El Dorado County Grand Jury
2008-2009
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 (6)
Findings & Recommendations
12 findings
F1:
The Grand Jury has come to the conclusion that the County has been operating for several years with an “obsolete government philosophy”. Investigations by the Grand Jury found few, if any, progressive innovations in county departmental operations. Previous Grand Juries have focused on personnel turnover, deficient operations in many departments, and too much supervisory control by the Board of Supervisors over day-today operational issues in county government. In its recap of Grand Jury reports over the last five plus years, the same question arose time after time: “why is there no improvement in El Dorado County operations?” During its interviews with elected officials, department heads, county counsel, management and a large number of county employees, the same theme seemed to come into focus. Change was slow and too little. Progress was always just around the corner. Why the large number of turnover amongst department heads? Why such little change and progress over many years when problems had been identified, but left uncorrected? The Grand Jury took a close look at the Charter and determined that this document in the past fifteen years stood in the way of progress and failed in its mission to guide the county to better and more efficient government. It has, in effect, become the county’s “Achilles heel”. The Grand Jury surmised that the Charter impedes progress and in fact contributes little to the promises that were made to the voters when enacted in 1994. The cumbersome and costly compliance with Charter enforcement runs into hundreds of thousands of dollars annually. The enactment and delays encountered because of the County Charter has significantly contributed to a large increase in the cost of county government. The commissions, boards and charter procedures costs runs into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Collectively these costs amount to an estimated $1,000,000 per year. The uncontrolled costs of the Charter are a clear waste of taxpayer money. If the Charter were in fact a significant policy document that meaningfully guided El Dorado County’s course, the hidden cost of the Charter would be a reasonable tradeoff. However, the Charter typically addresses insignificant issues or makes insignificant clarifications. The El Dorado County Charter contains approximately seventeen references and/or deferrals to General Law. In fact, a line-by-line comparison of the El Dorado County Charter and the enormous body of state law governing counties reveals only minor differences between the Charter and General Law. Moreover, of the nineteen amendments that has occurred since the adoption of the Charter, ten of those have been simply adoptions of references to general law and became inoperative due to changes in state law and outdated timeframes, or corrected outdated wording and references. Many of the more “substantive” amendments such as term limits for supervisors, or Sheriff salaries, could be addressed outside of the Charter through general law if voters so choose. It is very questionable whether such a large amount of time and resources should be devoted to something that provides such little tangible benefit. The Charter has not delivered on its promise to enhance local control or make the county government more efficient. On the contrary, it appears to be a cumbersome self-sustaining administrative document that only adds unnecessary bureaucratic requirements to county government. Weighing the benefits against the burdens, it appears that the El Dorado County Charter is more burdensome than it is beneficial.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends to the Charter Commission and the Board of Supervisors that the revocation of the Charter be placed on the ballot for a decision by the voters at the next election. In the event that the El Dorado County Charter is not revoked, then the following analysis and recommendations for amending the Charter follows: Article II – Board of Supervisors Section 203: Filling of Vacancies Section 203 states: “Whenever a vacancy occurs in the office of supervisor, the unexpired term shall be filled by election. If the vacancy occurs more than 90 days but less than 120 days before a scheduled primary, general, or special election, involving the district in which the vacancy has occurred, then the election to fill the vacancy shall be consolidated within the scheduled election. If the vacancy occurs more than 120 or less than 90 days before scheduled primary, general, or special election involving the district in which the vacancy has occurred, then the vacancy shall be filled at a special election, called by the Board of Supervisors to take place not less than 90 nor more than 120 days after the vacancy occurs. The special election shall be conducted in accord with the provisions of general state law 7 regarding special elections. The candidate with the highest number of votes shall be elected to fill the unexpired term.” Government Code §25060: Filling of Vacancies It states: “Whenever a vacancy occurs in any board of supervisors, the Governor shall fill the vacancy. The appointee shall hold office until the election and qualification of his successor.” Charter section 203 remains one of the key differences between the County’s Charter and general law. It requires a special election to fill an unexpected vacancy and that individual holds the office until the next election for that seat. In the past the Board of Supervisors has not called a special election within the required time frame, leaving a four person Board of Supervisors. This makes it difficult to reach a majority decision, and leaves the district in which the vacancy occurs without representation. Special county elections are costly, estimated costs between $35,000 to $45,000. The Charter direction to hold a special election to fill a vacancy on the Board of Supervisors has not always been followed in El Dorado County. In early 2006 a supervisor seemingly abdicated his office but made no formal declaration of resignation. In July 2006 the Board of Supervisors made an unprecedented move and declared the office vacant under Government Code 1770(g). In order to fill the vacant office, the Board should have called a special election. However, 2006 was an election year and there were already candidates vying to win the seat in the General Election scheduled for November. A costly special election would have resulted in the winner filling the supervisory seat for a few months before the winner of the November election was sworn into office. Consequently, the Board of Supervisors opted to disregard the Charter requirement and did not call a special election. Although the Charter does allow a significant deviation from the General Law in this regard, it is not clear that the special election requirement has turned out to be a benefit above General Law. RECOMMENDATION The Grand Jury recommends that the Charter be revoked. However, this portion of the Charter needs to be amended if the Charter is not revoked in its entirety. To alleviate the cost and time lag of replacing a Board Member the Grand Jury recommends the following language: Whenever a vacancy occurs in the office of Supervisor, the unexpired term shall be filled by the remaining Supervisors within thirty-days. If the Supervisors do not select a replacement, the Governor shall make an appointment after the vacancy occurs per Government Code §25060. Article 11 – Board of Supervisors Section 202: Term of Offices Section 202 states: “The term of office of supervisor is four years. Board members shall be 8 limited to two consecutive terms. No person elected supervisor may serve as such for more than two successive four-year terms. Any person elected to the office of supervisor to complete in excess of two years of a four-year term shall be deemed, for the purpose of this section, to have served one full term upon the expiration of that term. No person having served two successive four year terms may serve as a supervisor until at least four years after the expiration of the second successive term in office. Any supervisor who resigns with less than two full years remaining until the expiration of the term shall be deemed, for the purpose of this section, to have served a full four year term. The above shall not disqualify any person from running for election to the Board of Supervisors for any term or terms that are not successive. The term of office commences at noon on the first Monday st after the January 1 succeeding their election. The supervisor for each of the First, Second and Third districts shall be elected in 1996. The supervisor for each of the Fourth and Fifth districts shall be elected in 1994.” Government Code §25000 (a) It states: “Each county shall have a board of supervisors consisting of five members. Not more than three members shall be elected at the same general election. If the terms