El Dorado County 2009-2010 - California Grand Jury Reports

From the annual report

The consolidated year-end volume. The individual investigations it contains are listed separately below.

📑 Year-End Report

View the full annual report (PDF)

The full consolidated volume; individual reports are listed below.

Individual reports (21)

📋June 30, 2010 — EI Dorado County Grand Jury 2009-2010 Report

29 pages 11 findings 7 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 11 findings

F1: A Vote by Mail program will save EI Dorado County significant amounts of budget funds each year.

F2: A Vote by Mail program will likely increase the voter turnout in the county.

F3: A Vote by Mail program will not increase the likelihood of voter fraud.

Page 15

F4: The City’s government employs a notable number of married couples and family members among its employees, commission members, and elected officials. Some of the related employees are in positions of significant influence. Although the policy relating to nepotism does not seem to have been violated, the existence of these close relationships has resulted in an atmosphere where many employees are afraid to discuss operational problems in the City. They are concerned that their observations might be viewed as criticism of family members. In testimony received, there is “angst” by City employees who believe, that employees who have spoken about problems within City government have ended up on “layoff lists”. This fear is so pervasive that some witnesses requested assurance, when they appeared before the Grand Jury, that members of the Grand Jury were not related to officers and employees of the South Lake Tahoe City government before they testified.

Page 20

F5: City Council members and City officials have varying degrees of understanding and openly disagree with the Brown Act. Although bound by the laws of the State of California to obey the same, some violate them on a regular basis. For example: a. More than one Council member or City staff member erroneously has reported Brown Act violations by City officials. b. One Council member has publicly and frequently expressed disdain for the Brown Act and has often been identified as the source of improper disclosures about confidential matters within City government. This Council member also disclosed information which was discussed in closed session by the City Council. c. Closed sessions are reserved for discussions of confidential and sensitive information. Disclosures of information from closed sessions could have detrimental consequences for the City. When information about this disclosure was obtained by the other members of the City Council, they failed to take the appropriate corrective action by censuring or officially reprimanding the offending City Council member. d. The instructor selected by the City of South Lake Tahoe gave ethics training to Council members with only cursory information about the Brown Act, and appeared to have limited knowledge about the Act.

Page 21

F6: A City Council member filed a complaint with the Grand Jury that the City Manager was operating without authority and not doing his job. The Council member also made these remarks in public. The Grand Jury received testimony and found these accusations without merit and misleading. The City Council hires and supervises the City Manager and apparently was unwilling to conduct its own investigation to address these accusations. Instead, the Council attempted to use the Grand Jury as its tool to correct a situation that was completely within their jurisdiction.

Page 21

F7: Testimony supports that City officers and employees at times operate using accepted historical practices that conflict with official written policy. This has resulted in misunderstandings, contentious City Council meetings, and a public impression that the City’s government operates outside the law. These misconceptions could expose the City to lawsuits. a. A member of the City Council requested reimbursement for legal fees paid to an outside law firm. The legal advice consisted of a legal opinion and preparation of a letter to the Fair Political Practices Commission. No contract had been signed and the City Council had not approved the expenditure in advance. The City Manager stated that he gave verbal approval for the expenditure. California State Law clearly states that government contracts for payment may not be backdated. All unusual expenditures should be approved in open session. The City’s Purchasing Policy and Procedure Manual calls for the presence of written contracts when professional services are sought, and makes no provision for payment and reimbursement absent the presence of a contract.

Page 21

F8: The Board of Supervisors' decisions regarding the selection of the location for the Animal Control Shelter and the method of construction were strongly influenced by one Supervisor. According to authoritative sources with direct knowledge, that Supervisor "drove the bus". Nonetheless, all members of the Board of Supervisors share responsibility for approving the purchase.

Page 30

F9: The Board of Supervisors failed to make diligent inquiries into the usability of the entire 10-acre parcel, failed to ask important questions about the costs of improvements specified in the purchase agreement, and failed to negotiate a fair cost- sharing agreement with the Sellers for the costs of the improvements.

Page 30

F10: The Department of General Services, and the CAO, failed to provide the Board of Supervisors with all pertinent information concerning the costs of the improvements to be made by the County as described in the purchase agreement for the 10-acre parcel.

Page 31

F11: The County Counsel's office, who prepared the purchase agreement for the 10- acre parcel, made a glaring omission by neglecting to insert an "escape clause" that would permit the County to avoid making the specified improvements if the Animal Control Shelter were not actually constructed on the l C-acre parcel. Even if the County received a lower price for the 10-acre parcel because it agreed to build the road and make other improvements, any difference in price did not justify the County being left "holding the bag" or having a costly contractual obligation for the required improvements.

Page 31

Additional Recommendations 7

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action.

Page 4

R2: The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation.*

Page 4

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. **

Page 4

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.

Page 4

R5: Each County Department should designate a supervisor as the point of contact for employee complaints of uncomfortable temperatures, so that the supervisor can determine whether BOS Policy A-18 is being complied with, and if not, communicate the problem to appropriate maintenance personnel. RESPONSES Responses to both numbered findings and recommendations in this report are required in accordance with California Penal Code §933 and §933.05. Address responses to: The Honorable Suzanne N. Kingsbury, Presiding Judge of the E1 Dorado County Superior Court, 1354 Johnson Blvd., South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The County Department of Transportation should be recognized for applying for the $812,423 Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant program which is funded through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Federal stimulus dollars). Facilities Inspected:  Boiler Room, Building B, El Dorado County Government Center, Placerville, California  Control Room, Building 3, 2850 Fairlane Court, Placerville, California  County-leased facility at 3057 Briw Road, Placerville, California  EI Dorado County Library, Placerville, California Interviews Conducted:  Building Maintenance personnel  Building Operations Supervisor  Capital Group, Executive  Citizen complainant  Deputy Director, Facilities Engineering, DOT Documents Reviewed:  California Energy Commission letter dated August 3, 2009, to the EI Dorado County Supervisors inviting the County to apply for $812,423 in federal stimulus dollars (American Recovery and Reinvestment Act money)  Department of Transportation's Response to Grand Jury Inquiry of November 30,2009, containing: a. Description of all energy audits that have been performed within the past five years; b. Description of all plans for replacing inefficient heating, ventilation, air conditioning (HV AC) and lighting equipment; c. Description of County Master Plan, Capital Improvement Fund, etc.; d. Reports of power consumption by each EI Dorado County facility; e. Report of all funds received from the Federal and State Governments for increasing energy efficiencies; f. Report of all plans for spending federal and state monies for increased energy efficiencies; g. Information on the annual expenses for electricity, propane and natural gas for HV AC and lighting for all facilities under the jurisdiction of the County government.  EI Dorado County Board of Supervisors Agenda Item dated August 11, 2009, approving letter for support for the Lake Tahoe Green Energy District.

Page 4

R6: City employees, starting with City Council members and senior City officials, should receive mandatory training in ethics, sexual harassment, and confidentiality, with emphasis on the Brown Act. The City should consider training from sources other than those used in the past.

Page 5

R7: City officials must find a way to assure that the City adheres to written policies and procedures, and does not allow itself to “cut corners” by using historically accepted practices that violate written policies. Senior City officials and Council members should receive mandatory annual training on policies and procedures. Enforcing adherence to this might require establishment of an Ombudsman or Inspector General position. CONCLUSION The City Council, in its reports, procedures and by evidence received by the Grand Jury, points to a severely handicapped organization that needs major changes. The 2009-2010 Grand Jury has recommended to the County Supervisor for District V, that the City of South Lake Tahoe needs a “Management and Procedural Review” to be conducted by an independent consultant. The consultant should make their report to the District Attorney for possible legal action. This Grand Jury is of the opinion that an accusation for malfeasance or nonfeasance by this City Council may be appropriate after the study is concluded. The Grand Jury only touched the “tip of the iceberg” in its investigation and recommends that the citizens of South Lake Tahoe get involved with their City government. It is up to the citizens to establish the kind of governance they desire, to exercise their democratic right to vote, and get a City government that works for the common good and in an efficient manner for its citizens. RESPONSES Responses to both findings and recommendations in this report are required in accordance with California Penal Code §933 and §933.05. Address responses to: The Honorable Suzanne N. Kingsbury, Presiding Judge of the El Dorado County Superior Court, 1354 Johnson Blvd., South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150. -009 REASON FOR REPORT California Penal Code §919(a) and §919(b) require that grand juries annually inspect any jail, prison, or juvenile detention facility within their respective counties.

