Lake County Grand Jury
2008-2009
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
34 findings
F1:
The district suffered a catastrophic system failure in 2004.
F2:
At the time of the failure in 2004, the district had approximately $15- $20,000 in reserves. At the time of this oversight, the district had nearly $500,000 in the bank.
F3:
Rate increases and a substantial bond repayment enabled the district to achieve the current financial status. All money from the bond repayment went into the district’s reserves.
F4:
The following improvements will need to be completed in the near future: o Replacement of 30-year-old system o Build a new clear well o Replace 1688 feet of pipe o Replace a seawall o Install an emergency generator system
F5:
Rather than use the reserves to pay for all improvements, the district intends to speak to the ratepayers once the district establishes an estimate and determines how best to pay for the improvements.
F6:
No employee or board member can sign his or her own paycheck.
F7:
The district is making a significant effort to implement and/or maintain a strict system of checks and balances in regards to finances.
F8:
There is currently no “policies and procedures manual” given to newly hired personnel.
F9:
The district has two managerial positions. One is an office manager who takes care of finances, handles phone calls from customers, and oversees office staff. The second is a general manager/water master. The general manager’s responsibilities include monitoring the system, reading meters, overseeing maintenance and field staff, and reporting to the board.
F10:
The general manager is the former general manager from Clearlake Oaks County Water District.
F11:
The general manager was hired based primarily on the
F12:
There were no other applicants for the general manager’s position at the time of and subsequent to the recommendation.
F13:
County Counsel’s policy, regarding recommendations, is that all
F14:
The board meets regularly once a month on the fourth Thursday. “Special meetings” are held as needed.
F15:
The board meets to review applications and conduct interviews of managerial position applicants.
F16:
At the time of this oversight, there was one vacancy on the Board.
F17:
Whenever a ratepayer attends a Board meeting to voice a concern or participate in the Board meeting the ratepayer is asked to apply for the Board vacancy.
F18:
Other independent water districts in the County should use the financial strategy of this district as a model.
F19:
The rates for adoption at the time of this oversight were $20 for felines and $30 for canines. Spay/neuter fees are added to the adoption fees.2
F20:
The current euthanasia rates have dropped to 10% on adoptable canines and 10-30% on adoptable felines. This is a significant decrease from just three years ago when these numbers were above 65%.
F21:
Adoptions were increased by lowering fees.
F22:
Feral cats have the highest rate of euthanasia of any animal in the County.
F23:
The department provides a ten-day “protective custody” service. The department is required by law to hold animals for a ten-day period. If the owner has been arrested or has left the animal to “run off” the pet owner is charged for impound and boarding fees. If the pet owner is deceased or hospitalized, the animal is held for next of kin to claim and there are no charges assessed for providing shelter for the animal if the animal is picked up within the ten-day period.
F24:
The department offers no guarantees as to the health of the animals. If an animal contracts a common virus, e.g. “kennel cough”, the adopter is provided with medication and instruction on how to care for the animal.
F25:
The department uses the services of rescue groups and foster homes for animals. Any animal in foster care is still the “property” of Animal 2 Further information on rates, fees, statistics and available animals can be found at: http://www.co.lake.ca.us/Government/Directory/Animal_Care_And_Control.htm Ad Hoc Committee Care and Control. When rescue groups are used, ownership of the animal is transferred.
F26:
Charity events are held by various coalition sponsors to raise money for the facility.
F27:
Though the “walk-in/browser traffic” has decreased, the Director feels this has no ill effects on adoptions. All potential adopters are encouraged not to adopt in the same day as meeting an animal. Instead, the adopters are encouraged to “sleep on it”. This policy has reduced the number of animals returned to the shelter.
F28:
When multiple applications are received for an animal, the animal is placed with the owner that is best suited for the care of the animal.
F29:
All staff members attend the same training as animal control officers.
F30:
The shelter’s highest priority at this time is the completion of “phase 2” of the shelter project. Phase 2 includes a spay/neuter clinic.
F31:
The clinic will further reduce the costs associated with adopting a pet from the facility.
F32:
Funding for the clinic is an on-going process. The money is being raised by donations and various fund-raising efforts. The completion of the clinic is likely three years away.
