El Dorado County Grand Jury
2023-2024
From the annual report
The consolidated year-end volume. The individual investigations it contains are listed separately below.
📑 Year-End Report
The full consolidated volume; individual reports are listed below.
Individual reports (9)
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
14 findings
F1:
– The JPA Board allowed an employment contract to be signed without compensation being identified for the promotion of Executive Director.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
By December 31, 2024, the JPA Board should create a policy and ensure compensation is properly listed on employment contracts.
F2:
- Retroactive pay was approved for the former Executive Director during multiple Board meetings, which occurred after separation of the Executive Director from employment. The October 25th, 2023 meeting minutes show a 5% increase for January-June 2023, and a 10% increase from July-September 2023.
F3:
The employee performance review cycle and compensation cycle are not aligned in the employment contract, resulting in repeated retroactive pay situations.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
By December 31, 2024, the JPA Board should revise all employment contracts to align the performance review and compensation timing to remove the retroactive pay cycle.
F4:
The JPA Board delayed a compensation increase for an employee who was promoted from Deputy Director to Executive Director in January, 2023.
F5:
Providing retroactive pay for separated employees raises a potential violation of the California State Constitution prohibiting retroactive increase in compensation for services already rendered.
F6:
Transparency and alignment to the Brown Act has been lacking.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
By December 31, 2024, the JPA Board should ensure all Board documentation is reviewed, updated, and visible on their website for transparency purposes. This should include the Semiannual Actual Cost report after it is released to the County.
F7:
General Counsel employed by the JPA lacked Brown Act knowledge.
Related Recommendations (2)
R4:
By December 31, 2024, the JPA Board should obtain Brown Act and Ethics training, re- train every two years and track for compliance.
R5:
By December 31, 2024, the JPA Board should proceed hiring new General Counsel with Brown Act and local government law experience.
F8:
Budget oversight is minimal. The only oversight is review of the Semiannual Actual Cost reports received by the office of the CAO.
Related Recommendations (2)
R7:
By December 31, 2024, the JPA Board should ensure that their Semiannual Actual Cost reports to the County are in alignment with Generally Acceptable Accounting Principles (GAAP).
R8:
By December 31, 2024, the County CAO should provide a status update of JPA compliance with County Contract #2298 for Prehospital Advanced Life Support, Ambulance and Dispatch Services to the County Board of Supervisors.
F9:
There is a JPA Monthly Appropriation Invoicing policy that is not followed. The three agencies contracted to provide emergency ambulance transport services to the JPA are not providing accurate or timely fiscal reports.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
By December 31, 2024, the JPA Board should require their transporting agencies to follow the Monthly Appropriation Invoicing Policy and hold them accountable.
F10:
The office of the CAO does not audit details due to fixed rate contracts and when pressing for details, does not receive them. FINDINGS
F11:
There is an inherent conflict of interest within the current Board structure. Three Board members’ agencies may benefit from decisions made by the full Board.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
By December 31, 2024, the JPA Board should task their new General Counsel to provide a restructuring model for this Board. Counsel should base this new structure on how best to remove any inherent conflict of interest with a clearly defined code of conduct policy for conflicts of interest.
F12:
There is no code of conduct policy document regarding conflict of interest and recusal.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
By December 31, 2024, the JPA Board should task their new General Counsel to provide a restructuring model for this Board. Counsel should base this new structure on how best to remove any inherent conflict of interest with a clearly defined code of conduct policy for conflicts of interest.
F13:
The County BOS is not responsible for oversight, nor can they change the structure of the JPA Board. The JPA Board is its own governing body.