Page 5

📋June 21, 2010 — El Dorado County Grand Jury 2009-2010 Administrative Services Consolidation Cost Savings and Efficiencies

10 pages 22 findings 6 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 22 findings

F1: It can be difficult to obtain objective and reliable information that informs or drives decisions made in the best interests of the County.

F2: Cohesion and coordination, accountability and responsiveness are more difficult to achieve.

F3: Overall efficiency has been harder to realize.

F4: Management remains significantly decentralized. As a result, as one well- placed source testified, “Even the Board of Supervisors is overly dependent on administrative assistants housed in County departments.”

F5: This method of operating has made County government difficult to manage and control, with multiple power centers and bureaucratic interests focused on maintaining control over their own domains. Various well-placed and knowledgeable interviewees have freely acknowledged that there is still a significant amount of duplication of administrative services throughout County government.

F6: The County Administrative Officer (CAO) has acknowledged that a comprehensive assessment of administrative services across County departments, inclusive or exclusive of those departments headed by an elected official, has not been conducted for a very long time, if ever.

F7: A comprehensive assessment of the extent to which basic administrative service functions may be duplicated or overlapping is long overdue. In January 2010, the CAO, at the request of the Grand Jury, conducted an initial identification of administrative services personnel performing typical administrative tasks associated with personnel classifications and transactions, budgeting, accounting, business services, and information technology, which resulted in the identification of some surprising and significant costs as well as a substantial number of positions.

F8: The apparent first-of-its-kind preliminary survey resulted in a total of approximately 263 positions encompassing just under $23 million in salaries and benefits. This is the universe of positions and associated cost of County employees who provide administrative services across County departments. This is a significant universe indeed. However, it would be unrealistic to expect that it represents what could be saved in terms of positions or costs. Admittedly and realistically, a substantial number of these positions are necessary and probably allocated in an appropriate manner throughout various County offices and departments. At the same time, it can be reasonably assumed that this universe of personnel and associated cost sets the stage and provides a substantial opportunity for consolidation of administrative services among and between County departments.

F9: As one example, even if just 10 percent of such costs could be saved through greater consolidation, it would equate to a cost savings of approximately $2.3 million, and a reduction of 26 administrative positions. It could result, over time, in not only a leaner and less top-heavy County government, but a more service-oriented one. It is surprising that a comprehensive assessment of County administrative services has not taken place. Considering the enormous potential for cost savings and greater efficiencies, as well as the elimination of overlapping or duplicative administrative functions, especially in a tough economic climate, such an assessment is critical to reasonably and objectively assure an efficient and effective government operation. Equally as important, and perhaps even more significant to the County over time, are the economies of scale that could be achieved, as well as the potential for enhanced administrative efficiencies.

F10: With a less department-centered administrative structure, better questions could be asked that would elicit more objective answers. More consistent and informed could be provided with which to make decisions more beneficial to the County as a whole. A better “bang for the buck” would be more likely for the taxpaying public. A wider perspective would be created and less parochial interests served. Thus, less self-interested or narrowly focused decisions could be made.

F11: Just as savings from less administrative overhead could be obtained, a greater level of actual service to the public could result. Even with the prospect of minimal cost savings, a reallocation and reorientation of services away from administrative overhead would constitute a better deal for the taxpaying public. Though there have been some meaningful steps taken toward a greater consolidation of administrative services, the need for an over-arching strategy and greater overall focus of effort toward the identification and implementation of administrative service consolidations still exists.

F12: More than one substantial source testified that “There is little real consensus or shared strategic vision in the County government.” Such a reorientation of administrative services could not only benefit the public, it would also better serve County employees.

F13: A more cohesive and better coordinated system of governance for the County could result in a certain number of positions needed to oversee a wider scope of service delivery across all departments. Appropriate promotional opportunities would likely exist to provide a higher level of managerial expertise in administering a more diverse and skilled group of administrative personnel. This would also present more opportunity for cross-training of administrative staff. Rather than maintaining the current non-system of departmental silos, a flatter and more systemic County- wide administrative structure could provide more meaningful opportunities for advancement. It should be noted that the County has a relatively high proportion of elected officeholders directing a number of County offices or departments. For example, El Dorado County is the only county in California with an elected surveyor. The departments or offices directed by elected officials are often described as relatively independent entities. While these officeholders are certainly accountable to the voters, they can be less responsive to any higher administrative or managerial authority. Still, as was pointed out by a prominent source interviewed for this investigation, “Even elected officials experience financial pressures.”

F14: Significant questions need to be asked about just what services and functions are improved by virtue of the fact that these officials are elected. They are, in fact, mostly beholden to fulfillment of mandated responsibilities under the laws of the State of California, whether elected or not. Nevertheless, it should be emphasized that recent efforts have been made to diminish administrative overhead and realize a greater level of efficiency. Examples include:  Though somewhat controversial, a significant consolidation and merger of the former Department of General Services within the larger Department of Transportation. This affected far more than just administrative services personnel and functions;  There is consideration being given to the formation of a Public Works Department that would include the Departments of Transportation, Environmental Management, and elements of the Office of Surveyor;  Consideration is being given to the partial consolidation of administrative services of the Sheriff, District Attorney, and Public Defender’s Office. A Law and Justice Working Group will likely be assessing just how such a consolidation of services could be implemented;  A merger of the Veterans Service Office with the County Elections Office/Recorder Clerk has, in fact, recently been implemented;  There has been a recent consolidation of the Department of Agriculture and Weights and Measures Office;  It is recognized that considerable potential benefits could be obtained through a greater level of co-location of County offices and diminishment of leased space;  Other initiatives, perhaps most notably a higher and better utilization of access to online or Internet-based services, is underway. An example includes automated business license functions that provide more convenience to the public at less cost;  Various other approaches to a greater level of organizational consolidation are being actively considered. These consolidations, mergers, and generally greater focus on functions serving the public, are clearly centered on identifying and compartmentalizing related or similar services. In the absence of a more directed, purposeful, and cohesive vision of how the County government should be organized and structured to minimize administrative overhead and maximize service to the public, various minor, incremental, and lengthy approaches will prevail. Retirements, for example, generally present challenges to the old way of doing business and can present genuine opportunities for making changes. Job specifications, those broadly based descriptions that provide enough information to classify positions for rank, pay, and benefits, are generally the first level of documentation referenced to begin to determine what type of work employees perform. Actual job descriptions that include a listing of specific responsibilities and duties performed by an employee are the next level of documentation to be referenced when determining what services are performed by which employees. Without such current documentation, some sort of job audit must be performed to identify this key information. Lacking such documentation, it becomes virtually impossible to identify and facilitate a consolidation of administrative service duties and responsibilities. Competent and objective performance evaluations of employees are difficult to complete without current job information describing what job responsibilities and duties exist.

F15: This investigation revealed that there is very little centralized knowledge or objective information (meaning first-hand information outside of the department itself) about just what administrative services personnel in County departments actually do in performing their jobs. For example, it was revealed that approximately 15 separate County departments have a significant number of personnel performing information technology jobs. But it is not known “…what these people are doing.”

F16: Testimony from a number of reliable and knowledgeable sources demonstrated that, while job specifications often existed, current job descriptions in County government are “virtually non-existent.”