F33:
During an April 17, 2008 audit of Lake County Animal Care and Control conducted by the Auditor/Controller’s Office, the following issues were present: o The change fund was short $30 and no reason was given for the discrepancy. o The individual in charge of the change fund stated that money was routinely transferred from the donation box to the change fund and vice versa. o The cash drawer had no lock and up to ten people had regular access. If no employees were at the front desk, any person walking in would have access to the unlocked drawer. At the time of the audit, the individual in charge of the cash drawer indicated that the lack of security had been brought to the Department Head’s attention but no measures had been taken to solve the problem. o The petty cash fund was $14.55 short at the time of the audit.
F34:
The department encourages volunteers to help at the shelter. Ad Hoc Committee
Findings & Recommendations
35 findings
F1:
In 2008, the LCNTF reported seizing drugs with a street value of $25,430,587, 16 weapons and $1,991,157 in currency.
F2:
For several months in 2008, the District Attorney’s Office did not have a person working the asset forfeiture and disbursement process. As a result, assets seized were not forfeited and were returned to the alleged violators. According to testimony received, if forfeiture processing is not started within 12 months of seizure, property is returned by default. The County Auditor logged $85,259 of returned assets for 2008. Toward the end of 2008, an Assistant District Attorney was assigned and trained. The Assistant District Attorney began executing the process in 2009.
F3:
The reports received by the committee showed dramatically different values. The committee was not able to determine what the accurate value was. The reports for 2008 listed the money seized as: Agency 2008 Seized assets Comment LCNTF $1,991,156.57 All currency or bank accounts District Attorney $494,290.08 All currency plus some property County Auditor $16,733.00 All currency Sheriff’s Office via DEA $37,059.00 All currency
F4:
During all of 2008, the District Attorney reported only $2,016 of seized assets actually forfeited and disbursed to the agencies, whereas the County Auditor- Controller reported $14,454 of seized assets forfeited and disbursed for the same period. Budget and Finance Committee
F5:
The records provided to the committee by the District Attorney for 2008 do not reconcile. The following table shows the discrepancy: Item 2008 Opening Balance $233,110.74 Plus Assets Seized $494,290.08 Less Assets Forfeited $2,015.66 Ending Balance $637,660.83 Note that these numbers do not add properly. If the opening balance, seized amount and forfeited amount are correct, then the ending balance should be $725,385.166
F6:
Due to the lack of personnel assigned to asset forfeiture in the District Attorney’s office and the resultant lack of action on seized assets, communication between seizing organizations and the District Attorney’s office was minimal at best and antagonistic at worst. According to testimony, morale of the officers on the street deteriorated when seized assets were returned because of inaction by the District Attorney’s Office.
F7:
Seized assets are held as evidence and, depending on the agency doing the prosecution, are held in different funds/accounts. For example, if the Lake County Sheriff’s Office utilizes the Federal Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to seize a large asset, then the DEA holds the assets in Federal accounts until the Federal courts declare the assets forfeited and then the Sheriff’s Office receives a percentage-based disbursement. If the Lakeport PD seizes an asset, then the District Attorney’s Office places the asset in a separate County Treasury account, with the County Auditor-Controller, until the local courts declare the assets forfeited. Once the assets are forfeited, the results are disbursed amongst the participating agencies accordingly.
F8:
Most of the seizures in Lake County were done by the LCNTF and seized cash was deposited and maintained in the separate fund in the County’s treasury. However, in 2008, inaction by the District Attorney’s Office caused the LCNTF to set up a separate bank account to hold seizures. As of the end of 2008, the LCNTF account totaled $474,157 that should have been held in the County’s treasury. Even considering the $85,259 logged as returned by the Auditor, the total is still off by $2,465. Budget and Finance Committee
F9:
The District Attorney did not accept responsibility for seized assets being returned to alleged violators because the forfeiture proceedings had not begun within 12 months.
F10:
The District Attorney was unable to provide evidence of a set of policies and procedures except for two cash handling procedures that appeared to have been generated subsequent to the committee’s request for information on asset forfeiture.
