Madera County Grand Jury

2012-2013

11 reports

Findings & Recommendations 10 findings
F1: The Purchasing Policy and Procedures Manual has not been updated to reflect the requirements of the on-line purchasing system.
F2: Purchasing utilizes State Procurement Contracts, when available, to take maximum advantage of pricing.
F3: The Request for Proposal (RFP) is used for the purchase of services and goods for most departments.
F4: The electronic requisition system has streamlined a high volume paper system into an on-line process maintaining all approvals, checks and balances.
F5: Training on report writing to extract information from the system has been inadequate.
F6: There is no cost analysis to determine the cost of processing a purchase order.
F7: There is no system for reimbursement of small purchases made outside of blanket purchase orders.
F8: Non-management employees are putting in voluntary unpaid time in order to insure completion of the work requirements.
F9: Failure to include the Code of Ethics/Conflict of Interest Declaration form in the RFP package creates a potential conflict with the State Code preventing employees from contracting with the county.
F10: Transfer of employees from purchasing to other units negatively affected the ability to process the purchasing work-load.
Findings & Recommendations 12 findings
F1: PCFs are essential to the overall fire services to the county.
F2: The BoS is not overseeing the on-going application of ordinances and resolutions already in effect pertaining to the MCFD.
F3: The Madera County Fire Chief is not following the policies set in Resolution No: 88-187 and other directives and ordinances adopted by the BoS.
F4: The proposed new Policy and Procedures Manual being prepared by Cal Fire has not yet been vetted by PCFs.
F5: Some PCF fire companies do not have or follow the approved bylaws which outline their basic authority, responsibilities of the fire company and its officers and members.
F6: PCF fire companies need to have nonprofit status as defined in IRS Rule 501(c) to control and support their fund raising activities.
F7: The total number of PCFs throughout the county has significantly decreased over the past few years. The 10 “PCF only” staffed fire stations, which have an authorized allocation of 200, currently have approximately 44 active PCFs.
F8: Recruitment and retention of PCFs has become more challenging due to: • increased training requirements • increased time commitments to the fire service • increased commitments to family and jobs • the changing demographics of rural communities
F9: The required basic training scheduled out of area for PCFs causes a time and financial hardship.
F10: The change of job classification for PCFs to “Extra Help” has caused the reduction in PCF benefits and rights which conflict with policies, ordinances and resolutions adopted by the BoS.
F11: A contentious work environment for PCFs regarding numerous forms of discrimination exists.
F12: Neither the BoS nor the Fire Chief has sought funding for PCF’s through the SAFER or other programs/grants.
Findings & Recommendations 6 findings
F1: LAFCO is insufficiently staffed to conduct comprehensive in-house studies (MSRs) of the Madera Ranchos Community.
F2: There is no evidence of LAFCO follow up on some recommendations of MSRs and specifically the Sierra Foothills Public Utility District.
F3: Madera County LAFCO’s practice of including Road Maintenance Districts in their MSRs is helpful in presenting a comprehensive view of public services in the studied districts.
F4: BoS needs LAFCO input to make well-informed decisions concerning the special districts the BoS oversees.
F5: LAFCO Commissioners are not using, or show interest in using, available information provided to make informed decisions.
F6: LAFCO Commissioners’ lack of a sense of duty and preparation results in basing their decisions strictly on the Executive Officer’s recommendations.
Findings & Recommendations 7 findings
F1: The MCPD has two funded, unfilled adult probation officer positions causing an increased caseload.
F2: MCPD has reduced the cost of supervising probationers by contracting with private business.
F3: The Juvenile Detention Facility has two funded, unfilled positions to monitor juveniles in custody.
F4: The Juvenile Detention Facility administrative segregation unit (isolation) is not utilized due to lack of staffing.
F5: An in-house Deputy District Attorney would improve the efficiency of processing reports and cases with the Juvenile courts.
F6: The Juvenile Boot Camp Program has been moved into the detention facility limiting the capacity to house juvenile offenders.