of office of more than three members of the board expire at the same time, at the first regular st meeting after January 1 following their election the members so elected shall so classify themselves by lot that three members shall serve for four years and two for two years. Thereafter the term of each member shall be four years.” Government Code §25000 (b) It states: “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the board of supervisors of any general law or charter county may adopt or the residents of the county may propose, by initiative, a proposal to limit or repeal a limit on the number of terms a member of the board of supervisors may serve on the Board of Supervisors. Any proposal to limit the number of terms a member of the board of supervisors may serve on the board of supervisors shall apply prospectively only and not become operative unless it is submitted to the electors of the county at a regularly scheduled election and a majority of the votes cast on the question favor the adoption of the proposal.” RECOMMENDATION The Grand Jury recommends that the Charter be revoked. However, this section of the Charter needs to be amended if the Charter is not revoked in its entirety. Term limits create an experience drain and allow for lack of continuity of County governance. None of the above listed government codes affects other elected El Dorado County officials. No elected officials in El Dorado County, besides the County Supervisors whom are elected, have term limits. The Grand Jury recommends that the County abides by Government Code §25000 (a)(b) and eliminate term limits for County Supervisors. Article III – Chief Administrative Officer Section 301: Chief Administrative Officer Section 301 states: “The Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) is the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the County”. Other pertinent sections in the Charter in reference to the CAO’s position are Sections 302, Appointment and Removal; Section 303, Compensation; Section 304, Duties. Section 304: Duties Section 304 states: “The Chief Administrative Officer shall be responsible to the Board Of Supervisors for the proper and efficient administration of such of the affairs of the county as are or hereafter may be placed in the charge of the Chief Administrative Officer, pursuant to the provisions of the Charter, or of any ordinance, resolution or order of the Board of Supervisors. In addition to other powers and duties herein provided, the Chief Administrative Officer shall have the duty and power to: a) Coordinate the work of all offices and departments, both elective and appointive, and devise a way and means to achieve efficiency and economy in all county operations. b) Formulate and present to the Board plans to implement policies and accomplish goals established by the Board. The CAO has assigned responsibilities by the Charter which include Para. C - Budgets, Para. D - Administration of the budget, Para. E - Provides analysis of county programs, Para. F - Implement accountability systems for county money and property, Para. G Work with other government agencies such as federal, state, regional and local, Para. H - On an annual basis reviews and appraises performances of appointment department heads except county counsel, and Para. I - Coordinate publication of the County long-range fiscal plan and the annual statement of goals.” Based on interviews and information received from department heads, elected county officials and county employees, the Grant Jury found that the office of the CAO is perceived as an administrative function only. Interviews with former and current supervisors indicate strong support that the CAO function needs to be upgraded in stature. Under the Charter, this requires approval from the voters. RECOMMENDATION The Grand Jury recommends that the Charter be revoked. However, this section of the Charter needs to be amended if the Charter is not revoked in its entirety. The Grand Jury recommends upgrading the status and responsibilities of this function to CEO. The position should be given the authority and responsibility it is designed to perform. The duties of the CAO have not kept up with the growth and change in government in El Dorado County. The Board of Supervisors should be a policy decision- making body. The CEO office should be responsible for the day-to-day management of the county. The Grand Jury recommends that the CEO serve at the will of the supervisors. Except for the purpose of obtaining information, the members of the Board of Supervisors 10 shall deal solely and directly through the CEO’s office with all county departments. Article IV – Department Heads, Boards and Commissions Section 402: Elected Department Heads Section 402 states: “The following departments heads shall be elected: (a) Assessor, (b) Auditor/controller, (c) District Attorney, (d) Recorder/Clerk, (e) Sheriff/Coroner/Public Administrator, (f) Surveyor, (g) Treasurer/Tax Collector. The term of office of all elected officers is four years. However, there are no term limits for these elected department officers.” Under authority of Penal Code §928, the Grand Jury may recommend and initiate the following: “Every Grand Jury may investigate and report upon the needs of all county officers in the county, including the abolition or creation of offices and the equipment for, or the method or system of performing the duties of several offices. Such investigation and report shall be conducted selectively each year. The Grand Jury shall cause a copy of such report to be transmitted to each member of the Board of Supervisors of the County”. California Constitution, Article XI §1 (b) provides for county powers to elect as a minimum: (a) Assessor, (b) District Attorney, and (c) Sheriff. All other elected officers are listed in the Charter or in government code §24000. The Board of Supervisors is elected by district. Other elected officials are elected in county wide elections. Evidence provided to the Grand Jury indicated that this has created political difficulties for the Board of Supervisors’ ability to bring changes and control the county’s management structure. It has decreased efficiency and raised the cost of operating in the county. Elected officials are not evaluated. There is no check and balance system to evaluate them, except by the voters. This inequity in the election process, per the County Charter, raises questions for effective county government. There is, according to testimony, a serious movement by those elected department officials to block any change to the present election structure in the county. To balance the effectiveness of elected officials with no term limits vs. those elected officials with term and district boundary limits, serious questions are raised regarding the overall effectiveness of the current charter provisions. RECOMMENDATION The Grand Jury recommends that the Charter be revoked. However, this section needs to be amended if the Charter is not revoked in its entirety. To eliminate inequities, and generate cost savings, the Grand Jury recommends that the following action be enacted under the authority of Government Codes §24300 and §24300.5. Create a position of Financial Officer, to serve as Financial Officer of County government reporting to the CEO’s office. The position would also supervise the following 11 appointed positions of Treasurer and Tax Collector. The positions of Surveyor, Public Administrator, Recorder, County Clerk and Coroner should be changed to appointed positions and report to the CEO’s office or another administrative county entity. The function of Auditor/Controller should remain an elected position and supervise all financial transactions and financial compliance in the county. Under this recommendation the following positions will continue to be elected: Board of Supervisors, Sheriff, Assessor, District Attorney and Auditor/Controller. Article IV – Department Heads, Boards and Commissions Section 404: Appointed Department Heads Section 404 states: “The position of department head shall be designated by ordinance. Department heads serve at the pleasure of the appointing authority, the Board of Supervisors. Department heads shall have and may delegate the power to appoint, supervise, suspend and remove all persons employed in their departments subject to the provisions of Article V of this charter.” RECOMMENDATION The recommendation is to upgrade the CAO’s position to CEO. The appointed department heads should serve at the pleasure of the CEO and not report to the Board of Supervisors. The CEO should have the authority to hire, discipline, adjust salaries, and terminate those department heads according to County human resource policies and in accordance with the needs of the County. Article V – Sheriff’s Salary Limitation Section 504: Sheriff’s Salary Limitation Section 504 states: “The Sheriff’s Salary initiative, commonly known as Measure A, and passed by the voters at a general election on November 7, 1972, is hereby repealed. The Board of