F11:
The City Police Chiefs, the Sheriff7, and the District Attorney did not have a manual or set of policies and procedures readily available as required by law. This is likely because virtually all of the seizures were done by the LCNTF. Personnel, asked about the manual, said that the LCNTF was using the Los Angeles District Attorney’s Manual or referred to the State Code. The committee could not locate a Lake County Manual, although the Sheriff had some forms for officers to use and a list of items subject to forfeiture. If a manual exists with the contents required by law, it is not readily available for use.
F12:
The minutes of the August 15, 2008, LCNTF Executive Board Meeting revealed that even though asset forfeiture and the opening of a separate bank account were listed on the agenda under “old business”, the District Attorney was not in attendance. All other LCNTF Executive Board members and advisors were present.
F13:
The City requires that every check be signed by two authorized individuals as a control over misappropriation of funds. The two signatures required are the City Clerk (or the clerk’s deputy) and the Mayor. The Mayor’s signature was on a rubber stamp that was maintained and used by the City Clerk. As a result, the two-signature control was circumvented. Bypassing/ignoring established internal controls is a very serious matter.
F14:
The Finance Director stated that approximately 20 of the 55 City employees, including Council members, had City credit cards. The Finance Director explained that monthly bills are provided to the cardholder, who reviews the bill, signs the bill, attaches support documentation, and returns the bill to Finance for payment. However, a cursory review by the committee found credit card bills that were not signed by the user and not supported by itemized receipts. For example, the committee found unsupported charges for airfare, lodging, gasoline, and a $191 charge for pizza.
F15:
The City maintains one petty cash fund and two change funds.
F16:
Even though approximately 20 employees had City credit cards, the City still maintained a $300 petty cash fund to reimburse employees for out-of-pocket expenditures.
F17:
The committee observed a cash count of the petty cash fund. Although petty cash was found to be in balance, the committee was told that management does not conduct unannounced cash counts of the fund.
F18:
The City lacked written policies and procedures. For example, some employees were allowed to take City vehicles home if they lived in Lake County, not just the City of Lakeport. The committee found no document that addressed this policy. The committee was advised that there were no written policies or procedures regarding credit cards, petty cash, change funds, time and attendance, overtime, billing, and customer payments.
F19:
With the exception of payroll, CLOCWD paid no bills during the entire month of November 2007.
F20:
Following the former General Manager’s demotion to Bookkeeper, CLOCWD issued a check to the deferred-compensation holding company for considerably more than was contributed by participating employees. In fact, during the period January 2006 through March 2008, it appeared that payments made to the holding company exceeded employee contributions by more than 11 percent. Not only was the committee unable to match employee deductions to transfers, but also unable to determine which employee accounts may have benefited from the overpayments.
F21:
Employee contributions to the deferred compensation program were sometimes not deposited for several pay periods after the money was withheld from the employees’ paychecks. This deprived the employees of a potential gain on investments.
F22:
The former General Manager sold back sick leave contrary to CLOCWD published policy. Specifically, CLOCWD allowed compensation for sick leave hours only when an employee exceeded the established maximum sick leave balance of 200 hours. At the time the former General Manager sold sick leave, there was a balance of eight hours. The committee also learned that on at least three occasions the former General Manager sold vacation leave contrary to district policy.
F23:
There were no documented procedures for the petty cash and change funds and management never performed a “spot audit” of the funds, which is a recommended control procedure. CLOCWD management was unable to locate documentation to identify which amount was correct. The check was cashed for $5,500. Budget and Finance Committee
F24:
The petty cash and change funds were not routinely reconciled. Evidence indicated the amount in the change fund sometimes grew to several times its established amount while at other times the total fell considerably below the established amount.
F25:
Five individuals, who had official knowledge of the petty cash fund and should have known the value of the fund, gave four different amounts in the fund ranging from “I don’t know” to $350. In limited review, the committee found instances where Petty Cash was reimbursed for significantly more than the highest estimated value of $350. For example, on December 7, 2007, Petty Cash was reimbursed for $548. No one employee was actually responsible for the fund. The committee heard testimony that every member of the office staff had access to petty cash, and whoever was available when monies were needed accessed the fund and prepared the paperwork.
F26:
Purchases made with petty cash were not always appropriately or adequately documented. For example, petty cash was used to pay recurring bills, make payroll adjustments, and provide travel advances.