F17: It will, therefore, be necessary to identify what services are performed by administrative services personnel in departments to determine the potential for administrative services consolidation. Specific functions performed and the extent or frequency of workload activity become key determinants of what service functions and personnel may be candidates for greater consolidation efforts. This information is also critical for cross-training purposes. There are a number of approaches and options to achieve a beneficial consolidation of administrative services.  County departments can be grouped into broad categories of service functions. These include, for example, Law Enforcement and Justice, Land Use and Developmental Services, Health and Human Services, and General Government agencies. A system of several key agencies, each containing departments with like or similar functions, could be organized. Administrative services for these key agencies could be consolidated. County government could become more manageable, cohesive, and service or mission-oriented.  Another basic approach could involve identifying those departmental missions and service functions that are the most closely related, and consolidating the administrative services function of those departments or offices. The CAO has, in fact, started this process with respect to the previously mentioned Law and Justice Working Group.  Administrative services staff could be organized along more functional lines across County departments. For example, those staff performing personnel classification and/or transactions could become more cohesive and concentrated. Fiscal analysis and management staff could be similarly consolidated or grouped to perform those services.  Yet another approach worthy of examination could be a greater consolidation of fiscal and budgeting services. This could be accomplished by having a single fiscal officer for each group of closely related departments with similar functions.  Still another approach would be to establish Assistant or Deputy CAO positions over departments providing like or similar functions or services. Though this would lessen the benefits of potential cost savings, it could easily result in other cost savings achieved through greater coordination, efficiency, and enhancement of service levels. The effective use of information technologies is at the core of many attempts to develop management information and enhance service levels.

F18: During the course of this investigation, it became clear that El Dorado County is in urgent need of updating and modernizing its “legacy systems” of information technology. These key systems are foundational in their critical importance.

F19: The three primary information technology systems are dedicated to financial management, personnel payroll, and property tax administration. A prominent County official described the Personnel Payroll System as “antiquated.” The current Property Tax System was described as “homegrown.”

F20: The need to update and modernize these foundational systems was often cited as the kind of effort needed to make County administrative services more efficient and cost-effective. The need was cited as yet another example of how County administrative services, and information technology systems in particular, should become more enterprise or functionally-oriented across departments rather than solely devoted to and functioning within individual departments.

F21: Cost estimates to modernize these key administrative systems varied from a low of $6 million to a high of $30 million. The initial estimate for necessary consulting to affect needed changes ranges upward of $100,000.

F22: These three key legacy systems, now over twenty years old (numerous generations in the information technology field), are now so dated that it is fast becoming difficult to find people with the expertise to operate them. With an increasing number of impending retirements of qualified personnel, and with maintenance of such systems becoming a very real issue, the County will have to make some key decisions in the very near future. One of those decisions should be whether some type of financial reserve or enterprise fund might be advisable to help cushion the now unavoidable financial impact of converting to more cost-efficient and workable systems. The need to update these key administrative service and information technology systems is very real and becoming quite urgent. Such an effort is integral to the needed modernization of County government. It will not be sufficient to rely on modernizing these systems alone to make the necessary improvements in how administrative services are provided in El Dorado County. This investigation made abundantly clear that there is a wealth of opportunity in further pursuing the consolidation of administrative services throughout County government.

Additional Recommendations 6

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: A long overdue comprehensive assessment of administrative services is needed. Rather than using the current tough economy as an excuse to avoid a comprehensive assessment of administrative services, now may be precisely the time to conduct such a review. A smarter assessment of cost saving opportunities, rather than across the board cuts, is needed. a. Such an effort did not take place when economic conditions were relatively flush. When revenues consistently rose, there was little motivation or need to upset the traditional and prevailing County culture of governance. If tough economic times calling for leaner, smarter government do not provide a sufficient stimulus toward this end, then what time would be better? b. The undeniable challenges presented by a tough economy should not be permitted to serve as an excuse to avoid making the minimal investment necessary to reform and restructure County government. It should be used as an opportunity to transition and modernize County government.

R2: The County Administrative Office should be strengthened and its focus on administrative services consolidation should be supported by the Board of Supervisors. There should be funding approved for either a major or a series of more focused consulting contracts. These would be necessary to identify and implement administrative service consolidations to achieve greater cost savings and efficiencies throughout County departments. Such efforts should not exclude consideration of County departments headed by elected officials.

R3: County government should be restructured. It needs to be more functionally-related and service-oriented. If this was done, a further and natural consolidation of administrative service functions would follow.

R4: A senior management level position in the Office of the CAO should be created to help identify opportunities for implementing administrative service consolidations. This position would also be charged with identifying opportunities for administrative management and operational efficiencies. a. This position would be more accountable to the CAO and better enable what should be a key responsibility of that office. Its responsibility would be to identify and enable improved administrative management and operations throughout the County. The position could easily complement the services currently provided by the Auditor/Controller, an office more focused on financial administration.

R5: The Board of Supervisors, in coordination with the Information Technology Steering Committee and CAO, should establish a reserve fund to help pay for an increasingly urgent need to modernize outdated information technology legacy systems.

R6: The Board of Supervisors, in coordination with the CAO, should focus attention toward creation of a more cohesive, coordinated, and manageable County government. Development and adoption of a shared strategic vision would be a substantial step toward this necessary effort. RESPONSES Responses to both numbered findings and recommendations in this report are required in accordance with California Penal Code §933 and §933.05. Both the County Board of Supervisors and the County Administrative Officer are expected to respond. Address responses to: The Honorable Suzanne N. Kingsbury, Presiding Judge of the El Dorado County Superior Court, 1354 Johnson Blvd., South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150. COMMENDATION The current CAO and staff are to be commended for efforts taken to-date toward greater consolidation of administrative service functions throughout County government.

June 21, 2010 — El Dorado County Grand Jury 2009-2010 Fee Waivers

7 pages 9 findings 3 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 9 findings

F1: Fee waivers, upon request, may be granted for building permits, encroachment permits, variances, zone reclassifications, administrative permits, and use permits.

F2: The Development Services Department does not advise applicants about fee waivers unless requested.

F3: The following fee waivers were granted: a. $101,410 in 2006 b. $10,784 in 2007 c. $26,336 in 2008 d. $14,070 in 2009 These are exclusive of the special waivers granted for victims of the Angora Fire in South Lake Tahoe ($735,870 from June 2006 to December 2008).

F4: Policy B-2 grants authority to the CAO to receive requests for and to grant fee waivers. The criteria for fee waivers are vague and lacking in definition. This provides the CAO with unlimited latitude in granting fee waivers.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: The County should review and update its fee waiver policy to include: a. A description of which fees may be waived and who has authority to grant fee waivers; b. A list of clear, objective standards for fee waivers; c. Documentation of specific reasons for granting fee waivers; d. Clearly state that the general public is eligible; e. Definitive guidelines to all applicants to include a statement that the general public is eligible for fee waivers.

F5: It is not sufficiently clear that fee waiver authority is limited to the CAO. It was noted that other agencies and departments are granting fee waivers. If the policy is being followed, only the CAO or BOS should be granting fee waivers.

Related Recommendations (1)

F6: All waivers are to be reported to the BOS. While there is indication that reports are made to the BOS, the specific justification for granting a waiver is not noted. The specific reason fees are waived is only included in the letter to the applicant after approval and not entered into the County’s computer program for tracking.

Related Recommendations (2)

R2: Useful information should be easily retrievable from the appropriate County computer program. To that end, the information entered for each application should be consistent. It should include, at a minimum, who the initiating department is and specifically under which criteria outlined in the policy the waiver was approved and by whom.

F7: There is no indication from the CAO’s office in their report to the BOS of the identity of the initiating department(s).

Related Recommendations (1)

F8: Reports extracted from the County’s computer program neither identify the reason nor which department(s) requested a fee waiver. Once approved, there is nothing in these reports to show what criteria is used to grant approval. Because there is not sufficient data that can be used for tracking purposes, the reports are limited in nature and meaningful information cannot be easily extracted.

Related Recommendations (1)

F9: The Permit Application, Parts 1-3, and Plan Review Submittal Forms given to applicants do not have a form number. The Plan Review Submittal Form also has no date of approval/revision noted.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: All forms distributed to the public by Development Services Department should have a form number and date of approval/revision printed on all pages. RESPONSES Responses to both findings and recommendations in this report are required in accordance with California Penal Code §933 and §933.05. Address responses to: The Honorable Suzanne N. Kingsbury, Presiding Judge of the El Dorado County Superior Court, 1354 Johnson Blvd., South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150.

📋June 21, 2010 — El Dorado County Grand Jury 2009-2010 Municipal Incorporation Processes and the Allocation of Costs

7 pages 2 findings 2 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 2 findings

F1: It is recommended that LAFCO reconsider its present governing philosophy and policy regarding cost sharing among the major stakeholders in an incorporation process. A more balanced approach is recommended that recognizes required studies benefit many groups and governmental entities and are not the exclusive domain of local incorporation groups.