F14:
There has been discussion about changing the JPA Board structure, but no efforts have received the super majority vote, making change unlikely with this Board.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
- After it was certified by the Registrar on May 14, 2020, an initiative petition signed by the required number of voters in LLAD #39 was unilaterally not acted on by the El Dorado Hills CSD. This non-action ignored the objections of the petitioners and violated Elections Code 9310 that required CSD to adopt the ballot measure or submit it to the voters.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
– Within 90 days of the release of this report, CSD should implement the intent of the Carson Creek LLAD #39 second ballot initiative to perpetually repeal LLAD assessments. (Note that this recommendation also appeared in the Grand Jury report Case #24-05).
F2:
- After it was certified by the Registrar on September 9, 2020, the text of a second initiative petition signed by LLAD #39 residents was altered, resulting in it being essentially nullified before it was placed on the 2020 ballot and submitted to the voters. This action ignored the objections of the petitioners and Elections Code 9310 which requires that the initiative petition be submitted to the voters without alteration.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
– Within 90 days of the release of this report, CSD should implement the intent of the Carson Creek LLAD #39 second ballot initiative to perpetually repeal LLAD assessments. (Note that this recommendation also appeared in the Grand Jury report Case #24-05).
F3:
- In the Impartial Analysis of Measure H on the 2022 Ballot, County Counsel noted the alteration of the LLAD #39 voter petition; however, both the County Elections Department and County Counsel allowed the election process to proceed over the objections of the LLAD #39 petitioners and requirements of California Elections Code 9310.
F4:
– El Dorado County has not published handbooks to provide voters with information to assist them in understanding the steps necessary to initiate, circulate, and file County initiative petitions.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
– By December 2024, the Elections Department should develop and publish online documentation for sponsors of initiative petitions that provides a summary of the County initiative petition procedure and the requirements for preparing and qualifying County initiative petitions.
R2:
– By December 2024, the Elections Department should offer training to County Boards and Commissions that provides training on the requirements and their responsibilities in the County initiative petition process.
F5:
– Although CSD Legal Counsel advised CSD to not act on a ballot initiative to repeal assessments from LLAD #22, the CSD Board voted to pass the certified measure to the ballot in November 2023, while hoping to negotiate a mutually agreeable resolution that would avoid going to ballot or to court for relief. FINDINGS
F6:
– In situations where there are contested Proposition 218-related ballot initiatives, where the governing body disagrees with the legal foundations of the initiative and elects to not act on it, the only remediation path appears to be through the court system, which will cause delays and additional expense to the taxpayers.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
– The new election headquarters is a well-designed and efficient operation for managing high- volume elections while providing transparency to the public. The Registrar of Voters and staff are to be commended for the design of the headquarters, integration of the systems and the oversight capability provided.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
– By the November 2024 election, the Dominion vote tabulation systems should be electronically isolated (e.g., a Faraday cage surrounding the tabulation system) to improve security and remove the possibility of any cellular or internet communication. Fiscal impact: $25,000-$50,000 (See Appendix 1)
F2:
– The Grand Jury did not find that any election results in the recent past have been materially altered or rigged through the voter eligibility procedures or vote tabulation systems.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
– By the November 2024 election, the Elections Department should look into the feasibility of streaming drop box video surveillance cameras online for ad hoc public monitoring. In addition, all drop boxes should have signs that indicate they are under surveillance and illegal tampering will be prosecuted, which should be a further deterrent.
F3:
– The Registrar of Voters and the Elections Department are sincere in their desire for free and transparent elections but are required to utilize California certified voting equipment and procedures that may introduce vulnerabilities and a lack of transparency into the election process.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
– By the November 2024 election, the Elections Department should evaluate the feasibility of receiving non-citizen responses to jury summons from the Superior Court of El Dorado County or Federal district court records to cross-check County voter rolls and continue such periodic checks annually thereafter.
F4:
– The Registrar of Voters and the Elections Department can do more to alleviate public concerns around election integrity through more frequent public communications (emails, newsletters, blogs, etc.), as they may have attempted in the past.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
– By January 1, 2025, the Elections Department should change security procedures to require a minimum of two people present when accessing the vote tabulation rooms and systems.