F27:
The committee heard testimony that petty cash was used to make personal loans and to cash checks. In one case, petty cash was used to reimburse a customer for work accomplished. The resulting $125 cash reimbursement (in lieu of a check) was sent to the customer through the U.S. mail system. In addition, amounts paid out were not always supported by an itemized receipt or differed from the amount reflected on the receipt.
F28:
In February 2008, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) placed a $48,891 levy on CLOCWD for delinquent taxes and penalties for the tax period ending December 31, 2006. Board members testified that neither the delinquent taxes nor the levy, were brought to the Board’s attention until March 2008, subsequent to the former General Manager’s termination of employment.
F29:
In November 2007, the IRS assessed penalties and interest totaling more than $1,850 for CLOCWD filing a late return and for 10 delinquent tax deposits made during the tax period ended June 30, 2007. The delinquent tax payments were late from between 3 to 20 days. There was no evidence the Board of Directors was made aware of this problem.
F30:
The former General Manager and a former Auditor/Bookkeeper revised payroll accounts resulting in no federal or state income taxes being withheld from either.
F31:
Between 2001 and 2006, CLOCWD received at least four letters from the Franchise Tax Board identifying delinquent taxes owed by the former General Manager and directing the district to garnish the former General Manager’s Budget and Finance Committee wages.6 Although the directed garnishments totaled more than $15,000, the committee found evidence of only $614 being withheld from the individual’s wages. The committee was unable to determine if district funds were used to pay the remaining indebtedness or if the garnishments were ever satisfied.
F32:
When reviewing and approving monthly payments, the Board of Directors did not verify the proper account classification of expenditures. As a result, the former General Manager caused capital assets to be recorded as construction in progress, thereby causing significant misstatement of depreciation expense and resultant profitability.
F33:
The Auditor/Bookkeeper reported to the former General Manager for an extended period thereby eliminating significant checks and balances.
F34:
A rate increase was implemented in the fall of 2008 causing CLOCWD customers to bear the cost of the district’s financial mismanagement.
F35:
In comparing documentary evidence to sworn testimony by the former General Manager, the committee found the following discrepancies: o According to LLCWW Board Minutes from August 2007, the former General Manager was in attendance from 7:03 p.m. until 10:04 p.m. In reviewing the former General Manager’s timesheets from CLOCWD, the General Manager claimed to be conducting CLOCWD business from 8:00 p.m. through 12:00 a.m. that same night. o The former General Manager testified, under oath, that CLOCWD did not authorize payment for attending LLCWW meetings and that all submitted CLOCWD timesheets accurately reflected time worked for CLOCWD. o According to CLOCWD records, 160 checks with a total value of over $480,000 were returned due to insufficient funds in 2007. o The former General Manager testified, under oath, that there was one instance where a check was returned. o According to card statements, the former General Manager and the auditor/bookkeeper charged personal expenses to the District’s credit cards in excess of $16,000. The General Manager’s average unpaid monthly balance over a twelve-month period was $1,200. o The former General Manager testified, under oath, that the balance was paid in full every month prior to the bill being due. A fifth garnishment letter for more than $14,000 was received after the former General Manager was terminated. Budget and Finance Committee o According to records, the General Manager’s paycheck was garnished on four different occasions. o The former General Manager testified, under oath, that there was one garnishment occasion that was never instituted before she left the employment of CLOCWD. o The committee discovered evidence proving that on at least one occasion, a former director signed a blank check. o The former General Manager testified, under oath, that there was no occasion when anyone signed a blank check. o CLOCWD received FEMA grants for work that was not completed. Review of these grants revealed that at least two bids were submitted to perform the work outlined in the grants. o The former General Manager testified, under oath, that there was no time to receive bids for the work.
Findings & Recommendations
36 findings
F1:
Water originating from Clear Lake goes to Yolo County and continues to the Sacramento River Delta and on to the aqueduct.
F2:
An MOU has been created between the Lake County Watershed Protection District and Yolo County.
F3:
Lake County was the first county in the State to adopt ordinances to restrict the purchase of pharmaceuticals to make illicit drugs.
F4:
Lake County has a structurally balanced budget. Government Services Committee
F5:
Supervisors select a District Planning Commissioner to represent the district. All Planning Commissioners, after being selected, must be approved by a majority of the Board.