Supervisors shall, at least annually determine the existing average salaries for the South Lake Tahoe Police Department, Amador County Sheriff’s Department and the California Highway Patrol for each class of position employed by said agencies. Effective on the first day of January of each year after this charter provision first becomes effective, the Board of Supervisors shall adjust and determine that the average salary for each class of position as set forth herein be at least equal to the average of the salaries for the comparable positions in the South Lake Tahoe Police Department, Amador County Sheriff’s Department and the California Highway Patrol. As used herein, the term ‘comparable class of position’ shall mean a group of positions substantially similar with respect to qualifications or duties or responsibilities using the following positions as guidelines: Undersheriff, Captain, Lieutenant, Sergeant, Deputy Sheriff, and Clerk. The provisions of this section shall prevail over any otherwise conflicting provisions of the Charter or general law which may relate to salaries of county officers or employees who are 12 not elected by popular vote.” Under the present structure there is no fiscal accountability. It abdicates the control and responsibility of elected El Dorado County Supervisors to negotiate and effectively control expenditures and budgets of the Sheriff’s Department employees. This year, as other employees were being terminated due to the County’s budget shortfall, the raises in the Sheriff’s Department drew much attention from area media. Just weeks after the County eliminated ninety positions across multiple departments; many Sheriff’s Department employees were granted raises. This Charter provision has enshrined automatic spending over which the Board of Supervisors has no control. Section 504 of the Charter indexes El Dorado County Sheriff employee salaries to the average of the salaries for comparable positions in the South Lake Tahoe Police Department, Amador County Sheriff’s Department and the California Highway Patrol. This section actually repealed a 1972 Measure known then as Sheriff Salary Initiative, and was adopted into the Charter. Consequently, each year salaries (and all subsequent benefit costs) must be adjusted according to the Charter. As one Sacramento area television station reported, “neither the county supervisors nor any administrator can stop (the pay hikes), even in these tough economic times”. The County can only plan to fund the automatic salary increases within its annual budget. The County budgets $500,000 each year to account for the increase. The Charter dictates that the raises become effective on the first of January each year. The actual amount of the increase varies from year to year. In December 2008 the estimated annual cost to provide the automatic increase was $589,000 for the raise that took effect January 1, 2009. RECOMMENDATION The Grand Jury recommends that the Charter be revoked. However, this section needs to be amended if the Charter is not revoked in its entirety. This is a very costly and unpredictable section in the Charter from the taxpayer point of view. It would be unconscionable if this section in the Charter remains in effect. Eliminating this provision of the Charter will return financial accountability for Sheriff Department salaries back under County control and not under other jurisdictions. Article VI – Finance Section 602: Contract Administration Section 602 states: “The Board of Supervisors shall not authorize the payment of money or other compensation for the performance of any service or function by a private entity except pursuant to a written contract meeting all legal requirements for county contracts as established by the Board of Supervisors. Each contract shall identify the county officer or employees with responsibility for administering the contract”. Section 602 of the Charter has significantly increased costs to the County. The contract administration process creates several inefficiencies. The major problem with this section is the requirement to have a “written contract meeting all legal requirements for county contracts as established by the Board of Supervisors” for “any service or function”. Since 13 the definition of “service or function” is not specific in the Charter, any activity that could be construed as a service or function requires a full written contract. The Charter provides no flexibility. For example, if a department receives a state grant to provide educational items and the vendor charges an artwork fee to inscribe the items with the county logo, instead of a simple purchase order, a full written contract is required. Other simple purchases that could trigger the written contract requirement include minor rental fees for tanks used to store purchased oxygen gas. Although the County could simply issue a purchase order for the oxygen itself, the tank rental fee is a “service” which requires a written contract. Simple equipment repair jobs also require full contracts instead of purchase orders. In addition, under state law a written contract meeting legal requirement is one that is signed by both parties. This can add lengthy delays in executing contracts because vendors often do not understand why the County insists on a full contract or the corporate officer signature required on some contracts which are difficult to acquire. In some cases vendors simply refuse to sign the contracts. Another hurdle is the requirement for each contract to “identify the county officer or employee with responsibility for administering the contract.” The Charter does not provide a definition of “administering the contract” so this requirement is interpreted differently among departments. For example, some departments always specify the department head as the contract administrator while others denote specific employees. Consequently, if something does go wrong with the contract this Charter section does little to increase accountability because it is not clear who is actually responsible for the contract. County department’s management, County Counsel officers and county departments’ staffs spend huge amounts of time and subsequently county funds on executing Charter required written contracts. It is questionable whether this section in the Charter is required for simple purchases that have minimal risks. RECOMMENDATION The Grand Jury recommends that the Charter be revoked. However, this section should be amended in the event the Charter is not revoked it is entirety. This section of the Charter does not make fiscal sense. Although the intent may be sound, the procedures and execution per the Charter has not worked as intended and is costing the taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars each year in cumbersome bureaucratic paperwork. This makes the County very inefficient in purchasing and executing contracts. The reputation of the County with outside vendors is one of inefficiency and very difficult to deal with. There is no reason to keep this section in the Charter and it should be revoked. Conclusion: The 2008-2009 Grand Jury states the following: During its investigation the 2008-2009 Grand Jury discovered that the El Dorado County Charter is one of the least read documents in the County and in County Government. The Grand Jury interviewed many directors, supervisors and county employees. Many had not read nor had any idea what was in the Charter. Interviews and discussions with employees made it clear that the Charter is not effective. Because of the Charter provisions, change is difficult to achieve. The Charter is typically reviewed or changed every five years. It is the Grand Jury’s opinion that the Charter has not been effective for the past fifteen years. The Charter Commission should seriously investigate the Charter shortcomings and make its recommendations strongly but fairly to the Board of Supervisors. There are articles in the Charter that are not enforced or that have created difficulties. The Charter is, and has been, an ineffective instrument for County Government. The Charter Commission has a serious mission to recommend changes that could have a profound effect in county government structure and operations. Government in El Dorado County could and should be made more effective and cost efficient. This Grand Jury respects the difficulties faced by the Charter Review Commission and its tasks. For the past fifteen years the County has operated under a Charter form of government and it has not improved County governing functions. If the Charter is revoked, the next fifteen years should lead El Dorado County to a better and more effective County government under General Law. RESPONSES None required 15 , 2009 Grand Jury P.O. Box 472 Placerville, CA 95667 (530) 621-7477 www.co.el-dorado.ca.us/grandjury -002 REASON FOR REPORT The El Dorado County Grand Jury received multiple complaints from citizens regarding private roadside memorials located on County roads. Complaints centered around safety issues.