Page 7

F2: LAFCO, especially in light of revenue neutrality requirements in State law, should consider the possibility of greater retroactive cost sharing in the event that required studies demonstrate that a local community would indeed be financially feasible or succeed in incorporating. RESPONSES Responses to findings and numbered recommendations in this report are required in accordance with California Penal Code §933 and §933.05. Responses should be addressed to: The Honorable Suzanne N. Kingsbury, Presiding Judge of the El Dorado County Superior Court, 1354 Johnson Blvd., South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150.

Page 7

Additional Recommendations 2

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: It is recommended that LAFCO reconsider its present governing philosophy and policy regarding cost sharing among the major stakeholders in an incorporation process. A more balanced approach is recommended that recognizes required studies benefit many groups and governmental entities and are not the exclusive domain of local incorporation groups.

R2: LAFCO, especially in light of revenue neutrality requirements in State law, should consider the possibility of greater retroactive cost sharing in the event that required studies demonstrate that a local community would indeed be financially feasible or succeed in incorporating. RESPONSES Responses to findings and numbered recommendations in this report are required in accordance with California Penal Code §933 and §933.05. Responses should be addressed to: The Honorable Suzanne N. Kingsbury, Presiding Judge of the El Dorado County Superior Court, 1354 Johnson Blvd., South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150.

June 21, 2010 — Notice to Respondents California Penal Code Section 933.05 mandates specific requirements for responding to grand

2 pages 2 findings 4 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 2 findings

F1: The respondent agrees with the finding.

Page 1

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.

Page 1

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.

📋June 21, 2010 — "Guardian of Last Resort" described many areas of both departments that were not in compliance with county policy

3 pages

Quick View Full Details →

Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.

June 21, 2010 — El Dorado County Grand Jury 2009-2010 Special District Websites

10 pages 7 findings 4 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 7 findings

F1: An initial survey of websites established ten categories of information that were especially important to reveal critical data concerning governance and operations. These categories of information include:  The purpose or mission of the district  Location and address  Geographic boundaries of the district  Contact person and means to contact them  Board members and how to contact them  Board member terms of office  District budget  Meeting dates  Meeting agendas, and  Minutes of the meeting.

F2: Results of a survey conducted in mid-February 2010 revealed the following information about the special districts above the established minimum population and budgetary thresholds:  34 percent of these special districts had no website;  34 percent did not publish any usable information about meeting dates;  57 percent did not publish a meeting agenda;  71 percent did not publish the minutes of any meeting;  48 percent published no meaningful information about the budget for the district;  43 percent did not publish any information about individual board member terms of office.

Related Recommendations (2)

R1: Each special district should carefully consider creating and maintaining a website for the benefit of their constituents, especially those districts like those surveyed with populations of 2,500 or more and annual budget of at least $250,000. Websites would be a considerably more accessible and useful tool for the average citizen than the “summary sheets” for special districts currently posted on the LAFCO website and partially updated on an annual basis. Websites also have more “ownership” for the provider, causing them to be more concerned about the accuracy and currency of published information.

R2: Special districts should include the categories of information referenced in Finding number one and surveyed in this report on their websites.

F3: There is currently no law requiring special districts to establish or maintain websites containing minimal types of information about the district, even in areas where Internet access is not an issue. Investigation revealed there would need to be a state law to require any level of published data on the Internet by special districts.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: The El Dorado County Director of Information Technologies should actively encourage the development and improvement of Internet access throughout the County, especially to areas where such access is poor or non-existent.

F4: LAFCO in El Dorado County is not required to annually survey and publish what information it voluntarily provides through its own website. Interviews with LAFCO revealed dissatisfaction with the level and currency of information provided by some special districts through the voluntary process now in place. During our investigation it was suggested that special districts should publish where information is posted in local communities and when and where meetings are held. It became clear that websites also have more “ownership” for the provider, causing them to be more concerned about the accuracy and currency of published information.

Related Recommendations (2)

R4: Special districts and the County should establish links on the El Dorado County website and/or on other websites more commonly known to and accessed by citizens of the County. RESPONSES Responses to both Findings and Recommendations in this report are required in accordance with California Penal Code §933 and §933.05. Address responses to: The Honorable Suzanne N. Kingsbury, Presiding Judge of the El Dorado County Superior Court, 1354 Johnson Blvd., South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150. The following entities must respond to the Findings and Recommendations in this report:  Each special district operating in El Dorado County as shown on the LAFCO website directory as of February 2010, with a population of 2,500 or more, and an annual budget of at least $250,000;  The Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) for El Dorado County; and  The Director of the El Dorado County Department of Information Technologies  All Special Districts in El Dorado County are invited to respond to the

F5: This investigation conclusively revealed that the Department of Information Technologies of El Dorado County has assisted various special districts to establish and maintain their websites. More recent examples of such special districts include: LAFCO, the El Dorado Irrigation District, and the local Transportation Commission. Even the County Chamber of Commerce has utilized the services provided by the El Dorado County Department of Information Technologies. Services are initiated through a contractual agreement or memorandum of understanding. The minimal cost of such services is billed to the client.

F6: It is estimated that eight to sixteen hours is needed to develop and publish a website containing the minimum types of information in this survey, in addition to further types of information the special district may choose to publish. This equates to an approximate cost of $1,000.

F7: The Grand Jury considered objections to any requirement being imposed on special districts to publish key information about governance and operations on the Internet. Those objections were lack of time, budget, cost of establishing and maintaining a website, and the alleged lack of citizen use. Every citizen should have the means to access information about their government and hold public officials accountable.

📋April 22, 2010 — El Dorado County Grand Jury 2009-2010 Happy Homestead Cemetery District Payment for Temporary Personnel

5 pages 7 findings 5 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 7 findings

F1: There are two governing California Government Code (CGC) Sections that address these issues and the inherent potential for significant conflicts of interest. CGC §1090 provides in pertinent part that: “Members of the Legislature, state, county, district, judicial district, and city officers or employees shall not be financially interested in any contract made by them in their official capacity, or by any body or board of which they are members. Nor shall state, county, district, judicial district, and city officers or employees be purchasers at any sale or vendors at any purchase made by them in their official capacity.” California Government Code §1099 (a) further provides that: “(a) A public officer, including, but not limited to, an appointed or elected member of a governmental board, commission, committee, or other body, shall not simultaneously hold two public offices that are incompatible. Offices are incompatible when any of the following circumstances are present, unless simultaneous holding of the particular offices is compelled or expressly authorized by law…(2) Based on the powers and jurisdiction of the offices, there is a possibility of a significant clash of duties or loyalties between the offices.” However, retroactive claims that increase compensation are considered unconstitutional.

F2: According to the California Constitution, Article 11, Section 10 (a): “A local government may not grant extra allowance to a public officer, public employee, or contractor after service has been rendered.” During the Grand Jury group interview with the HHCD Board of Directors, it was suggested that they renegotiate the contract with the employment agency to correct the retroactive pay increase portion. The Board was also requested to ask the employment agency for a claim, as required by law, for the $3,000 for Release of Responsibility (Settlement Agreement). Later that week the Board Chairperson sent a package of documents to the Grand Jury. The cover letter essentially ignored the advice of the Grand Jury and stated that they would continue to pursue their original goal of trying to convince the County to pay for the Settlement Agreement and the retroactive pay increase.

F3: The HHCD entered into retroactive contracts increasing the compensation rate for temporary workers. The California Constitution prohibits retroactive contracts that increase compensation because they are considered to be a gift of public funds;

F4: The HHCD signed the Agreement dated 8/12/09 which would pay the employment agency $3,000 to settle all claims. A copy of the claim which resulted in the signing of the Release of Responsibility was requested by the Grand Jury but never received;

F5: According to testimony received, both of the above actions were encouraged by the HHCD legal counsel;

F6: The HHCD continues to seek compensation for the employment agency. In a letter dated April 20, 2010 and signed by the Foreman of the Grand Jury, the HHCD was specifically asked for:  “A copy of the claim form which resulted in your agreement for services as clerk of the board for Happy Homestead Cemetery District;  A copy of the contract with [the employment agency] which was in effect on February 9, 2009; and  A copy of a letter from County Counsel re: [the former Board Chairperson’s] position on the board of directors, as recorded in your minutes of Dec. 11, 2003.” The Grand Jury also specifically asked the HHCD to phone the Grand Jury if any of these requested documents did not exist. No phone communication was received. The HHCD Board of Directors also did not respond to the April 20, 2010 Grand Jury letter. The HHCD Board of Directors failed to respond to the Grand Jury.