F6:
The Mental Health Department is a major concern. The Department’s in financial crisis and the County has transferred funds to repay a debt to the State and to enable the Department to pay vendors.
F7:
Supervisors are continually meeting with the IHSS Program Authority to improve the In Home Support Services (IHSS) program.
F8:
Efforts are being made to purchase and preserve Mt. Konocti, see website.1
F9:
County Counsel provides training to the Board of Supervisors in the Brown Act and ethics.
F10:
New members of the Board receive the majority of training on the job.
F11:
The County is currently well positioned financially, although the local tax base is down. The County is relying on stimulus funds for Special Districts for water and sewer upgrades and bridges and road repairs through the Department of Public Works.
F12:
Lake County budget is in the black because of sound fiscal management.
F13:
Over 50% of tax revenues goes toward larger departments including, The District Attorney’s Office, The Department of Probation, the Sheriff’s Office and the Department of Social Services.
F14:
The pay scale for the Board of Supervisors is one of the lowest in the State.
F15:
There is currently no litigation against any individual member of the Board of Supervisors.
F16:
School districts and Yuba College receive a majority of property tax revenues.
F17:
Money from the General Fund is used to pay the County’s portion of IHSS services. This money is subsequently reimbursed by the State.
F18:
The County received the “Green Leadership Award”, from the State, in Sacramento for the solar power system. The award was in recognition of the County’s solar power installation.
F19:
At least one Board Member is trying to procure funds for the “Montana Meth Project”.2 1 http://www.preservekonocti.org/ Government Services Committee
F20:
Redevelopment funds were used to: o Purchase an island in Clearlake Oaks to remove blighted housing o Cleanup and beautification of the Plaza and Nylander Park o Purchase a red-tagged building in Lucerne that was removed for redevelopment purposes
F21:
Citizens are encouraged to “buy local” to enhance the tax revenues and bolster the local economy.
F22:
The unemployment rate, at the time of this oversight, in Lake County was 10%.
F23:
When District Supervisors visit the Grand Jury individually, jury members obtain more information regarding the issues of each individual District.
F24:
Lake County is self-insured with a $10,000 deductible. Risk Management, a division of the County Counsel’s Office, manages both the public liability and workers compensation program. The workers compensation program is administered by third parties through the California State Association of Counties, (CSAC).
F25:
The County does not use time clocks to record employees’ time. Three of four department heads interviewed during oversights conducted by the committee, indicated a desire for an automated timekeeping system.
F26:
A Golf Course Committee was established in regards to the proposed development that included a Boeger Development representative, two council members, the City Attorney and a consultant. Another city council member was an alternate.
F27:
At one council meeting a member of the public asked who was on the Golf Course Committee. At that time, no answer was given and no one acknowledged being on the committee. The member of the public was simply told that the committee no longer existed.
F28:
At the next council meeting, two members of the council and the City Attorney publicly acknowledged being on the Golf Course Committee.
F29:
No minutes were kept for meetings of the Golf Course Committee. The Grand Jury received accusations that three council members actually served on the Golf Course Committee and because there were no minutes, these accusations could not be validated or invalidated.
F30:
One council member is currently serving a fourth consecutive term and another is serving a sixth.
F31:
At a council meeting attended by committee members, the two longest serving council members sat back in their chairs and looked away when an Upper Lake citizen was addressing the City Council.
F32:
When the Upper Lake citizen asked the City Council members “Who will pay for the district land not owned by the City”, one of the longest Government Services Committee serving council members inappropriately responded, “The people of Upper Lake.”
F33:
The citizens of Lakeport can adopt an amendment to implement term limits.
F34:
Some of the council members take computer ethics courses.
F35:
An offer was made to record/broadcast video of the City Council Meetings. Streaming video broadcasts on the City’s website can be done at minimal cost.
F36:
The citizens of Lakeport deserve the opportunity to watch broadcasts of the City Council meetings from home.
Findings & Recommendations
24 findings
F1:
Referrals for APS are generally victims of neglect, particularly self- neglect or the inability to care for one’s self. Numerous referrals are made annually that do not include a “dependent adult”.
F2:
Seniors and all Social Security recipients who are victims of abuse or neglect are eligible for APS Services.
