiveness of their department with time frames to meet these requirements.
R6:
Provide training programs for newly hired, recently promoted, and present employees. Training must include department basics, leadership, and communications.
R7:
County-wide codes of behavior, conduct and dress must be developed by Human Resources with cooperation of the union officials. Empower the Human Resources Department to enforce these rules and provide these rules to employees.
R8:
Explore and develop a clear policy for employee promotion.
R9:
Review and upgrade compensation policies to allow the county to be competitive.
R10:
Major software companies should be consulted to review county operations and make recommendations for improvement. See IT report for additional recommendations.
R11:
The Board of Supervisors, department directors and employees, must support important workplace values, such as pride, respect, responsibility, and professionalism.
R12:
The Redevelopment Agency’s five year Implementation Plan for the period January 2000 to December 2004 (not included in the addenda due to its size). 2003/2004 El Dorado County Grand Jury Investigations & Reports 45 Addenda
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
11 findings
F1:
There are county employees, at all levels, who do not acknowledge that they are part of the county’s dysfunction.
F2:
County departments generally operate as separate entities with little regard or communications with other departments.
F3:
The office of the Chief Administrative Officer has not always had strong support from all department directors and the Board of Supervisors.
F4:
Department directors are not meeting regularly to discuss and resolve interdepartmental and county-wide issues.
F5:
The Human Resources Department does not have a strong labor relations commitment.
F6:
Without regular meaningful performance evaluations, the county lacks the ability to evaluate employees for promotion and discipline. Evaluations would also provide feed back to the employees.
F7:
Training is often neglected due to budget limitations.
F8:
The Human Resources Department leadership, along with other county department leaders, are not enforcing policies and procedures. This lack of leadership fosters violations and misconduct by county employees.
F9:
The County does not attract sufficient qualified applicants due to lack of positive working environment and competitive compensation policies.
F10:
Electronic technology is not being utilized to its fullest.
F11:
Workplace values, such as pride, respect, responsibility, and professionalism are not always held in high regard. 2003/2004 El Dorado County Grand Jury Investigations & Reports 20
Additional Recommendations
11
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
For anything to change, there must first be a county-wide recognition and acknowledgement of the county dysfunction. Employees at all levels must critique themselves for improvement.
R2:
The Board of Supervisors and department directors must provide strong support for the Chief Administrative Officer in consolidating and streamlining county government.
R3:
The Chief Administrative Officer and department directors must meet monthly to set goals, make plans, review progress, and establish priorities.
R4:
The Board of Supervisors must direct the Chief Administrative Officer to establish a strong labor relations program.
R5:
Meaningful performance evaluations must be done regularly. Each department director must establish standards and goals that actually measure the effectiveness of their department with time frames to meet these requirements.
R6:
Provide training programs for newly hired, recently promoted, and present employees. Training must include department basics, leadership, and communications.
R7:
County-wide codes of behavior, conduct and dress must be developed by Human Resources with cooperation of the union officials. Empower the Human Resources Department to enforce these rules and provide these rules to employees.
R8:
Explore and develop a clear policy for employee promotion.
R9:
Review and upgrade compensation policies to allow the county to be competitive.
R10:
Major software companies should be consulted to review county operations and make recommendations for improvement. See IT report for additional recommendations.
R11:
The Board of Supervisors, department directors and employees, must support important workplace values, such as pride, respect, responsibility, and professionalism.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
There was poor oversight of the activities and inadequate financial management of the Park Avenue project. This was due to the same people serving on the city council and on the STRDA. Also there was high turnover of these elected official and their supporting city staff. 2003/2004 El Dorado County Grand Jury Investigations & Reports 30
F2:
The financial reporting system in use in the City of South Lake Tahoe during the years in question (1999-2002) was difficult to understand. There was a lack of notification and/or control in certain situations when overspending occurred. The City Council did not receive cogent, on-going spending updates as each year progressed.
F3:
The financial documents that the City Council received were difficult to understand and were not presented on a regular basis. These non-user friendly financial documents contributed to a lack of financial control over the project by the city council.
F4:
The same auditor was used by the city for several years.
F5:
The STRDA audit report dated 9/30/01 clearly identified a large deficit in the their fund. Nevertheless, no action was taken by staff or elected officials to memorialize the deficit in a loan agreement as required by the Cooperation Agreement.
Additional Recommendations
12
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Future STRDA Boards must be independent of the City Council, with no more then one member of the City Council on the board. However the STRDA board must be accountable and report to the City Council
R2:
The STRDA must be vigilant in monitoring actual expenditures against budgeted amounts as the fiscal year progresses. STRDA must take prompt and decisive action when negative variances are identified. STRDA shall continue to provide the monthly budget update information to the City Council.
R3:
The City of South Lake Tahoe must strictly adhere to the financial controls implemented by the City Manager and City Council as outlined in the 11/16/03 staff report.