F5:
– Due to the complexity of the Dominion vote tabulation systems, it is impossible to be completely assured of having removed all vulnerabilities. In addition, they are not physically shielded from wireless communications, which is apparently possible, causing additional concerns.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
– By November 2024, the Registrar of Voters should begin publishing a periodic newsletter (e.g., online blog or social media) designed to acknowledge and address public concerns. Questions should be solicited and screened to avoid the social media free-for-alls of the past.
F6:
– The video surveillance in use at ballot drop boxes is a spot check and does not cover all drop-boxes. Complete surveillance is likely impossible, but there may be additional ways to enhance coverage that should be considered.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
– The Elections Department should conduct a public poll of election integrity concerns by the end of 2024 and 2025 to measure any improvements in public perception and the success of the public outreach. RECOMMENDATIONS
F7:
- The Elections Department is complying with all state statutes, although additional safety checks and procedures may be available in vote-by-mail procedures that should be considered.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
– By January 1, 2025, the Registrar of Voters should establish a volunteer public advisory board to help monitor election processes, make improvements, and coordinate public outreach/communication.
Findings & Recommendations
1 findings
F1:
- Follow-up actions have mostly been addressed. The exception is “Case 22-23 CJ03: Building Projects - Can You Help Me, … PLEASE?” in which responses to Recommendations are still pending.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
– The incoming 2024-2025 Grand Jury should follow-up on responses associated with “Case 22-23 CJ03: Building Projects - Can You Help Me, … PLEASE?” ATTACHMENT • El Dorado County Planning and Building Department Memo ATTACHMENT Attachment ATTACHMENT – PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT MEMO ATTACHMENT ATTACHMENT
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
– The BOS is currently following the TOT Measure’s intent for the use of revenues/funds. Budget Resolution Number 063-2022 clarifies that TOT funds utilized by the BOS are the same as Sales and Property tax, meaning that the BOS has 100% discretionary authority to allocate TOT funds.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
– The BOS should develop and implement a plan by January 1, 2025, to improve the transparency of the TOT funds request and allocation process, such as a TOT page on their website or a media campaign to alleviate public perception of misuse of funds.
F2:
– There is no formal or consistent process for the various chambers or groups to request TOT funds, or transparency on how decisions are made to allocate funds.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
– To clarify that the funds are discretionary, Board Policy B-16 (see Appendix) should be updated in the latest CAO Budget Book, and everywhere else relevant, to properly set public expectations and reduce controversy.
F3:
– There is no compliance process to ensure the collection of all TOT revenues from short- term rental companies like Airbnb.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
– The County Tax Collector should implement a compliance plan to ensure that all TOT taxes are identified and collected.
F4:
– The definition of ‘tourism and economic development’ is vague to the public and the source of misperception.
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R13:
Discretionary Transient Occupancy Tax: Transient Occupancy Tax revenue, excluding voter approved Tahoe area-specific revenue, shall be directed toward the impact of tourism and economic development, with consideration for support of tourism and promotion activities within the County and for continued support for grant fund allocations to support Veteran programs within the County.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
11 findings
F1:
– In 2023 there were three arrests of local school employees for sexual acts toward our students. This is three too many.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
- EDCOE should implement enhanced and more stringent background check processes, including character checks for all applicants who might, or do work around, or with students to prevent sexual predators from being hired. This should begin by January 1, 2025.
F2:
- EDCOE has policies and procedures in place that follow the California Education Code and National Laws regarding background checks of applicants.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
– EDCOE should ensure all employees complete state required sexual harassment prevention training by September 30, 2024. Local school districts should ensure the training is completed by all employees every two years and records are tracked.
F3:
– EDCOE screening and background checks, while in compliance with these laws, are inadequate to prevent the hiring of sexual predators.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
– EDCOE should work with the employee unions to revise their bargaining agreements to permit schools to automate tracking on all buses and monitor bus drivers’ locations during transportation of students. This should be completed by March 31, 2025.