F2:
The $4,018.00 sum paid to former Director Norma Cleaver was an unlawful payment and is money due the District and/or El Dorado County.
F3:
The $5,798.00 sum paid to former Director Robert Rogers was an unlawful payment, and is money due the District and/or El Dorado County.
F4:
The annual meeting for ZOB’s, when scheduled, is overly focused on “ethics training” and does not adequately address ZOB operational issues. A training program for new ZOB coordinators does not exist.
F5:
DOT does not provide much engineering expertise to assist ZOB’s. In the event road engineering information is required, the information is very slow in being provided.
F6:
When ZOB homeowners volunteer to perform basic landscaping or road maintenance they find the process cumbersome relative to requirements, forms, and steps needed to purchase materials. In addition, a $1,000,000 insurance rider is required by the County for any landscape work performed by property owners 20
F7:
The contract process for any roadwork takes too long and the DOT non-bid minimum threshold is too high. Since DOT does all of the administrative work for a contract, many of the smaller details of the contracted work get lost, resulting in work that has to be adjusted and done again. The cost of these errors is incurred by the ZOB. In some cases, work is being delayed due to the lack of expertise by one of the hired contractors. DOT does not allow for “splitting of contracts”, although there are often cases where two different contractors with different skills and expertise could handle a project more cost-effectively to the ZOB. Presently, prime contractors have to award subcontracts after bidding takes place.
F8:
An emergency or quick turnaround process is not in place to fix problems. The ZOB has to wait its turn for approval, and in the meantime, a problem that could have been resolved quickly may get worse, and costs often go up accordingly.
F9:
Many of the ZOB’s are unhappy with the cost and structure of the ZOB process but do not see a viable way to exit from that road maintenance entity. Although they could vote to remove themselves from the ZOB, a readily available path to pursue an alternative entity is not in place. This is an important issue, as it remains one of the biggest frustrations of several ZOB’s.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The Board of Supervisors should help facilitate a path for disgruntled ZOB’s to exit the system and re-organize under an entity that best suits their needs. This issue is currently being discussed by County Counsel and DOT. We recognize that this is not a simple issue. Both the transition out of a ZOB to another road maintenance entity, and the adjustment from “public access to private roads” to “private roads only” needs to be addressed as part of this solution. We would urge that this recommendation produce a solution by the end of this calendar year. RESPONSES Response(s) to both Findings and Recommendations in this report are required in accordance with California Penal Code 933.05. Address responses to: The Honorable Suzanne N. Kingsbury, Presiding Judge of the El Dorado County Superior Court 22 -023 REASON FOR REPORT This report is being issued in response to a citizen complaint regarding the lack of implementation of the El Dorado County Radon Awareness Program.
F10:
Concerns over the safety of wandering clients are addressed by a non-automated exit alarm at the main entry.
F11:
The most recent Fire Marshall inspection prior to our initial visit was conducted 6½ years ago. After a Grand Jury inquiry, a Fire Marshall inspection was accomplished in October 2008.
F12:
The facility has its own kitchen which appears neat, orderly and clean.
Additional Recommendations
5
Not linked to specific findings.
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors authorize an outside qualified consulting firm to analyze, evaluate, and make recommendations relative to the structure of our County fire service operations. This analysis should include mutual aid agreements, emergency medical services, and the ability of fire departments to operate without Aid to Fire funding. All fire district concerns should be brought out in the open for discussion and resolution as part of the analysis.