R4:
The City of South Lake Tahoe and STRDA must change independent outside financial auditors on a regular basis to help ensure unbiased reviews of the city’s and STRDA’s financial conditions.
R5:
When STRDA identifies deficit conditions, the circumstances need to be promptly documented in a manner consistent with the Cooperation Agreement between the City of South Lake Tahoe and STRDA. The South Lake Tahoe City Council/STRDA Board of Directors, is required by Penal Code 933 and 933.05 to respond to all Findings and Recommendations contained within this report. Note: Respondent does not need to respond to the attached report. See page vi for the proper method for responding to Findings and Recommendations. 2003/2004 El Dorado County Grand Jury Investigations & Reports 31 Investigative Report
R6:
The South Tahoe Redevelopment Agency consolidated “Statements of Indebtedness” for tax years 2000/2001, 2001/2002 and 2002/2003. These reports are filed annually with El Dorado County. 2003/2004 El Dorado County Grand Jury Investigations & Reports 44
R7:
The South Tahoe Redevelopment Agency “Financial Transactions Reports” for FY 00/01, 01/02 and 02/03. These reports are filed annually with the State Controller’s office.
R8:
Memo from Redevelopment Manager Gene Palazzo to City Manager David Jinkens, dated March 8, 2004 entitled, “Loan and repayment Agreement between South Tahoe Redevelopment Agency and the City of South Lake Tahoe.”
R9:
Examples of reports regarding the on-going financial condition of the City of South Lake Tahoe now being provided to City Council members on a monthly basis.
R10:
City of South Lake Tahoe budgets for fiscal years 99/00 through 02/03 (not included in the addenda due to their size).
R11:
All City Council and Redevelopment Agency meeting agendas and minutes from October 1999 to March 2004.
R12:
The Redevelopment Agency’s five year Implementation Plan for the period January 2000 to December 2004 (not included in the addenda due to its size). 2003/2004 El Dorado County Grand Jury Investigations & Reports 45 Addenda
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
STPUD has not clearly communicated the proper allocation and distribution of the settlement.
F2:
The oil companies paid for $42 million to cover cost of the cleanup at no cost to the STPUD rate payers.
F3:
Legal fees paid by the oil companies were not included in the clean-up cost.
F4:
Legal fees and clean-up costs were approved by the court. 2003/2004 El Dorado County Grand Jury Investigations & Reports 26
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Future STPUD communications on this matter should be clear about the proper allocation and distribution of the court awarded funds for cleanup and attorney fees. The South Tahoe Public Utility District Board of Directors, is required by Penal Code 933 and 933.05 to respond to all Findings and Recommendations contained within this report. See page vi for the proper method for responding to Findings and Recommendations. 2003/2004 El Dorado County Grand Jury Investigations & Reports 27
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
The Meyers area of the Tahoe Basin was not receiving California station local cable TV news.
F2:
California station TV news to the Meyers area of the Tahoe Basin was interrupted by the business failure of a microwave relay company.
F3:
Local California station TV news broadcasting resumed after the current cable company installed a new cable which replaced the microwave relay. 2003/2004 El Dorado County Grand Jury Investigations & Reports 28
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The County contract with cable TV signal providers should contain requirements for uniform basic services to all the communities it serves. The El Dorado County Board of Supervisors, is required by Penal Code 933 and 933.05 to respond to all Findings and Recommendations contained within this report. See page vi for the proper method for responding to Findings and Recommendations. 2003/2004 El Dorado County Grand Jury Investigations & Reports 29
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
Department heads are relied upon, but not required, to reconcile their department trust fund accounts.
F2:
Not all department trust fund accounts set up from county budget funds have a scheduled completion or expiration date. Encumbering funds for a long time can cause the loss of its intent and purpose of the trust fund.
F3:
As of 6/30/03, forty-seven trust fund accounts have a zero balance.
F4:
Lack of written procedures by the County for authorizing, reconciling, and closing trust fund accounts creates inconsistency and confusion.
Additional Recommendations
5
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Maintenance and reconciliation of each trust fund account must be reviewed by each department and justified to the CAO on an annual basis.
R2:
County must establish definitive schedules for the expenditure of funds in trust accounts.
R3:
County must review the need for trust fund accounts that have zero balance and close those whose need cannot be justified as to remaining open.
R4:
Unjustified or unused balances must be transferred (escheated) to the general fund.
R5:
County must write procedures to include requirements for the, authorization, reconciliation, and closure of trust fund accounts. The El Dorado County Board of Supervisors, coordinating with the above mentioned agencies, is required by Penal Code 933 and 933.05 to respond to all Findings and Recommendations contained within this report. See page vi for the proper method for responding to Findings and Recommendations. 2003/2004 El Dorado County Grand Jury Investigations & Reports 23
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
1 findings
F1:
Policy and procedures in place at the time at the county jails did not require regular review of videotape for possible machine malfunction.