F7: The MCPD is a well-managed department providing excellent service to the community.
Findings & Recommendations 7 findings
F1: The organization and staffing of the Eligibility Unit is inadequate, both in number of staff and organizational structure. a. The new "Round Robin" process was implemented in early October and will require additional time to determine its ultimate success. b. The intake process has been distributed to all EWs with the implementation of the "Round Robin", thus the specialized skills and knowledge including fact gathering and personal observations for determining eligibility, so crucial during intake, has been diminished. c. The intake process for CalFRESH will be less effective when the interview process is conducted over the telephone and may increase the potential for fraud. d. Although several highly-skilled and experienced EWs are able to cope with the caseload of approximately 450 cases per worker, many are unable to perform at this level. e. There is no central authority for processing all IEVS reports and no repercussions to EWs for failure to process these tasks in the required time.
F2: High turnover of EWs is expensive and disruptive. a. The high rate of turnover in the Eligibility Worker Unit is a long-time problem, yet no apparent action to change the situation is in evidence. b. Wages for EWs are non-competitive with neighboring counties, contributing to the exceedingly high turnover rate. c. The morale of the EW workforce is lower than that of the other DSS employees and can be attributed to lack of top management involvement and support, lack of internal promotional opportunities, workload, low pay, inadequate and unsafe working conditions.
F3: The automated C-IV Case Management and IEVS reporting systems are effective and efficient; however, they are sophisticated and complex systems requiring a lengthy training period. a. The required processing of IEVS reports by the EWs is not being uniformly accomplished in accordance with State and Federal regulations. Many EWs do not process their respective IVES reports in a timely basis and some reports are not processed at all. b. Many potential CalWORKS O/Ps and CalFRESH O/Is (meaning that the recipient may be receiving benefits for which he/she is not entitled) are reported via the IEVS reports, but are not diligently addressed by the EWs. c. The IEVS report processing, which is the basis for O/P and O/I discovery, are viewed as non-priority issues by many EWs, their supervisors and DSS Management. d. The Director and senior management are not effectively communicating the importance of processing O/Ps and O/Is to the EWs and the Eligibility Unit as a whole.
F4: The Collections Unit is a competent and well-organized unit, however it is required to operate with out-dated policies and lack of attention and priority from top management. a. The outstanding balance of uncollectible O/Ps of CalWORKS grants is currently $2.8 million and has steadily increased each year. b. The outstanding balance of uncollectible O/Is of CalFRESH food stamps is currently $1.5 million and has steadily increased each year. c. The process of requesting a Board Resolution to write off uncollectible amounts for cases ten or more years in arrears, although required for accounting purposes, does not provide current information to the Board of Supervisors (BoS) for good management decisions. d. Under the current reporting system the BoS is neither completely informed nor aware of the scope and growth of current outstanding balances of O/Ps and O/Is. e. The practice of allowing the recipient to set the monthly repayment amount is a poor business practice and unreasonable.
F5: Problems associated with the Eligibility Unit have existed for the past decade. They have been formally documented but are not resolved. a. There is a documented response to the 2009 State Audit Report from the Director of DSS identifying corrective action. b. There has been no improvement or change in the operation of DSS.
F6: Existing office space, parking, safety and security for the main Madera locations are both inefficient and inadequate for the current operation and for future growth.
F7: The Grand Jury investigation confirms the allegations of the complaint to be true and accurate.
Findings & Recommendations 14 findings
F1: The agency is unable to complete all required inspections due to staffing shortages and duplicate processes.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: Computer tablets be purchased for the EH Team prior to the June 30, 2013 funding deadline.
F2: Missed inspections jeopardize the health and safety of the public at large.
F3: Each inspection observed was professionally accomplished following strict guidelines.
F4: The use of computer tablets will increase the number of inspections completed.