R3:
We recommend that the cost of this independent analysis be paid by the current Aid to Fire funding. Based on interviews by the Grand Jury with two independent fire consulting firms we believe this analysis could be accomplished for an investment of under $100,000, which is only 7.7% of the current Aid to Fire funding. Not performing an independent analysis keeps the status quo and perpetuates the same problem of tax fairness and distribution. NOTE: It should be noted that the Board of Supervisors – as this report was going to press – at their June 2, 2009 meeting, addressed this Aid to Fire issue, and did, in fact, make the very changes recommended in this report. Below is that segment to those minutes from the June 2nd meeting. We applaud the BOS for their actions. “Chief Administrative Office recommending the Board discuss Supplemental Funding to Fire Districts (Aid to Fire) and take the following actions: 1) Adopt Resolution 111-2009 terminating Supplemental Funding for Fire Districts, making findings to support that termination, and providing for an additional appropriation of $335,537 in Fiscal Year 2009-2010; 2) Authorize staff to work with Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) to initiate a request for qualifications for a Fire Service Consultant and prepare a Memorandum of Understanding with LAFCO for the administration of a Fire Service Consultant Agreement; and 37 3) Bring Fire Service Consultant findings and recommendations back to the Board prior to the Fiscal Year 2010/2011 budget. FUNDING: General Fund A motion was made by Supervisor Santiago, seconded by Supervisor Knight, as follows: 1) Adopt Resolution 111-2009; 2) Authorize staff to work with Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO0; And 4) Bring the draft findings and recommendations from the Fire Service Consultant back to the Board on or before January 26, 1020. Yes: 4 - Knight, Sweeney, Briggs and Santiago Noes: 1 Nutting” Grand Jury Report 07-030 Use of County Vehicles – County (CAO Office) Response The 2007- 2008 Grand Jury reported eight Findings and four Recommendations. The County responses met the requirements of the penal code. The Grand Jury recognizes the work of the CAO’s office following Board Policy #D4 to review permanent assignment and overnight retention of vehicles on an annual basis to continue or rescind authorization. The recent annual review has reduced the number of take home vehicles by County employees and cost savings will follow. Grand Jury Report 07-06 Audit of Human Services and Mental Health Medi-Cal Revenue Department Responses The 2007-2008 Grand Jury commissioned a respected and experienced firm, Harvey M. Rose Associates, LLC, to conduct an audit of our County Human Services and Mental Health Departments. This action was prompted by prior Grand Juries’ investigations that had identified problems in the proper management of Medi-Cal billing practices. The purpose of the audit was to determine how much loss in State reimbursement was occurring based on those departments’ operations. The audit did in fact show some serious process deficiencies, and the projected substantial dollar losses to the County were realized. The responses from the Board of Supervisors (BOS), presumably using input from the Mental Health and Human Services Departments, attacked the credibility and methods of the audit. The head of the Mental Health Department at that time publicly (at an open BOS meeting) denounced the audit findings, and indicated that all was well in his department. The BOS response focused on statistical methods and techniques, and virtually ignored the key findings and 38 recommendations of the audit and subsequent Grand Jury report. It should be noted that when the responses to that audit from the BOS were approved and given to the Grand Jury on September 30, 2008, the BOS had already approved the transfer of $3,319,000 from the County General Fund to cover the Mental Health Department’s 2007-2008 fiscal budget shortfall due to uncollected Medi-Cal payments. Time has certainly exonerated the damaged credibility of that audit. As indicated above, at the end of last fiscal year (2007-2008), the Mental Health Department needed over $3,000,000 to supplement its budget shortfall due to uncollected revenues from the State. Much of that shortfall can never be collected, as strict time rules exist between the State and Counties to recover past submission errors. And, per the County Auditor-Controller, it appears that the negative budget balance in the Mental Health Department will occur again this fiscal year (2008- 2009). In October of 2008 the Board of Supervisors changed the management of the Mental Health Department placing that department under the umbrella of the County Department of Public Health. This Grand Jury has met with members of the Public Health Department management team as well as our County Auditor/Controller to review the status of those fiscal problems. The Mental Health Department, under this new management, has recognized and embraced these problems, analyzed where the problems are, and, we believe, is taking steps to solve them. The Mental Health Department (under the supervision of the Public Health Department) has indicated that they are taking the following actions: An electronic “bridge” is being placed between the two electronic systems designed to bill the State in a proper and timely manner Payroll has been consolidated into one operation The contract process has been consolidated The purchasing function has been consolidated There is an ongoing attempt to change the culture in order to place the proper priority on the billing and reimbursement process According to the new management team at Public Health, the statewide average disallowance rate (non-reimbursed funds) is approximately 7%. The County is now running at 10%, which is down from 16% last year. This marked improvement in the disallowance rate still has much room to improve. The Mental Health Department will still require County “bailout” funds to balance the Mental Health Department budget this year. According to our County Auditor/Controller, at least 2.5 million dollars of General Fund money will again be needed this fiscal year (2008-2009) to cover the budget shortfall of the Mental Health Department.
R4:
The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore. * The time frame needs to be specific and reasonable. ** At the conclusion of this analysis, the recommendation must be responded to as required by items 1, 2, or 4. ii RESPONSE: TIME, WHERE, AND TO WHOM The Penal Code identifies two different response times, depending upon the classification of the respondent (see below), and includes where and to whom the response is directed. Day one begins with the date of the report.
R6:
RESOLUTION NO" 05-2008 OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF El DORADO DECLARING JANUARY 1 - 31, 2008 RADON ACTION MONTH WHEREAS, radon is a colorless, odorless, naturally occurring radioactive gas that threatens the health of our citizens; and WHEREAS, radon is the second leading cause of lung cancer deaths in the United States and the number one cause among non-smokers; and WHEREAS, the only way to tell if radon is in your home [s to test, and testing for radon is simple and inexpensive; and WHEREAS, "Radon Action Month" will increase the public's awareness of radon and support efforts to encourage residents to test their homes for radon, mitigate elevated levels of radon, and build new homes with radon resistant materials and features. ' NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the El Dorado County Board of Supervisors that the month of January 2008, be designated as "Radon Action Month" in EI Dorado County. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of EI Dorado at a regular meeting of said Board, held the 8th day of January ,200 8 , by the following vote of said Board: Attest: Cindy Keck Ayes: Baumann, Sweeney, Dupray, Briggs, Santiago Clerk of the Board of Supervisors. Noes: None Absent: None Deputy Clerk I CERTIFY THAT: THE FOREGOING INSTRUMENT IS A CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL ON FILE IN THIS OFFICE. DATE: 26
R7:
RESOLUTION NO" 10-2009 OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF EL DORADO DECLARING JANUARY 1 – 31, 2009 RADON ACTION MONTH WHERE·AS, radon is a colorless, odorless, naturally occurring radioactive gas that threatens the health of our citizens; and WHEREAS radon is the second leading cause of lung cancer deaths in the United States and s the number one cause among non-smokers; and . WHEREAS, the only way to tell if radon is in your home is to test, and testing for radon is simple and inexpensive; and WHEREAS, "Radon Action Month" will increase the public's awareness of radon and support efforts to encourage residents to test their homes for radon, mitigate elevated levels of radon, and build new homes with radon resistant materials and features. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the EI Dorado County Board of Supervisors that the month of January 2009, be designated as "Radon Action Month" in EI Dorado County. PASSEO AND ADOPTED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of EI Dorado at a regular meeting of said Board, held the ___ 27_day of January .2009 . by the follov.1ng vote of said Board: Ayes: Sweeney, Briggs, Knight, Nutting, Santiego Attest: Noes: none Suzanne Allen de Sanchez Absent: none I CERTIFY THAT: THE FOREGOING INSTRUMENT IS A CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL DATE: 2/2/09 Attest: By: 27 EL DORADO COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT RADON AWARENESS PROGRAM
Findings & Recommendations
2 findings
F1:
The respondent agrees with the finding.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action.