F3:
APS Clients have the option to reject services. APS workers cannot force an individual to accept services. On occasions when an APS worker determines that services are needed, all attempts are made to build a relationship of trust and encourage individuals to accept services.
F4:
Meals On Wheels workers often provide an “extra set of eyes” in determining an elderly or disabled individual’s needs.
F5:
Under the most critical circumstances, individuals can be forced into institutions. When an individual is force-institutionalized, APS must petition the courts for conservatorship.
F6:
In the month of December 2008, there were 35 referrals. Health and Social Services Committee
F7:
APS Workers have ten days to respond to referrals unless the situation is acute. During the ten-day period, APS workers make contact and check the prior history of the referred individual. Under acute circumstances, law enforcement officials accompany APS workers to the home.
F8:
In Home Support Services (IHSS) 1, workers are utilized if a client accepts assistance.
F9:
The APS Management System was recently converted to an automated system.
F10:
The OTJ program has funding for 21 temporary full-time positions. The program is designed to train qualified individuals in an effort to obtain a permanent full-time position with the County. Applicants are pre-screened and only qualified applicants are assigned to available positions. Of the individuals that have participated in this program since its inception, approximately 70% have gone on to full-time permanent positions in the County.
F11:
The Food Stamp Program enables eligible recipients to purchase nutritional food. Allotments are determined quarterly, based on individual or family income.
F12:
As of December 2008, there were 4000 local recipients in the Food Stamp Program, including the 1200 CalWORKS participants.
F13:
The Food Stamp Program infuses approximately $900,000 in revenue to the local economy monthly.
F14:
An Electronic Benefits Transfer (EBT) card is used to purchase food items and ensures that only permissible items are purchased. The EBT card can also be used by CALWorks participants for other products. The card electronically tracks the amounts available in each account.
F15:
Store participation in Food Stamp Program is optional and stores can choose whether to accept or reject the program. However, a majority of the stores in the County participate in the program.
F16:
Individuals enrolled in the CalWORKs Program are automatically eligible for the Food Stamp Program.
F17:
As of December 2008, 6700 local residents were in enrolled in the Medi-Cal Program, an increase of 10% from December 2007, 1200 of which are CalWORKS participants. Health and Social Services Committee
F18:
Medi-Cal is California’s version of the Federal Program, Medicaid.
F19:
Medi-Cal provides bill payments for medical services and prescriptions to eligible participants. Medi-Cal payments are paid by the State.
F20:
Two large clinics in the county accept Medi-Cal.
F21:
The County Medical Services Program (CMSP) provides healthcare services for people who do not qualify for Medi-Cal. Indigent males comprise most of the clients. Last year, there were 656 cases. As of December 2008, the number of cases has increased to 824. The number of cases continues to rise annually.
F22:
The General Relief Program is 100% funded by the County of Lake. Only indigent adults are eligible for this program. The program provides housing payments that are issued directly to the property owner, vouchers for food, and an allowance for personal and household products.
F23:
No cash is paid to recipients of General Relief and all “loans”, no money is actually given directly to the recipient, made to recipients must be paid back. The General Relief Program “loan” is paid back first when a participant has applied for, and eventually receives, Social Security Benefits.
F24:
The General Relief Program is small with fourteen people enrolled as of December 2008.
Findings & Recommendations
21 findings
F1:
At board meetings held on July 16 and August 20 and a public hearing held on August 16, 2008 members of the committee observed the following: o Public comment, at board meetings, was often unlimited and out of control. o Unruly audience members influenced meetings and resulted in a board member leaving the meeting in disgust. o The board member that walked out of the public hearing on rate increases in August, attended and voted at the next meeting. Although this is a lawful act, the unexcused exiting of a board meeting is irresponsible and disrespectful to the citizens that voted this person to the board. o At a public hearing, the board initially required that the public write any questions or comments on a piece of paper and place the paper into a bowl. When the board was informed that this was a Brown Act violation, the public was permitted to speak.
F2:
The CLOCWD Board was not diligent in oversight and review at meetings. Examples of the board’s improper review of documentation include: o When reviewing the prior month’s payroll, the board did not review overtime expenditures. o The General Manager was paid overtime. This was a direct violation of the CLOCWD Personnel Manual Article 2.0, adopted July19, 2006, which specifies that overtime be not permitted for the General Manager. o When reviewing accounts payable, the board did not verify the proper account classifications for expenses. o The board often did not review employee complaints.