Additional Recommendations 5

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: The HHCD must show why the claim for a retroactive charge for temporary employment services is legal and does not constitute a gift of public funds.

R2: The HHCD must show why the payment for the proposed Settlement Agreement is legally justified.

R3: The HHCD must explain why payment of either claim is not in direct violation of California Government Code §1090 and §1099, as well as the California Constitution, Article 11, Section 10(a).

R4: The El Dorado County Auditor/Controller should not pay either the retroactive charge or proposed settlement amount until or unless the HHCD meets the requirements stated in the recommendations above. This should be determined by both the County Counsel’s Office and the Auditor/Controller. RESPONSES Responses to both numbered findings and recommendations in this report are required in accordance with California Penal Code §933 and §933.05. Address responses to: The Honorable Suzanne N. Kingsbury, Presiding Judge of the El Dorado County Superior Court, 1354 Johnson Blvd., South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150. Responses are required from the Happy Homestead Cemetery District Board of Directors, the El Dorado County Counsel’s Office, and the El Dorado County Auditor/Controller.

R5: The Department Director should report to the County Administrative Officer to review progress on the conversion of the computer programs.

📋March 25, 2010 — El Dorado County Grand Jury 2009-2010 Growlersburg Conservation Camp Georgetown

3 pages 6 findings 1 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 6 findings

F1: 3,800 minimum security inmates; Three camps, all in Southern California, are for female inmates only. All of the

F2: other camps are male only; The average term remaining of an inmate's sentence is two years. No inmate will

F3: be sent to Growlersburg with a remaining term exceeding seven years; The average age of inmates is 30 years;

F4: The average annual cost for inmates in a state prison is $38,000 - $48,000, whereas at Growlersburg the cost is $14,000 - $18,000. Keeping inmates at Growlersburg and the other camps produce a substantial savings for the State of California budget; Five firefighting strike teams, containing up to 17 inmates each, are maintained at

F5: Growlersburg. Each strike team is managed by a CAL FIRE Captain. One strike team is always retained at the camp; Growlersburg is a staging area for other firefighting strike teams which may be

F6: brought into this area when needed. The inmates receive extensive firefighting training. Included in this training is the proper use of equipment, including tools such as chain saws and the effective maintenance of motorized equipment. Other useful training is provided in woodworking, gardening, sawmill operations and cooking/baking. The Grand Jury noted the facility was well maintained. Several inmates were busy cleaning walkways and other exterior areas. Interior areas inspected were found to be neat and clean. The quality of food, some of which was grown on-site, was found to be excellent. The camp's facilities were generally in good repair, but some deterioration due to age was noted. The Grand Jury was informed that a remodel project has been approved, including funding, and should be completed in 2012 or 2013. The April 2009 Growlersburg Camp Management Survey was conducted jointly by senior representatives of CAL FIRE Northern Region and CDCR Camps Program. They reported that every item listed on the analysis work papers to be in partial or full compliance. The Growlersburg CC#33 Action Plan dated January 1, 2010 reported all outstanding action issues have been completed, including filling two CAL FIRE vacancies and correcting vehicle maintenance records.

Additional Recommendations 1

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: Significant assistance in fighting forest fires throughout California; Meaningful maintenance assistance to local districts and agencies; Working and living conditions for inmates to improve themselves and return to

January 17, 2010 — El Dorado County Grand Jury 2009-2010 Garden Valley Fire Protection District Case No. Gj 09-015 Reason for Report Legal

7 pages 12 findings 8 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 12 findings

F1: The current Fire Chief initiated many changes:  Redirecting operating funds to have a fully staffed fire engine available to Garden Valley residents 2417. This enhanced the District's emergency response from Basic Life Support to Advanced Life Support. This should improve the District's emergency response in the future;  The District's finances were returned to the El Dorado County Auditor/ Controller's Office for processing and oversight;  Longstanding personnel issues were addressed;  Residency requirements for ICMT members were changed. All members are required to live within 100 miles of the District.

F2: The Board of Directors and Fire Chief have demonstrated a lack of practical knowledge with respect to human resource matters. It is unclear what background check process the District conducts prior to hiring new employees. There is no standard policy for screening employee candidates.

Related Recommendations (2)

R3: The District should immediately initiate training sessions in Human Resource Management and employee relations for the Board of Directors, Fire Chief, and senior management.

R4: Hiring practices need to be consistent and legal to ensure that all employee candidates are properly screened and interviewed prior to an offer of employment.

F3: The Grand Jury could not clearly determine when the District's Personnel Policy Manual was last updated. There are critical discrepancies between the Board of Directors written policies and the provisions of the Fire Chiefs contract. The Grand Jury found that the Fire Chief exceeds the authority granted in his contract which is in conflict with the District's written policy.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: The Board of Directors, Fire Chief, and senior management need to focus on updating the District's written policies and procedures. All personnel should become educated on the provisions of the Firefighters Procedural Bill of Rights. The District's practices must be consistent with written policies and procedures.

F4: It was determined that the District's Board of Directors, Fire Chief and senior management lack the knowledge of current progressive discipline standards and the provisions of the recently enacted Firefighters Procedural Bill of Rights (California Government Code §§3250-3262).

Related Recommendations (1)

F5: Previous Boards of Directors and Fire Chiefs did not effectively address inappropriate personnel conduct. Presently, there are no clear guidelines for senior management to follow when confronting an employee discipline issue.

F6: The personnel disciplinary process at the District, at times, lacks an appropriate check and balance system. Generally, the Fire Chief investigates, recommends discipline, and initiates the disciplinary process up to and including termination. The Personnel Policy Manual states "The District (Board of Directors) reserves the right to hire, transfer, promote, reprimand, suspend, terminate, and maintain the discipline and efficiency of its employees." Currently this authority rests with the Board of Directors and has not been delegated to the Fire Chief.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: The authority of the Board of Directors and the Fire Chief needs to be clear. The current written authority to hire, fire, suspend, and discipline currently rests with the Board of Directors. The Board may delegate some of these authorities and duties to the Fire Chief.

F7: The Garden Valley Fire Protection District operates a special response team initially designated the All Risk Team, which has recently been renamed the Incident Command Management Team (ICMT). Personnel comprising the ICMT are mostly retired U.S. Forest Service firefighters. Upon request from a state or federal authority, the ICMT members respond to disasters or emergencies that are beyond the standard mutual aid agreements. They generally respond to forest fires and serve in an administrative capacity.

F8: The Grand Jury found the Fire Chief and an Assistant Fire Chief have been assigned to ICMT emergencies outside of the District at the same time. Their decision to participate in an ICMT response is discretionary. The Fire Chief and Assistant Chief participate in ICMT out of the District without the written approval of the Board of Directors. This causes a conflict of interest and creates an unnecessary risk to the residents of the District.

Related Recommendations (1)

R5: The District's Fire Chief and Assistant Chief should obtain the written approval of the Board of Directors before deploying on an Incident Command Management Team.

F9: The ICMT members are paid after the District receives reimbursement from the requesting agency. The District receives an administrative fee in addition to the total reimbursement for deploying ICMT personnel. In addition to providing a public safety service, the ICMT generated income is a revenue enhancer for the GVFPD. With the cancellation of El Dorado County's "Aid to Fire" budget augmentation, the ICMT administrative fee revenue has been critical to maintaining the level of emergency services in the District.

Related Recommendations (1)

R7: The ICMT generated revenue should not be considered a permanent funding source for future budgets.

F10: District compensation discrepancies existed during the period March - November 2007 and July - August 2008 with the salary payments of two command officers. After extensive review by the District's Accountant in the fall of 2009, these discrepancies were resolved. These problems occurred due to ineffective communication between the El Dorado County's Auditor/Controller's Office and the District.