F5: EH Department was awarded a California Environmental Reporting System one-time grant for the procurement of computer tablets. The State agency did not appropriate the funds last fiscal year. Distribution has been extended to June 30, 2013.
F6: Outstanding leadership and teamwork was found in the EH Department resulting in the most effective use of available resources and great employee morale. Inspectors were helpful and professional in their dealings with the public.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3: The EH department be recognized and commended for its outstanding leadership and management. Respondents: Board of Supervisors 200 West Fourth Street Madera, CA 93637 Director, EH Department 2037 West Cleveland Avenue Madera, CA 93637 Director, IT Department 200 West Fourth Street Madera, CA 93637 Informational: Planning Director 2037 West Cleveland Avenue Madera, CA 93637
F7: Each employee is required to be certified by the State and have a degree in Environmental Health Sciences or be enrolled in the intern program.
F8: Madera County previously had a high turnover of EH employees.
F9: All food service providers must be inspected annually. This includes restaurants, food trucks, fair vendors, etc.
F10: Inspectors must hand write the results during the course of their inspections. After returning to their office, inspectors must manually enter this information into a State database.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: Computer tablets be purchased for the EH Team prior to the June 30, 2013 funding deadline.
F11: Computer tablets to be used during onsite inspections are being researched by the Information Technology (IT) Department with input from EH.
F12: Each food service provider must pay an annual fee to receive their operating permit.
F13: New food service establishment plans for kitchen equipment and layout must be approved by EH. Replacement equipment for current establishments must also be approved.
F14: Madera County has no restaurant/market grading system. FINDINGS 1. The agency is unable to complete all required inspections due to staffing shortages and duplicate processes.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: The Board of Supervisors approve the implementation of EH’s recommended restaurant grading system.
Findings & Recommendations 10 findings
F1: The Madera County Administrative Officer: a. at times uses intimidation and threats to obtain compliance with his directions; b. demonstrates a need to improve leadership skills required by his position; c. has negatively affected the morale and motivation of some employees with whom he interfaces; d. shows favoritism in dealing with department heads and employees; e. provided inaccurate and incomplete information to the BoS regarding the delay of filing the 2011 Single Audit; f. needs to promote cooperation between finance and administrative departments; g. publicly demonstrated animosity and a lack of professionalism toward the Treasurer-Tax Collector and Clerk-Recorder; h. has not been following Board direction to keep Treasurer-Tax Collector informed of the Hemming Morse audit details (status, schedule and scope of work).
F2: The Madera County appointed Auditor-Controller: a. is sufficiently staffed to accomplish the work of the department; b. made some improvements in the operation of the department; c. needs to become less autocratic and communicate more effectively with peers; d. made procedural changes without notice to affected departments; e. mislead the BoS by stating that the delay in filing the Single Audit was due to the Cash Account Balance issue in the Treasurer's Department, when in fact, there were other unrelated accounting issues in the Auditor’s office that delayed the audit; f. has taken no action to incorporate the cash accounting process with the County general ledger.
F3: The Madera County Treasurer-Tax Collector: a. was inaccurately and unfairly blamed for delaying the Single Audit by the CAO and Auditor-Controller; b. maintains the County’s cash accounts using a standard system employed by many other counties; c. does not participate as a member of the County finance and administrative team due to the open hostility of the CAO; d. has not exercised best practices in the cash handling procedures, exposing the office to liability, criticism and suspicion.
F4: The Madera County Board of Supervisors (BoS): a. was not adequately informed nor motivated to resolve the outside audits (Single Audit) issues which resulted in loss of revenue in excess of three million dollars; b. failed to oversee corrective action to outside audits (Single Audit) findings; c. does not recognize the potential liability resulting from the CAO's actions as well as the loss of productivity due to the contentious work environment fostered by the CAO; d. avoids responsibility by allowing the CAO to exceed his authority; e. provides minimal oversight of the financial and administrative County functions.
F5: The Auditor-Controller expand personal knowledge of County Government organizational and fiscal practices.