F3:
In a handout for the July 16, 2008 board meeting, agenda item #7 was to approve a list of minutes dating back to October 17, 2007. The oldest minutes were brought to the board for approval at the July 16, 150 Planning and Public Works Committee 2008 board meeting, even though some members of the board were not on the board in October 2007. The minutes were not approved.
F4:
The district was not audited in 2005/2006, 2006/2007, and 2007/2008. The handout for the July 16, 2008 meeting included agenda item 8.4 to approve a proposal to hire an auditor. Lack of timely audits and lack of visibility of the district’s financial situation is a violation of law.3 A single recommended proposal for doing the audits for $28,500 with an option for one year of $9,000 was presented to the board. The District policy is that any expense over $25,000 requires competitive bids and no other bids were obtained. The proposal should not have been presented to the board without competitive bids.
F5:
Without audits to verify the current financial status, the board seems to have minimized rate increases even though costs have continued to increase.
F6:
A former General Manager was terminated, “without cause”, and received a large severance. The investigation uncovered a four-month delay in notifying the board of an Internal Revenue Service (IRS) lien.
F7:
The former General Manager was notified in November 2007, that the IRS had attached a lien on unpaid withholding. The former board claimed not to have become aware of the lien until March 2008.
F8:
In September 2008, following the resignation of three board members, the district chose a replacement board member. Immediately upon joining the board, the new member became the Board President. The committee is concerned that the new Board President may assume control over the board rather than provide leadership.
F9:
In 2006, the current General Manager, who served as water manager at the time, quit and walked off the job. At the July 16, 2008, board meeting the same General Manager threatened to quit once again. The “threats” to quit by an administrator of the district is cause for concern.
F10:
Institute a method where all unpaid bills such as IRS withholding and legal fees, are detailed and reviewed by the board on a monthly basis.
F11:
Adjust the level of where competitive bidding is required from $25,000 to $10,000.
F12:
Perform actions to reduce costs including wage and hiring freezes, reducing health benefits, and reducing overtime to ensure competitive rates while minimizing costs.
F13:
Require a monthly report on grant status, expenditures, and accomplishments.
F14:
Conduct comparison studies on rate structures of other water companies of comparable size in the area. Planning and Public Works Committee
F15:
Ensure that at least one board member (rotating) is designated to be available for CLOCWD emergencies.
F16:
Prepare and maintain a job description and a responsibility checklist for board member positions. Ensure that board members understand these items.
F17:
Consider implementing Roberts Rules of Order as a model for conducting Board Meetings.
F18:
There are four levels that a complaint goes through in trying to obtain resolution: o Level I – the property owner is given 15 – 30 days to rectify the situation. o Level II – Notice of Nuisance – the address is publicized and the owner has 30 days to rectify the situation. o Level III – Notice to Abate Nuisance – the case is placed on the Board of Supervisors agenda. o Level IV – Order to Abate Nuisance – the county obtains bids and contracts for the abatement.
F19:
Contractors, illegally using property to store equipment in non- commercially zoned areas, have created unsightly situations. The number of vehicles that can be stored on R1-zoned property is unclear.
F20:
Illegal dumping is a continuing problem.
F21:
The Code Enforcement Division has no authority over code violations on tribal lands.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
33 findings
F1:
One cell was damaged by a detainee and was not in service.
F2:
A mobile fingerprint station had a loose door, hanging by one of two hinges.
F3:
The jail was not designed to house overnight prisoners.
F4:
Some arrestees are transported directly to the Hill Road Correctional Facility operated by the Sheriff’s Office.
F5:
The actual booking process is completed at the Hill Road Correctional Facility.
F6:
An arrestee may be detained for several hours, if necessary, to accommodate interviews by investigative personnel.
F7:
If an arrestee is detained for six or more hours, a meal is provided.
F8:
Persons arrested for public intoxication are detained until detoxification is complete, or Penal Code 849(b) (arrest is only a detention, not criminal prosecution).
F9:
A screening process is in place to identify any special needs of the arrestee. Part of the screening process is to ensure rival gang members are separated for safety.