Related Recommendations (1)

R8: District personnel and the El Dorado County Auditor/Controller's Office should improve their communication on financial issues. RESPONSES Response(s) to Findings and Recommendations in this report are required in accordance with California Penal Code §933.05. Address response(s) to: The Honorable Suzanne N. Kingsbury, Presiding Judge of the El Dorado County Superior Court, 1354 Johnson Boulevard, South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150. CLOSING REMARKS In recent years, the Garden Valley Fire Protection District has undergone intensive public and legal scrutiny. The Board of Directors cannot publicly comment on ongoing personnel investigations and litigation, so they are an easy target for criticism. The majority of the criticism rests with actions and inactions that had occurred prior to the current Board of Directors and Fire Chief. The Grand Jury found the Board of Directors, Fire Chief, and senior management to be extremely cooperative with all our requests for documentary evidence and interviews. The current administration has actively dealt with employee issues. They have improved the emergency response for the District from Basic Life Support to Advanced Life Support. The Board of Directors, Fire Chief, and senior management appear to be taking the District in the right direction, but need to keep their momentum moving forward.

F11: The E1 Dorado County Auditor/Controller advised the Grand Jury of a $10,000 difference in GVFPD's Special Districts Financial Transactions Report to the California State Controller for FYE June 30, 2008.  Information was presented, including copies of bank statements, which showed this $10,000 should not have been recorded as cash on deposit;  The District's Accountant submitted the State Report for FYE June 30, 2009 showing a $9,999 Prior Period Adjustment;  The District's contracted auditor who issued an Unqualified Opinion Audit Report, for the period July 1, 2007 through June 30, 2008, did not disclose this $10,000 difference in his report. He did not require the District to place corrective adjustments to its accounting records even though he had custody of the Report to the State Controller for the FYE June 30, 2008;  The District's contracted auditor, who is a California Licensed Certified Public Accountant, failed to fully cooperate with the Grand Jury;  The District's Accountant completed a detailed audit of the District's accounting records for the FY July 1, 2007 through June 30, 2008, and disclosed several errors and made corrective entries to the District's books to resolve this difference.

F12: It was determined that an employee was allowed to reside for years on GVFPD property at no cost and without a written agreement containing health, safety, tax and other appropriate provisions. This presents a potential liability to the District and its taxpayers.

Related Recommendations (1)

R6: District employees should not be permitted to reside on District property. This excludes staffing or other fire related duties.

📋November 11, 2009 — El Dorado County Grand Jury 2009-2010 El Dorado County Juvenile Hall Case No. Gj 09-009 Reason for Report California

3 pages 12 findings 8 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 12 findings

F1: The facility has a new digital video security system. Specific time frames can be downloaded if necessary. This is an upgrade that had been recommended by a previous grand jury.

F2: Procedures are in place to handle complaints and are posted in common areas. Complaints are resolved in a timely manner.

F3: The Department of Education determines the appropriate level of instruction needed for each ward and prepares individual study plans. All educational materials are contemporary and some are tailored to be used in juvenile correctional facilities. Students who successfully complete a high school education program get a full diploma from a high school that cannot be identified as being part of a detention program. Educational staff are appropriately credentialed and accredited for their positions.

F4: Medical facilities are efficient and modern.

F5: Wards have access to medical professionals at all times.

F6: Food is nutritious and prepared on site.

F7: The Board of Supervisors has failed for more than four years to construct or otherwise acquire a permanent Animal Control Shelter for the West Slope even though the County purchased the 10-acre parcel in 2006 for $450,000, and hired an architect, at a cost not to exceed $574,400, to design the building (a significant portion of which was spent). An additional $6 million in the Capital Improvement Budget has been set aside for the Animal Control Shelter.

Additional Recommendations 8

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: The Board of Supervisors authorized the purchase of a parcel owned by a friend of one Supervisor;

R2: The parcel purchased by the County is 10 acres but only about 7 acres are useable;

R3: The purchase agreement required the County to build a road and water lines at a cost of approximately $1.5 million to reach the landlocked 10-acre parcel;

R4: The road and water lines will enhance the surrounding privately-owned parcels, but the County will not be reimbursed for any of the cost;

R5: The Board of Supervisors insisted on a concrete tilt-up design; however, this is not the most cost effective construction for this location.

R6: The 2006 Board of Supervisors, in their eagerness to construct the animal control shelter for the County of EI Dorado, overstepped their involvement in the details of the negotiation and construction of the structure. The County had staff expertise in the area of real estate acquisition, negotiation and construction. The Board should have deferred to their expertise and taken an impartial posture. Instead, because of their close involvement in the details, an aura of conflict of interest has been created and serious ethical questions have been raised. This Grand Jury, in light of the testimony received, raises the question that if the Board of Supervisors had not been so closely involved in the "day-to-day" decision making process, would the property that was purchased have been the final selection? The Board of Supervisors is a policy setting and final decision- making board. Decisions should be made based on the expertise and advice of County staff. By being overly involved in the decision-making process, the Board of Supervisors unduly influenced County professional staff to make recommendations that were more agreeable to the County Supervisors. Hence, the process was made much more complicated and controversial by their involvement and not without political overtones. This Grand Jury recommends review by the Board of Supervisors of their decision-making processes, and of the legal requirements that are in place to forestall these kinds of expensive errors incurred at the expense of County taxpayers. RESPONSES Responses to both findings and recommendations in this report are required from the Board of Supervisors, the Chief Administrative Officer, and County Counsel in accordance with California Penal Code §933 and §933.05. Address responses to: The Honorable Suzanne N. Kingsbury, Presiding Judge of the El Dorado County Superior Court, 1354 Johnson Blvd., South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150.

R7: The ICMT generated revenue should not be considered a permanent funding source for future budgets.

November 03, 2009 — El Dorado County Grand Jury 2009-2010 Vote by Mail

3 pages 3 findings 2 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 3 findings

F1: A Vote by Mail program will save EI Dorado County significant amounts of budget funds each year.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: That the Board of Supervisors adopt a resolution to have all elections in EI Dorado County conducted by mail-in ballots pursuant to California Election Code §§4000-4108.

F2: A Vote by Mail program will likely increase the voter turnout in the county.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: The Board of Supervisors should adopt a resolution to the State of California Legislature to initiate a Vote by Mail process for all special and general elections in the State of California. 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 EI Dorado County Superior Court, 1354 Johnson Boulevard, South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150. COMMENDATION The 2009-2010 EI Dorado County Grand Jury commends the EI Dorado County Registrar of Voters for his plans to save County budget funds and to take action to secure the accuracy of all ballots cast.

F3: A Vote by Mail program will not increase the likelihood of voter fraud.

📋October 19, 2009 — El Dorado County Grand Jury 2009-2010 South Lake Tahoe Jail Case No. Gj 09-025 Reason for Report The California Penal

4 pages 4 findings 4 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 4 findings

F1: The present system of the security and surveillance cameras does not adequately cover all areas of the jail.

F2: The recorder cameras are obsolete and parts are no longer available. The Sheriff has approved a request for improvement and expansion of the number of recorders. This request is pending the approval of the Board of Supervisors.

F3: The entire facility is constructed with a flat roof design which may have contributed to frequent leaks and repairs.

F4: The interior cinder block wall on the east side of the jail that separated B and C pods has a history of cracks. A County facility inspection was done in July 2009 and a completed analysis is set for December. As of December 21, 2009 the contractor had been selected and a contract is being prepared.

Additional Recommendations 4

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: An analysis of the surveillance camera system should be evaluated with implementation of recommendations.

R2: The request by the Sheriff for additional recorders should be approved by the Board of Supervisors.

R3: A structural engineer should determine the cause(s) of leakage in the facility and recommend the appropriate correction and repair.

R4: The contract for repairs to the cinder block wall has been approved. The Grand Jury needs to be notified upon completion. RESPONSE Responses to findings and recommendations in this report are required in accordance with California Penal Code §933 and §933.05. Address responses to: The Honorable Suzanne N. Kingsbury, Presiding Judge of the El Dorado County Superior Court, 1354 Johnson Blvd, South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150. COMMENDATION The 2009-2010 El Dorado County Grand Jury commends the South Lake Tahoe Jail administration and staff for their dedication in providing a safe and secure custodial environment. The number and variety of available programs, especially the Culinary Arts program, have a proven record of success.