F2:
The respondent disagrees wholly or in part with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reason therefore. RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATIONS The responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: 1. The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation.*
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R3:
The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of an agency of department being investigated or reviewed. This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report. **
R4:
The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore. * The time frame needs to be specific and reasonable. ** At the conclusion of this analysis, the recommendation must be responded to as required by items 1, 2, or 4. ii RESPONSE: TIME, WHERE, AND TO WHOM The Penal Code identifies two different response times, depending upon the classification of the respondent (see below), and includes where and to whom the response is directed. Day one begins with the date of the report.
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F1:
For over three decades, payroll, accounting and accounts payable services were provided by the El Dorado County Auditor-Controller’s office at no cost to the District. The GVFPD Board of Directors decided to withdraw the GVFPD funds from the County Auditor-Controller. This decision doesn’t appear to be based on any viable alternative to the services that were being performed by the County. Furthermore, GVFPD did not offer a rational explanation to the Auditor- Controller’s office as to why the funds were withdrawn. The GVFPD recently decided to go back into the El Dorado Auditor-Controller’s program and work with the Auditor’s office to re-establish fiscal oversight. The overall cost to GVFPD withdrawing from the Auditor-Controller’s office and eventually returning to the County has yet to be determined. 9
F2:
The GVFPD Board of Directors was negligent in their fiduciary responsibilities to the citizens of the District by their failure to properly oversee the operation of the Department. Lack of control with hiring procedures resulted in the District contracting with a person (to perform District financial transactions) who had previously plead guilty to grand theft and selling securities without a license. Additionally, this consultant misrepresented his qualifications but was not immediately terminated when this information was provided to the District. Contract agreements for financial services were not formalized in writing nor approved by the Board.
F3:
The Fire Chief is ultimately responsible for the supervision and oversight of Fire District personnel. The previous Fire Chief(s) were negligent in their oversight of the administration and personnel issues which led to conflicts within the Department. Former Fire Chief(s) allowed administrative personnel to develop a pattern of insubordination and bypass the chain of command. By not addressing these affronts to the Fire Chiefs' authority, administrative personnel were allowed to operate with impunity affecting the good order and function of the Fire District.
F4:
Financial obligations were/are delinquent and inaccurate, including both payroll and billing to United States Forest Service (USFS). The result of these actions could cost the District thousands of dollars in repayment and expenses.
F5:
The contract with USFS for the All Risk Team was poorly managed. Problems include inaccurate record keeping, incorrect payments to employees and mishandling of Government funds.
F6:
The financial controls and budgetary process in GVFPD that were found to be deficient are now in the process of being corrected by the current Board of Directors and Fire Chief.
F7:
Although the problems within the purchasing function are recognized and acknowledged by both the CAO and the purchasing department, there are no definitive plans to fix the problems.
F8:
Victims of misdemeanor crimes do not have their restitution orders actively collected by the County. 27
F9:
The restitution administration fee is currently being collected in an inefficient manner and occasionally at a rate higher than authorized by State statute. The current practice of the County is to collect the restitution administrative fee after the court-ordered amount is satisfied. The Grand Jury is aware of the justification for this method; however, research indicates the method of collecting administrative costs as payments are received improves the Restitution Program’s ability to increase collections in future years.
Additional Recommendations
9
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends that a task force be formed comprised of expert end users and outside vendors, charging them with the responsibility of streamlining the procurement process and improving the customer service level to all internal departments and external vendors. This end user task force should include members from all major County functions. The BOS should champion this process and assign one of the Supervisors to oversee the progress of this task force, with a monthly update from the leader of this task force to him/her and the CAO. We recommend that this task force start with a “blank page,” and identify an appropriate flow process, effective computer systems’ support and lead times that best serve the needs of the County and outside vendors. Significant progress has already been made in identifying the current process, but the challenge to the team is to identify what changes should be made to improve the procurement process. 2. The completed task force report should be written and submitted to the BOS with all recommended changes no later than the end of fiscal year 2008-2009. 3. No additions to personnel should occur until such time as a full review of the procurement process is completed. RESPONSES Response(s) to this report is required in accordance with California Penal Code §933.05 20 -003 REASON FOR REPORT The El Dorado County Grand Jury received several complaints from citizens of South Lake Tahoe. The complaints centered on the verbally abusive behavior and menacing actions of the South Lake Tahoe Chief of Police. Investigation of these complaints uncovered additional information which prompted the Grand Jury to look further into his managerial and behavioral issues.
R2:
The District Fire Chief must fully understand the duties of the position. Included in those duties is the proper oversight and supervision of all personnel within the Fire District. The Chief must be able to quickly recognize and deal with personnel and administrative issues that may lead to financial or operational problems.
R3:
The GVFPD Board of Directors should participate in the educational programs offered through the California Special District Association. 10
R4:
County Auditor to provide a final report with findings of fact regarding financial standing of the GVFPD with the recommendation that checks and balances be put in place.
R5:
The Grand Jury strongly recommends that the GVFPD seriously consider the recommendation of the 2007-2008 Grand Jury Final Report Part II concerning the consolidation of fire districts. RESPONSES Response(s) to this report is required in accordance with California Penal Code §933.05. 11 -020 REASON FOR REPORT The El Dorado County Grand Jury received a complaint from a citizen/resident of the Hillwood Community Services District (HCSD). The citizen requested the Grand Jury investigate the Board of Directors of the HCSD regarding various actions taken by the Board, including violation of California Government Codes and the collection of monies for the purpose of establishing a Road Improvement Group (RIG) within the HCSD. The Grand Jury has also had communication with the El Dorado County Auditor-Controller concerning Community Service Districts (CSD) in the county and the problems associated with managing and operating CSDs within the requirements of the Government Code.