F10:
Arrestees in need of medical attention are taken to local hospitals.
F11:
In the event of an emergency, medical first responders are called.
F12:
An emergency evacuation was written and a printed diagram showing escape routes was posted in a convenient location.
F13:
The jail consists of five separate cells; one is large enough to hold five individuals.
F14:
Two of the cells have resilient floors to protect intoxicated persons.
F15:
Police personnel physically check on all detainees every thirty minutes.
F16:
The dispatch office monitors all cells on cameras. They can also monitor sound.
F17:
No mental health questions appear on the screening intake form.
F18:
Disciplinary meals, loss of commissary privileges, and similar reprimands are used to deter repeated bad behavior.
F19:
Medical staff approves special medical diets.
F20:
Kitchen personnel consult with a nutritionist and have a computer program that compiles menus, determines dietary needs, and orders supplies. Public Safety Committee
F21:
Juvenile Hall meals are prepared at the facility.
F22:
The facility contracts with the California Forensic Medical Group (CFMG) for health care.
F23:
CFMG supplies a mental health nurse, and a physician’s assistant. There is also a facility physician and a nurse available, as needed, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
F24:
The facility has a coordinator who manages the volunteer program.
F25:
Lake County Mental Health services are utilized in the event that an inmate has severe mental health issues.
F26:
Inmates have access to collect calls, which are monitored.
F27:
Inmates are entitled to two visits per week.
F28:
Higher security inmates are separated from visitors by a thick pane of glass. Conversations between high security inmates and visitors are accomplished with the use of telephones.
F29:
There is administrative segregation for inmates with special needs.
F30:
There are no scheduled fire drills.
F31:
The facility had one suicide by hanging a year ago.
F32:
One inmate escaped last year while working at the neighboring Animal Control Facility.
F33:
The facility has no organizational chart that clearly defines the chain- of-command.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
20 findings
F1:
County Counsel and Deputy County Counsels maintain active membership in the State Bar of California. In doing so, these individuals must remain apprised of updates and changes in: o Professional ethics Public Services Committee o The principals and applications of civil law o Trial procedures and rules of evidence o Principles and precedents
F2:
The County Counsel is responsible for the administration and direction of staff engaged in representing the County in civil actions, rendering legal opinions, and performing other legal services.
F3:
The County Counsels’ Office has no volunteer employees because of the confidentially of matters conducted in the office.
F4:
According to the County Counsel, the responsibilities are “daunting at times, but challenging and rewarding.”
F5:
Recently, the County Counsel’s Office has been actively involved in the acquisition of Mt. Konocti.
F6:
The Office assisted in drafting an Inspection Fee Ordinance in cooperation with the Quagga Task Force. The ordinance will be subject to modification and adjustment as the Quagga/Zebra Mussel Inspection Program is refined.
F7:
The Office works in conjunction with all departments as to matters of legal implication.
F8:
The Office works with the Community Development Department in matters relating to cellular towers, building violations and nuisance abatements.
F9:
The Office works in conjunction with Special Districts in a variety of matters relating to the improvement of water and sewer systems.
F10:
The Office provides bi-annual AB 1234 Ethics Training for all required participants.
F11:
The Office carries on the tradition of the former County Counsel and conducts a Special Districts Seminar. The seminar provides legal requirements of special districts including potential liability issues. These seminars are conducted bi-annually.
F12:
The Office provides training to all County departments in relation to employment issues.
F13:
Upon Request, the Office provides Brown Act training to various districts and Board-appointed committees.
F14:
The Office manages the County’s risk Management Program, including all pubic liability and workers’ compensation cases. The workers’ compensation program is administered by third parties through the California State Association of Counties, (CSAC).
F15:
The Office is also involved in Labor Relations with County bargaining units. Public Services Committee
F16:
A school district’s primary responsibility is the welfare of the entire student body. The faculty must take necessary measures to ensure that children are not endangered.
F17:
The parent took the student out of a local school district and placed the student in a school district in another county.
F18:
In the 2008/2009 school year, the student attended three different school districts, one in Lake County and two in another county.
F19:
Section 504 coordinators do not have meetings with coordinators from other school districts within the County.
F20:
The complainant is content with the child’s current school district and the child has shown improvement with counseling on medication referrals.