F6: As a best practice, the Treasurer-Tax Collector relinquish all check writing authority to the Auditor-Controller.
F7: The Treasurer-Tax Collector actively participate in the finance and administrative management team.
F8: The BoS direct the Auditor-Controller brief them on details of 2009 and 2010 outside audit findings and plans to take corrective action. Then, direct regular progress reports.
F9: The BoS focus its attention on resolving the recurring accounting issues related to the timely completion of the Single Audit and provide all necessary resources to facilitate a resolution.
F10: The BoS, the CAO, the Auditor-Controller and the Treasurer-Tax Collector strive to develop an effective working relationship to better serve the taxpayers of Madera County. Respondents: Madera County Board of Supervisors 200 West 4th Street Madera, CA 93637 Madera County Administrator Office 200 West 4th Street Madera, CA 93637 Madera County Auditor-Controller 200 West 4th Street Madera, CA 93637 Madera County Treasurer-Tax Collector 200 West 4th Street Madera, CA 93637
Findings & Recommendations 6 findings
F1: The Director of Madera County Department of Corrections has no voting privileges on CCP matters directly affecting his department.
F2: The jail population is within the current design capacity. The completion of the new addition will increase the capacity of the jail.
F3: The jail provides medical services, religious observances, GED training, and soon to include Life Skills and Work Force programs.
F4: Jail security, officer and inmate safety would be improved by additional correctional officer staffing and by the elimination of furloughs.
F5: Inmates have access to a formal grievance procedure which addresses their concerns and complaints.
F6: Internal crime reports not prosecuted by the District Attorney’s office, creates a safety issue for officers and inmates.
Findings & Recommendations 3 findings
F1: A MOU provides the guidelines which assist the state penal institutions in referring serious crimes committed in the institution to the District Attorney’s office for prosecution.
F2: There is a lack of liaison and communication (feedback) between the District Attorney’s Office and the County Jail.
F3: The County Jail might not refer a crime to the District Attorney’s Office because they perceive the DA’s Office will not prosecute the case.
Findings & Recommendations 3 findings
F1: Inmates from VSWP will be transferred to CCWF when VSWP is converted to a male prison. The increase in the CCWF population will create housing problems.
F2: Training programs at VSWP will have to be restructured to accommodate the conversion to male inmates.
F3: Staff and inmates at both prisons raised over $153,000 from 2011 to September 2012 through their volunteer efforts along with cooperating vendors. The money was donated to local schools, charities and victim programs.
Findings & Recommendations 7 findings
F1: There were no discrepancies between the RFP and the subsequent contract for security services.
F2: The County Administrative Office (CAO) provided a letter of response to the complainant’s protest letter addressing each of the issues presented in the protest letter.
F3: The CAO responded to the complainant’s protest letter in detail even though the protest was not submitted in a timely manner and was sent in six (6) days late.
F4: The scope of work sent with the RFP specifically states “All patrol services shall be conducted on foot (no vehicle or bicycle patrols.) **This request for bids contemplates that Contractor will not utilize patrol vehicles or firearms due to the County’s desire to minimize costs associated with this service. However, if Contractor wishes to provide an enhanced level of service to include patrol vehicles and/or armed guards, it may do so at its own expense.”
F5: The Board of Supervisors awarded the security contract to the lowest bidder.
F6: The current provider of security was providing 24 hour service per the contract. The Grand Jury reviewed a report of guard activity covering several months. The activity report is electronically generated and shows the security entering the various areas that are covered in the contract over a 24-hour period. The complainant was not able to provide any evidence that security was servicing other accounts.
F7: Invoicing is being submitted appropriately according to the contract. The Grand Jury reviewed security invoices covering several months. The contractor bills two (2) times monthly for 24 hour service for the 1st through the 15th and the 16th through the end of the month. Hours billed are equal to 24 hour services. Grand Jury did not find any evidence to support the claim of twelve (12) hour service and the complainant was unable to provide any evidence.