F4:
– EDCOE’s job application asks applicants and references about past release from employment for misconduct.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
– EDCOE should work with the employee unions to revise their bargaining agreements to permit schools to install cameras that have monitoring capability on all buses. A designated staff person or automation should monitor the locations of buses during transportation of students.
F5:
– County school districts have entered into non-disclosure agreements with terminated or resigned employees who allegedly exhibited inappropriate behavior toward others.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
- EDCOE should develop and implement policies and procedures that require supervisors and managers to closely monitor classified staff while working around students. If necessary, they should hire additional staff to achieve this goal. This should be done by March 31, 2025.
F6:
- EDCOE provides inconsistent sexual harassment prevention training to classified staff.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
– EDCOE should implement sexual harassment prevention training for all students, including how to recognize and report it. This training should begin in kindergarten. EDCOE should offer parents the option to opt out. This should begin by March 31, 2025. RECOMMENDATIONS
F7:
– It is unclear when or if the County school districts provide student training on recognizing sexual harassment and how to report it.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
– EDCOE should implement a ‘buddy system’, or other means, for all students when traveling on school campus during class times.
F8:
– EDCOE bus drivers are not monitored during transportation of students due to their collective bargaining agreement restrictions.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
- EDCOE and County school districts should bring their Title IX website requirements up to date by December 31, 2024.
F9:
- EDCOE and County school district websites are out of compliance with Title IX requirements. FINDINGS
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
– EDCOE should provide all classified staff with radio transmitters to enable contact with their supervisor while working on campus. EDCOE should also provide all classified staff with body cameras and make their use a condition of employment.
F10:
- Classified staff at EDCOE lack close supervision and are outside alone on campus around students on a regular basis, increasing the risk of sexual misconduct.
Related Recommendations (1)
R10:
- EDCOE should work with their MOU Law Enforcement partners to expand the MOU to address sexual misconduct by both students and school employees.
F11:
- EDCOE Law Enforcement MOU appears to be an excellent collaboration effort but does not adequately address sexual misconduct by both students and school employees.
Related Recommendations (1)
R11:
- EDCOE should consider installing cameras in school hallways and classrooms so that no student or child is alone.
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R12:
- EDCOE should abolish the practice of allowing employees to resign and enter into a settlement agreement or enter into a non-disclosure agreement to avoid prosecution or public awareness of their inappropriate/illegal behavior.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
17 findings
F1:
- The CSD Board of Directors for the last two plus years failed to provide adequate oversight of their General Manager to know that he had an outside consulting role at one of CSD’s contractors. Such outside work posed serious questions about a potential conflict of interest.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
– By December 31, 2024, the County District Attorney’s office should complete the investigation of any potential ethics or conflicts of interest violations, including required FPPC Form 700 disclosures, raised by the former GM’s consulting arrangement with DTA. Carson Creek LLAD #39 Ballot Initiative
F2:
- CSD Board members subsequently failed to act in a timely way on the then-GM’s potential conflict of interest.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
– By December 31, 2024, the County District Attorney’s office should complete the investigation of any potential ethics or conflicts of interest violations, including required FPPC Form 700 disclosures, raised by the former GM’s consulting arrangement with DTA. Carson Creek LLAD #39 Ballot Initiative
F3:
- CSD Board members appeared to have engaged in a serial meeting in violation of the Ralph M. Brown Act and CA Govt Code Section 53262 when they individually approved the GM’s outside consulting work, leading to a notice from the District Attorney’s Office requesting additional training.
Related Recommendations (3)
R1:
– Within 90 days of this report, as mandated by the District Attorney’s Office, all CSD Board members and management level employees should be required to complete Brown Act training and renew such training not less than every two years. In addition, all Board members and management level employees should be designated and required to complete AB 1234 Chapter 700 (link) Ethics training every two years.
R2:
– CSD should keep records of all Brown Act and AB 1234 Ethics training completed by the Board of directors and designated staff members for a minimum period of 10 years.