R6:
The SLTPD’s Strategic Plan should address clearly defined performance measures that include at a minimum the following areas of concern: • Confidence in Senior Management • Cynicism • Morale • Visions and Values of the Department
R7:
The Chief of Police should present a written progress report to the City Council and City Manager annually for public review.
R8:
The City Manager and City Council should maintain an active presence in tracking the Strategic Plan progress.
R9:
The Chief's annual performance evaluation should include the progress of the goals set in the Strategic Plan. RESPONSES Response(s) to this report is required in accordance with California Penal Code §933.05. 24 -014 REASON FOR REPORT The Grand Jury elected to investigate the County’s Victim Restitution activity to determine if El Dorado County is effectively and efficiently managing victim restitution.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F1:
BOS Policy #D-4 is not being followed. Paragraph B.2 titled “Vehicle Use” requires the CAO’s Office to review permanent assignment and overnight retention of County-owned vehicles on an annual basis and to continue or rescind authorization. Interviews with the CAO’s office revealed that this has not been done for several years.
F2:
Paragraph B.2.a of the policy specifies that an employee who is responsible for responding to emergency situations related to public health or safety and protection of property on a 24-hour basis may be assigned a vehicle for on-call duty. However, paragraph B.2.b is subject to interpretation and allows any County employee that can demonstrate to the Board of Supervisors that it is in the best interest of the County for that employee to be assigned permanent and overnight retention of a County-owned vehicle.
F3:
The purchase of County vehicle fuel is a budget item within various County departments, and is not a component of the Fleet Management process. This is a significant County expense and estimated to be over 1.6 million dollars next year and represents nearly 40% of total fleet costs.
F4:
Fuel purchases for County vehicles are not centrally managed or controlled. The County’s primary fuel vendor possesses very sophisticated reporting capabilities and would be able to provide excellent tools in an effort to better manage fuel purchases. 2
F5:
The 50 vehicles identified as “Department 99” or department owned are not managed by Fleet Management, so the efficiency of operating those vehicles (which represent nearly 10% of the County total) is difficult to determine.
F6:
County fleet costs for 2008-2009 are estimated to be 4.2 million dollars, with projected total miles at over 5.4 million. These costs represent a cost to the County of 77.2 cents for every mile driven. As a point of reference, the rate the County reimburses employees to drive their own vehicles on County business is 50.5 cents per mile, or 26.7 cents per mile less than the County spends on its own vehicles. We do recognize that the County per mile cost is an average of ALL vehicles, including some heavy duty vehicles.
F7:
In reviewing the take-home vehicle list many of the assignments are not for “health and safety” or on-call status use. Take-home vehicles are driven 21% more miles per year, per vehicle when compared to the balance of the Fleet managed vehicles. One reason is that take-home vehicles include “commute” miles.
F8:
Potential cost savings to the County exist in two areas: a. The conversion of miles driven in County-owned vehicles to private vehicle reimbursement would save 26.7 cents per mile. If a 10% reduction were achieved, the County would save an estimated $145,278 annually. b. A 10% reduction of total County vehicle miles driven would yield a 77.2 cent per mile savings, estimated to be $419,862 annually.
F9:
Our investigation indicated that Fleet Management is performing their function well.
Additional Recommendations
9
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends that a task force be formed comprised of expert end users and outside vendors, charging them with the responsibility of streamlining the procurement process and improving the customer service level to all internal departments and external vendors. This end user task force should include members from all major County functions. The BOS should champion this process and assign one of the Supervisors to oversee the progress of this task force, with a monthly update from the leader of this task force to him/her and the CAO. We recommend that this task force start with a “blank page,” and identify an appropriate flow process, effective computer systems’ support and lead times that best serve the needs of the County and outside vendors. Significant progress has already been made in identifying the current process, but the challenge to the team is to identify what changes should be made to improve the procurement process. 2. The completed task force report should be written and submitted to the BOS with all recommended changes no later than the end of fiscal year 2008-2009. 3. No additions to personnel should occur until such time as a full review of the procurement process is completed. RESPONSES Response(s) to this report is required in accordance with California Penal Code §933.05 20 -003 REASON FOR REPORT The El Dorado County Grand Jury received several complaints from citizens of South Lake Tahoe. The complaints centered on the verbally abusive behavior and menacing actions of the South Lake Tahoe Chief of Police. Investigation of these complaints uncovered additional information which prompted the Grand Jury to look further into his managerial and behavioral issues.
R2:
The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation.*
R3:
The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of an agency of department being investigated or reviewed. This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report. **
R4:
The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore. * The time frame needs to be specific and reasonable. ** At the conclusion of this analysis, the recommendation must be responded to as required by items 1, 2, or 4. RESPONSE: TIME, WHERE AND TO WHOM The Penal Code identifies two different response times, depending upon the classification of the respondent (see below), and includes where and to whom the response is directed. Day one begins with the date of the Final Report.
R5:
The Grand Jury strongly recommends that the GVFPD seriously consider the recommendation of the 2007-2008 Grand Jury Final Report Part II concerning the consolidation of fire districts. RESPONSES Response(s) to this report is required in accordance with California Penal Code §933.05. 11 -020 REASON FOR REPORT The El Dorado County Grand Jury received a complaint from a citizen/resident of the Hillwood Community Services District (HCSD). The citizen requested the Grand Jury investigate the Board of Directors of the HCSD regarding various actions taken by the Board, including violation of California Government Codes and the collection of monies for the purpose of establishing a Road Improvement Group (RIG) within the HCSD. The Grand Jury has also had communication with the El Dorado County Auditor-Controller concerning Community Service Districts (CSD) in the county and the problems associated with managing and operating CSDs within the requirements of the Government Code.
R6:
The SLTPD’s Strategic Plan should address clearly defined performance measures that include at a minimum the following areas of concern: • Confidence in Senior Management • Cynicism • Morale • Visions and Values of the Department
R7:
The Chief of Police should present a written progress report to the City Council and City Manager annually for public review.
R8:
The City Manager and City Council should maintain an active presence in tracking the Strategic Plan progress.