📋October 19, 2009 — El Dorado County Grand Jury 2009-2010 South Lake Tahoe Juvenile Treatment Center

2 pages

Quick View Full Details →

Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.

📋August 03, 2009 — El Dorado County Grand Jury 2009-2010 Energy Conservation and Cost Savings Case No. Gj 09-003 Reason for Report The

4 pages 9 findings 5 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 9 findings

F1: EI Dorado County spends more than $2 million annually for heating, air-conditioning, and lighting in County-owned and leased buildings.

Page 2

F2: Board of Supervisors (BOS) Policy A-18 does not designate a specific department or official to ensure that the County complies with, nor has the BOS enforced compliance with this Policy.

Page 2

F3: Centralized computer systems permit Department of Transportation (DOT) personnel to set minimum and maximum temperatures at multiple County-owned buildings from a single location. The remaining County-owned buildings, and the County-leased buildings, do not have centralized computer management systems and therefore, temperatures are set on an individual basis.

Page 2

F4: BOS Policy A-18 directs that mechanical equipment in County-owned buildings or leased space will be set to provide a maximum of 68 degrees for heating and a minimum of 78 degrees for cooling.

Page 2

F5: Some County-owned buildings have old and outdated HV AC units and, when combined with changes in inside office configurations, these conditions make it difficult to keep all employees comfortable through the different seasons. Notwithstanding the old and outdated equipment and changed interior configurations, DOT personnel do have the capability to set mechanical equipment in County-owned buildings or leased space to provide a maximum of 68 degrees for heating and a minimum of 78 degrees for cooling.

Page 2

F6: The DOT has not required personnel to comply with BOS Policy A-18. DOT personnel do not maintain equipment in County-owned buildings or leased space in accordance with BOS Policy A-18. This is a deliberate decision motivated by a good-faith desire to keep County employees more comfortable.

Page 2

F7: The County does not have a detailed master plan to identify, replace, and update old and inefficient heating and air-conditioning units. The County has deferred replacement of old and inefficient HV AC units with the result that units break and no replacement parts are available, and/or other units are cannibalized for parts.

Page 2

F8: The County does not have a capital reserve set aside to replace and update old and inefficient HV AC units.

Page 2

F9: The California Energy Commission has estimated that raising the thermostat in the summer from 73 degrees to 78 degrees can save 15 percent in energy costs, and that lowering the thermostat in the winter from 73 degrees to 68 degrees could save 25 percent in energy costs. If it is assumed that 40 percent Of the County's energy bill is for HV AC, then these two changes could save the County as much as $160,000 annually.

Page 2

Additional Recommendations 5

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: The Board of Supervisors should appropriate funds for a capital improvement account to replace old and inefficient heating and air- conditioning equipment.

R2: The Department of Transportation should prepare a detailed plan for replacing old and inefficient heating and air-conditioning equipment.

R3: The Board of Supervisors, through the CAO, should direct the Department of Transportation to take all steps necessary to ensure that personnel within his/her Department set mechanical equipment in County-owned buildings or leased space to provide a maximum of 68 degrees for heating and a minimum of 78 degrees for cooling.

R4: The Department of Transportation should educate EI Dorado County employees about the costs-savings benefits in complying with BOS Policy A-18, and should encourage County Employees to dress appropriately to be comfortable in these temperature ranges.

July 07, 2009 — El Dorado County Grand Jury 2009-2010 Grading and Encroachment Securities

4 pages 5 findings 5 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 5 findings

F1: The County has been negligent in its duty and responsibility in administering the MOU between the County and TRPA.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: The Development Services Department should develop and implement an action plan that would enable it to carry out its obligations under the MOU.

F2: The administration of the program has been lacking in several areas. Current inspections must be done on listed properties to determine the status of projects. a. Awareness of completed/incomplete security deposits:  Projects may have been completed but owner did not request the security deposit;  The project may not have been completed;  The owner sold the property which required inspection and the present owner is not aware of the requirements. b. Efficient management of the security deposit:  Many securities need review to determine the viability of the security deposit;  There may be legal complications concerning ownership of some deposits. c. Timely inspection response:  There is one inspector assigned to the Lake Tahoe area. There are 359 addresses still open without a completion date. d. Return of the security deposit:  At last review, 55 properties were awaiting final inspection and return of the security deposit.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: The Department Director should consult and work with Information Technology Systems to integrate the Department’s stand alone data base system into the County’s data base system.

F3: The list of properties to be inspected has its own stand alone data base, and is not incorporated into the County’s current financial management system.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: The Department Director should integrate the financial aspects of the Department’s program into the County’s current financial management system.

F4: The MOU has not been updated since 1992, and some provisions may be outdated.

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: The County Counsel’s Office should review and amend the present MOU between the County and TRPA as necessary.

F5: The Department Director should report to the County Administrative Officer to review progress on the conversion of the computer programs. RESPONSES Responses to both findings and recommendations in this report are required in accordance with California Penal §933 and §933.05. Address responses to: The Honorable Suzanne N. Kingsbury, Presiding Judge of the El Dorado County Superior Court, 1354 Johnson Blvd., South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150.

Page 4

Related Recommendations (1)

R5: The Department Director should report to the County Administrative Officer to review progress on the conversion of the computer programs. RESPONSES Responses to both findings and recommendations in this report are required in accordance with California Penal §933 and §933.05. Address responses to: The Honorable Suzanne N. Kingsbury, Presiding Judge of the El Dorado County Superior Court, 1354 Johnson Blvd., South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150.

June 30, 2009 — El Dorado County Grand Jury 2009-2010 City of South Lake Tahoe City Council Case No. Gj 09-008 Reason for Report a

7 pages 7 findings 7 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 7 findings

F1: The Grand Jury investigation revealed that many factors have contributed to impaired functioning of the City’s government at multiple levels. a. Constant hostility and bickering among members of the City Council and their unprofessional conduct has resulted in a consistent 3/2 split vote creating two “camps” of Council members. The voting often appears to be the result of Council members pursuing personal agendas rather than operating in the best interests of the City. The bickering and nitpicking between Council members during meetings, combined with hostile comments to media outlets and behind the scenes “back biting” has resulted in the failure to address routine and important business entrusted to the Council by the citizens of the City of South Lake Tahoe. b. Council members and senior staff are unwilling or afraid to address and deal with the existing hostile work environment. In a matter that involved an inappropriate written poem (involving sexual comments from one Council member to another), the City Manager and the City Council failed to take action until questioned by the Grand Jury.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: The City Council should develop a code of conduct, a code of ethics, practice professionalism, and receive training in conflict resolution. Council members should be able to express concerns about City issues without being exposed to ridicule by their fellow Council members.

F2: The City Council, when facing controversial issues or after threat of litigation, routinely drops issues, even if addressing the issue would improve the function of government or service to the public. a. When a City Attorney recommended that the City Finance Director be placed under the direct control of the City Council, rather than the City Manager, the Finance Director expressed strong opposition. This action came after the City Attorney had challenged the Finance Director about the propriety and amounts of an expenditure made by the City. This move for the Finance Director to be placed under City Council control was a suggestion that had been made by a City Council member in prior years. The City Manager, fearing loss of supervisory control of the Finance Director, advised the City Council that the Finance Director would probably file an official complaint against the City Attorney and the City charging them with harassment if the move took place. This statement was viewed by some employees as a threat by the City Manager. b. During a contentious June 30, 2009 City Council meeting it was suggested that the City Manager should resign. Testimony received indicated the City Manager later threatened to file a Workers Compensation claim, hire outside counsel, and sue the City. c. The City Manager used intimidation to retain control over parts of government. The City Manager attempted to keep the Finance Director under his direct control. He informed the City Attorney that he could make the Finance Director’s complaints against the City Attorney “go away” if the City Attorney dropped the suggestion to move the Finance Director under direct control of the City Council as an “at will” employee. d. Based on testimony received by the Grand Jury the public impression is that the City of South Lake Tahoe has a “bush league” City Council, which is incapable of maintaining confidences, operates in an atmosphere of intimidation, and is frequently distracted from important City business by personal feuds. The Council operates at an inconsistent and barely functional level.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: The City Council must be more assertive in dealing with inappropriate conduct by Council members. This should include securing opinions from the City Attorney, the El Dorado County District Attorney, the California League of Cities, or other appropriate agencies.