R3:
– Within 90 days, the County District Attorney’s office should continue to investigate Brown Act or CA Government Code Section 53262 violations by the CSD Board unless and until the CSD Board gets appropriate Brown Act and Ethics training.
F4:
– Brown Act training has been optional for CSD Board members and staff, while AB 1234 Chapter 700 Ethics training is required.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
– Within 90 days of this report, as mandated by the District Attorney’s Office, all CSD Board members and management level employees should be required to complete Brown Act training and renew such training not less than every two years. In addition, all Board members and management level employees should be designated and required to complete AB 1234 Chapter 700 (link) Ethics training every two years.
R2:
– CSD should keep records of all Brown Act and AB 1234 Ethics training completed by the Board of directors and designated staff members for a minimum period of 10 years.
F5:
– Then-CSD GM failed to properly disclose income received from his consulting arrangement with DTA, a CSD contractor, on his Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) Form 700, which he signed under penalty of perjury.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
– By December 31, 2024, the County District Attorney’s office should complete the investigation of any potential ethics or conflicts of interest violations, including required FPPC Form 700 disclosures, raised by the former GM’s consulting arrangement with DTA. Carson Creek LLAD #39 Ballot Initiative
F6:
- Then-CSD GM performed business development work to find new clients for DTA which, as far as the Grand Jury can verify from reviewed documents, was unrelated to CSD’s contracts with DTA. Carson Creek LLAD #39 Ballot Initiative
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
– By December 31, 2024, the County District Attorney’s office should complete the investigation of any potential ethics or conflicts of interest violations, including required FPPC Form 700 disclosures, raised by the former GM’s consulting arrangement with DTA. Carson Creek LLAD #39 Ballot Initiative
F7:
- CSD has been ignoring the will of the voting citizens of LLAD #39 by not acting on two previous initiatives to modify or remove assessments for the Carson Creek/Heritage Park. FINDINGS LLAD Assessment Policies and Objections
Related Recommendations (2)
R5:
– Within 90 days, CSD should implement the intent of the Carson Creek LLAD #39 second ballot initiative to perpetually repeal LLAD assessments. LLAD Assessment Policies and Objections
R7:
– Upon certification that the Promontory and Blackstone LLAD initiative petitions have been signed by the requisite number of voters, CSD must enact the Promontory and Blackstone LLAD initiatives without alteration, or submit the initiatives unmodified to the voters, as RECOMMENDATIONS required by California Elections Code Section 9310. CSD Financial Health and Master Plan
F8:
– Neither the former GM nor the CSD Board of Directors properly certified the engineering assessment reports for 2022 and 2023 to the satisfaction of the County Controller during the same period that the GM was consulting for the CSD engineering assessment firm, DTA. As a result, the County has held up billing parcel owners for LLAD assessments, ending up in litigation which will be costly to taxpayers.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
– Within 90 days of this report, CSD should establish and document clearer guidelines for the CSD Board of Directors or GM certification of the assessment levy to the County Controller/Auditor and publish that procedure in the CSD Policies and Procedures documents.
F9:
– Two other LLADs are contesting their assessments, Promontory Park and Blackstone, using an identical ballot initiative as Carson Creek LLAD #39, which will have significant impact on CSD revenue going forward if they all pass as expected. CSD Financial Health and Master Plan
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
– Upon certification that the Promontory and Blackstone LLAD initiative petitions have been signed by the requisite number of voters, CSD must enact the Promontory and Blackstone LLAD initiatives without alteration, or submit the initiatives unmodified to the voters, as RECOMMENDATIONS required by California Elections Code Section 9310. CSD Financial Health and Master Plan
F10:
–CSD operates with 20-40% or more net revenue each year that accrues to increasingly larger treasury fund balances, now roughly $50 million.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
– Within 90 days, CSD should document the projected use for all Treasury fund assets, clarify which fund accounts are earmarked for what purposes and open the spending plan for public comment and approval.