R9:
The Chief's annual performance evaluation should include the progress of the goals set in the Strategic Plan. RESPONSES Response(s) to this report is required in accordance with California Penal Code §933.05. 24 -014 REASON FOR REPORT The Grand Jury elected to investigate the County’s Victim Restitution activity to determine if El Dorado County is effectively and efficiently managing victim restitution.
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
F1:
Other than fire drills and drop drills, not all school sites practice with regularity (a minimum of annually) crisis management procedures that include evacuations. Some schools stated they do “round table” practices, as opposed to actually conducting a physical practice. Some sites stated they did not want to scare the students, so, therefore, do not have practices. One school stated that they do summer practices that do not include the children.
F2:
No evidence was found that schools include parents or the community in an educational component to inform them about the crisis plan adopted by the district and site.
F3:
Although considered a work in progress, the Office of Emergency Services has not actually walked the grounds of every school site. Therefore, OES does not have a digital image of the sites not visited, nor indication of possible unique or special needs in their BowMac computer system should a crisis occur. Also in progress is the development of live school-site images which can be viewed in law enforcement vehicles - to be used as events are unfolding and as units are rushing to the scene.
F4:
Not all schools have conducted, or been a part of, an integrated evacuation which includes OES and/or other response units.
F5:
Neither OES nor EDCOE keeps records of site visits by OES with regard to training for crisis management. 4
F6:
With advance notification, the Board of Supervisors can discontinue these subsidies. The County has a fiduciary responsibility to minimize them, preferably without degrading fire protection capabilities. Elimination of the subsidies would require these fire protection districts to either find other sources of revenue in a similar amount, or find equivalent budget savings that would not degrade fire protection capability.
F7:
Consolidation of the six West Slope subsidized fire districts, and especially mergers into the three financially stronger fire districts on the West Slope, should allow elimination of the fire chiefs and other administrative positions in the subsidized districts. The potential personnel savings that could result are shown in Exhibit C, where the administrative personnel costs for each fire district are shown in column L, with a total amount of $944,084. The County supplemental contributions for these fire districts are shown in column M, and the total amount is similar to the total administrative personnel costs shown in column L.
F8:
If supplemental payments to the six West Slope fire protection districts are eliminated, the savings to the County general fund will be recurrent, rather than one-time. Over ten years and with an annual increase of 9 percent, the SAVINGS will amount to $14,018,235. If supplemental payments to all eight subsidized fire districts are eliminated, the SAVINGS over ten years will amount to $19,665,148.
Additional Recommendations
5
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action.
R2:
The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation.*
R3:
The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of an agency of department being investigated or reviewed. This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report. **
R4:
The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore. * The time frame needs to be specific and reasonable. ** At the conclusion of this analysis, the recommendation must be responded to as required by items 1, 2, or 4. RESPONSE: TIME, WHERE AND TO WHOM The Penal Code identifies two different response times, depending upon the classification of the respondent (see below), and includes where and to whom the response is directed. Day one begins with the date of the Final Report.
R5:
The Grand Jury recommends that both OES and EDCOE, as well as individual school sites and districts, keep emergency response records that include dates of training and practice - to be maintained and supervised by EDCOE. RESPONSES Response(s) to this report is required in accordance with California Penal Code §933.05. 5 -025 REASON FOR REPORT The Fire Protection District Law of 1987, in the State Health and Safety Code §13800, governs all of the Fire Protection Districts (FPDs) in California. Fire protection districts can only provide fire protection and emergency medical services. At the printing of the 3rd edition of “What’s So Special About Special Districts?” there were 386 FPDs in California. El Dorado County has nine FPDs on the West Slope and two FPDs in the Tahoe Basin. The County also has two multi-purpose Community Service Districts (CSDs) that provide fire protection along with other services: Fallen Leaf Lake CSD and Cameron Park CSD. The City of South Lake Tahoe has its own fire department. El Dorado County has a disproportionately high number of fire protection districts compared with the average of other counties in California. El Dorado County would benefit from consolidation. During the Grand Jury investigation, the scope was limited to the West Slope of the County
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
Road repair CSD's obtain most of their funds through special assessments previously approved by the district property owners and included as a separate item in their property tax bill. Annual funds accumulate over years and are held by the County Treasurer. The reserve funds are available to hire a contractor to provide road repairs when needed. Typically in a district, a repair project does not occur every year.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action.
F2:
Road repair CSD's could opt to become Zones of Benefit under CSA #9, but this would necessitate paying fees for County DOT services. Department of Transportation charges hourly rates for time spent assisting ZOB's, and the Auditor- Controller charges one percent of the annual budget for providing financial services. While these fees may be reasonable, road repair CSD budgets on average are considerably smaller than ZOB budgets. 2
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation.*
F3:
Road repair districts have limited technical expertise and may have limited understanding of State rules. Roads in their districts are legal public roads and rules must be followed that are not required for private roads in gated communities. Typical problems encountered are: creating or obtaining adequate specifications for road maintenance and drainage construction projects, drafting the scope of work for projects, seeking bids and selecting contractors, inspecting and approving work, and maintaining acceptable financial documentation.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of an agency of department being investigated or reviewed. This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report. **
F4:
Road repair district directors will benefit from more job training. The Department of Transportation provides annual training classes for ZOB advisory committee members that would be very useful to road repair district directors and could be provided to them at negligible incremental cost.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore. * The time frame needs to be specific and reasonable. ** At the conclusion of this analysis, the recommendation must be responded to as required by items 1, 2, or 4. RESPONSE: TIME, WHERE AND TO WHOM The Penal Code identifies two different response times, depending upon the classification of the respondent (see below), and includes where and to whom the response is directed. Day one begins with the date of the Final Report.
F5:
Very recently, the DOT prepared a prototype handbook (“Zone of Benefit Advisory Committee Manual”) for advisory committee members. This Manual includes information on: ethics, the open meeting law (The California Brown Act), road maintenance and repair (engineering) guidelines, contracting and purchasing, insurance, volunteer work procedures, and budget preparation. This Manual is an excellent product, put together from existing information at DOT in a very short period of time. The Department of Transportation is commended for this effort. This Manual would also be very useful to board directors of road repair districts.