F3: Some City officials engaged in avoidance and obstruction during the Grand Jury investigation. Despite assurances from the City Council that City officers and employees would cooperate with the Grand Jury in its attempts to analyze City government, actions by senior City officials were engineered in an attempt to keep the Grand Jury from getting the information it requested. a. The Grand Jury submitted a written request to the Mayor asking for introduction of an agenda item to have the City Council waive the attorney-client privilege so that the City Attorneys could be free to give complete answers to all inquiries. The Mayor, through the City Attorney, responded by stating that the request had been improperly addressed to the Mayor and not to the City Council. Therefore, it could not be placed on the City Council agenda. This information was subsequently contradicted by the City Manager advising the Grand Jury that the Mayor can place items for City Council discussion on the agenda. According to other testimony, Council members can only place items on the agenda when at least three out of five members agree. According to the City Manager, both he and the City Attorney can place items on the agenda at their discretion. b. Prior to being interviewed by the Grand Jury, some employees were counseled by the City Attorney on how to testify in a manner that was designed to limit the information that the Grand Jury would receive. City employees who had been subpoenaed to testify before the Grand Jury, were instructed by memo that they should not volunteer any information, and they should not attempt to refresh their memories when asked about specific events or topics. The memorandum and the counseling go beyond normal and acceptable witness preparation for testimony in Grand Jury proceedings.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: The City Council should review the current practice that requires three Council members agree before they can put items on meeting agendas. The procedure for placing items on the agenda should be adopted as written policy.

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: City Council members, elected City officers, and senior appointed City officers should receive mandatory training, on a regular basis, in the duties and responsibilities of their positions.

Related Recommendations (1)

R5: The City should review its written policies on nepotism and job relationships between family members and domestic partners. The policies should be changed as necessary to assure that these relationships do not interfere with City operations, and promote an atmosphere of cooperation.

Related Recommendations (1)

June 18, 2009 — Part III - Released June 2009(pdf, 1mb)

69 pages 12 findings 7 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 12 findings

F1: There presently is no policy or ordinance in El Dorado County that provides for the oversight of roadside memorials. There are no restrictions regarding length of time memorials may exist or what form they may take.

F2: Several discussions with the County Department of Transportation have resulted in the drafting of a departmental policy which will provide the necessary regulation and oversight of roadside memorials and to take action when these regulations are not followed. The Board of Supervisors will be advised of this Department of Transportation Memorial Policy. 17

F3: Accounting for expenses has been sporadic and lacks sufficient detail.

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.

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: Hold an annual meeting that focuses primarily on the operational concerns of ZOB’s.

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.

R1: This year’s Grand Jury reaffirms last year’s Grand Jury recommendation that Aid to Fire, as it is currently structured, continues to be a tax distribution and fairness issue. This requires a majority of property owners in the County to pay for their own fire districts operations, and support through the General Fund, fire services in eight other fire districts in the County. We recommend that the Board of Supervisors cancel the Aid to Fire contract with the fire districts, and distribute the trust fund monies for Fiscal Year 2009-2010 consistent with current contract funding agreements. The Grand Jury recognizes the Board of Supervisors may have made this decision during budget negotiations as this Grand Jury report is being prepared. If not, we recommend this contract be cancelled for next fiscal year 2010-2011.

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.

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

April 09, 2009 — Part II - Released April 2009(pdf, 130kb)

13 pages 1 findings 1 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 1 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-to- day 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 2 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 have 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 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 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 after the January 1st 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 that 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 meeting after January 1st 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.” 5 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 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 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.” 8 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 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 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 10 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 11 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 12

January 27, 2009 — Part I - Released January 2009(pdf, 276kb)

5 pages 3 findings 4 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 3 findings

F1: The compensation identified above is outside the bounds of California Law. GVFPD Board authorization was neither sought nor given prior to commencement of the work by Rogers or Cleaver, and there was no pre-existing agreement to pay for that work.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: The Grand Jury recommends that Directors Rogers and Cleaver return to the District the money paid to them for their work on District files.

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.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: The Grand Jury recommends that the Garden Valley Fire Protection District take steps to recover the funds unlawfully paid to Directors Rogers and Cleaver.

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.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: CA Penal Code section 932 provides that a Grand Jury may order the District Attorney to institute suit to recover money that may be due to the County. Accordingly, The 2008/2009 Grand Jury has filed with the Court an ORDER directing Vern Pierson, District Attorney for the County of El Dorado to file an action to recover the $5,798.00 improperly paid to Robert Rogers, former director Garden Valley Fire Protection District and to recover the $4,018.00 improperly paid to Norma Cleaver, former director Garden Valley Fire Protection District.

Additional Recommendations 1

Not linked to specific findings.

R4: Furthermore, any taxpayer in the District may file a lawsuit to recover the funds unlawfully paid by the District. RESPONSES No responses are required to this report. This is a true cert~f~ecdo py of the record if it bears the seal, Imprinted In purple ink, the &ale of Issuance and an orlginal agnature. EL DORADO CO. SUPERIOR CT. SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA M AND FOR THE COUNTY OF EL DORADO In Re the matter of: ) No. \ The 2008/2009 El Dorado County Grand Jury It is hereby ordered by the 200812009 El Dorado County Grand Jury under the authority conferred by Penal Code section 932 that the District Attorney of El Dorado County institute a suit to recover money that is due from former board members of the Garden Valley Fire Protection District Robert S. Rogers and Norma Cleaver as the result of payments to them which were made in violation of the Constitution and laws of the State of California, as set forth in the report of the 200812009 Grand Jury issued in regard to this topic. JW ax aooq Dated: Certified as an official Order of the 200812009 El Dorado County Grand Jury B Grand Jury -1- ORDER OF 200812009 EL DORADO COUNTY GRAND JURY

El Dorado County Grand Jury 2009-2010 Purchase of the Animal Control Shelter Property

18 pages 11 findings 6 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 11 findings

F1: The Board of Supervisors approved the purchase of the 10-acre parcel near the town of El Dorado without recognizing that only about 7 1/2 acres of the parcel are usable due to a seasonal creek flowing through the property.

F2: The Board of Supervisors approved the purchase of the 10-acre parcel near the town of El Dorado without recognizing that the cost of improving access to the parcel and adjoining parcels as specified in the purchase agreement could be as much as $1.5 million.

F3: The Board of Supervisors approved the purchase of the 10-acre parcel near the town of EI Dorado without requiring the Sellers to contribute to the costs of the improvements specified in the purchase agreement. Those improvements will greatly benefit the privately-owned parcels adjacent to the required roadway, which are still owned by the Sellers.

F4: The Board of Supervisors approved the purchase of the 10-acre parcel near the town of El Dorado without recognizing that they may have obligated the County to build a road, water lines, and a fence, at an estimated cost of $1 million to $1.5 million (according to testimony), even if the County does not build the Animal Control Shelter on the 10-acre parcel.

F5: The Board of Supervisors insisted that the Animal Control Shelter be built using "tilt-up" construction although the BOS was advised that "tilt-up" construction was not the most cost effective method, and that the next less expensive option, steel frame, could save as much as $1 million.

F6: The Board of Supervisors' involvement in the land selection, purchase, and the method of construction for the Animal Control Shelter was unusually high.

Related Recommendations (1)

Related Recommendations (3)

R1: The Board of Supervisors should require a detailed, written cost analysis for any contract greater than a set dollar amount that it considers for approval.

R2: The Board of Supervisors should give appropriate deference to experts, both in and outside the County, in matters of property acquisition and building construction, and should not ignore those recommendations without compelling reasons.

R5: The Board of Supervisors should exercise due diligence by thoroughly reviewing all contracts, asking questions, and insisting on complete answers before approving action.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: The lead County Department in each case, and the CAO, should provide the Board of Supervisors with all pertinent information, including financial cost, for all aspects of a proposed property acquisition and improvements.

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: County Counsel's office should insist that the County is protected in all contracts for foreseeable changes in circumstances and require appropriate protective language in all County contracts.

Additional documents

Documents found alongside this year's reports — not grand jury reports or responses.

Superior Court of California County of EL Dorado1 pp.