F11:
- CSD Financial Assets are far more than their reserve policies allow as stated in their operational policy document.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
– Within 90 days, CSD should document the projected use for all Treasury fund assets, clarify which fund accounts are earmarked for what purposes and open the spending plan for public comment and approval.
F12:
– The CSD Master Plan is a long-term park enhancement and development plan that envisions spending $300 million according to a 2021 document, which seems unrealistic without significant additional funding sources.
Related Recommendations (2)
R9:
– By September 30, 2024, CSD should review, revise, and publicize its Master Plan from 2021 with realistic timelines for all new park development, as well as accurate and realistic cost estimates that can be funded and executed within a 10-year planning period.
R11:
– Within 90 days, CSD should get public input on its latest 10-year development plan, including any updates to the Master Plan from 2021, and how they plan to use PIF funds over an extended period. This development needs to include a contingency plan for new park development in a reasonable time frame if additional funds do not become available that are required for the current Master Plan. Developer Relationship
F13:
- There appear to be calculation errors in the Master Plan overestimating the amount to fully fund the proposed developments by more than $100 million.
Related Recommendations (2)
R9:
– By September 30, 2024, CSD should review, revise, and publicize its Master Plan from 2021 with realistic timelines for all new park development, as well as accurate and realistic cost estimates that can be funded and executed within a 10-year planning period.
R11:
– Within 90 days, CSD should get public input on its latest 10-year development plan, including any updates to the Master Plan from 2021, and how they plan to use PIF funds over an extended period. This development needs to include a contingency plan for new park development in a reasonable time frame if additional funds do not become available that are required for the current Master Plan. Developer Relationship
F14:
- CSD, despite its sizable financial holdings and the complexity of its accounts and revenue sources, does not have a licensed CPA on staff. Park Impact Fees and Reporting Requirements
Related Recommendations (1)
R10:
- Within 90 days, CSD should employ or retain a full-time licensed CPA professional to be Treasurer/CFO-equivalent. Park Impact Fees and Reporting Requirements
F15:
– CSD has been retaining Park Impact Fees (PIF) for more than five years and may ultimately hold several million dollars in funds for ten or fifteen years or more. This opens the CSD to potential litigation for not spending PIF funds in the short term. FINDINGS
F16:
– The plans to spend PIF through FY 29 and FY 31 on a Multigenerational Recreation Center and Bass Lake Park are contingent on significant additional funds of over $75 million. These plans are not consistent with the intent of the Mitigation Fee Act and will require a contingency plan in case the additional required funds are not available for the new park development. Developer Relationship
Related Recommendations (2)
R11:
– Within 90 days, CSD should get public input on its latest 10-year development plan, including any updates to the Master Plan from 2021, and how they plan to use PIF funds over an extended period. This development needs to include a contingency plan for new park development in a reasonable time frame if additional funds do not become available that are required for the current Master Plan. Developer Relationship
R12:
– Within 90 days, CSD should document its plans for Bass Lake Park and justify why CSD took on the obligation to build a turnkey park in Village J7, and how development of Bass Lake Park will now proceed up through park completion proposed by CSD in FY 31.
F17:
– The public is concerned about several recent financial deals CSD has made with Parker Development, such as the CSD’s purchase of the Old Executive Golf property, the CSD acquiring the12.5-acre Serrano Village J lot to develop a turnkey park at Bass Lake area rather than enforcing Parker’s obligation to do so, and a significantly reduced amount for Park Impact Fees (PIF) for Parker Development.
Related Recommendations (1)
R12:
– Within 90 days, CSD should document its plans for Bass Lake Park and justify why CSD took on the obligation to build a turnkey park in Village J7, and how development of Bass Lake Park will now proceed up through park completion proposed by CSD in FY 31.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Additional documents
Documents found alongside this year's reports, not grand jury reports or responses.