Gran Jurado del Condado de Mendocino
2018-2019
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
7 hallazgos
F1:
Mendocino County does not have a dedicated CSU, CRT or PHF at this time.
F2:
The Committee meets for two hours each month.
F3:
The Committee has identified three potential sites for the CSU, CRT and PHF; however, no site has been chosen by the BOS.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (4)
R1:
the Committee form two ad hoc committees, one focusing on site location and construction and the other on operations and treatment,
R2:
the Committee can address policies, procedures and job descriptions during construction,
R3:
the BOS prepare and publicize a plan with goals and timelines for the completion of the CSU, CRT and PHF, e.g. Mendocino County website and local news media,
R4:
the BOS’ priority should be planning and construction of the three facilities. RESPONSES Pursuant to Penal Code §933.05, responses are required from the following individual(s): From the following governing bodies:
• Board of Supervisors (F1-F7 and R1-R4) The governing bodies indicated above should be aware that the comment or response of the governing body must be conducted subject to the notice, agenda and open meeting requirements of the Brown Act. 5
F4:
All recommendations by the Committee must be approved by the BOS.
F5:
The Committee recommended, and the BOS approved, hiring a project manager.
F6:
Two additional MOPS were recommended by the Committee.
F7:
The eleven-member committee can be unwieldy with its variety of perspectives, opinions and expertise.
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
14 hallazgos
F1:
The lawsuit settlement between the City and District left unresolved issues resulting in current arbitration, and continued duplication of services and costs.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1:
the City and District work together to find a way to manage the overall sewer system as a single entity equitably and efficiently for all ratepayers,
F2:
There is only one sewage collection and treatment system which serves both the City and District.
F3:
The City and District being jointly responsible for the single sanitation system has led to significant needless expense.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1:
the City and District work together to find a way to manage the overall sewer system as a single entity equitably and efficiently for all ratepayers,
F4:
Due to limited staffing and high turnover, the District has not demonstrated the capability to responsibly manage its business and financial affairs. Failure to provide audited financial reports for five years (2014-2018) further demonstrates this lack of capability.
F5:
In the absence of staffing continuity with technical and financial expertise, the District has used expensive attorneys and consultants to conduct day-to-day business and negotiations with the City. 6
F6:
The District claims the funds paid to them by the City are for damages. This is misleading. Of the $16,415,296 paid, $11,431,986 were from existing District reserves held by the City on the District’s behalf.
F7:
To avoid further legal expense, the City agreed to pay the District $4,984,310 over five years. This amount is substantially less than the legal costs of the lawsuit to the District. The difference will be paid by the District’s ratepayers.
F8:
The City’s settlement and legal expenses will be borne by the City’s ratepayers.
F9:
The City no longer holds any of the District’s reserves.
F10:
The District’s claim that it can save over $1.5 million per year by assuming responsibility for the billing, maintenance and sewage treatment for its ratepayers is not supported by any documentation.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3:
the District provide specific details to ratepayers for its claims that it can save over $1.5 million per year by assuming billing, maintenance and sewage treatment responsibilities with a detailed feasibility and cost analysis, 7
F11:
Future changes allowed in the settlement could trigger redundant expenses to be borne by all ratepayers. These include detachment of the overlap areas by the City and the District’s assumption of their billing, maintenance, and sewage treatment.
F12:
The MOU/JPA proposed by the City is intended to provide a cost effective solution to the ongoing disputes between the City and the District by operating as a single system with the same rate structure applying to all customers.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2:
the District enter into negotiations with the City regarding the proposed MOU/JPA,
F13:
The District has violated the intent of the Brown Act which has reduced transparency for District ratepayers.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R4:
the District Board must act in accordance with the Brown Act which promotes transparency and public participation.
F14:
The $23 million combined legal costs and lost opportunities to refinance the bond will be borne by the City and District ratepayers.
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
6 hallazgos
F1:
Innovations (creative teaching methodologies which benefit students) at any school are neither utilized nor shared between charter and district schools.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1:
the MCOE should facilitate structured discussions and interactions between district and charter schools for the benefit of all students, teachers and parents, to include training days for all credentialed and teaching personnel to improve teaching methodologies,
F2:
Since district schools operate under more restrictive rules and regulations, it is difficult for the district schools to offer some of the same options or programs as the charter schools.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2:
schools should offer parents and guardians training on the tools available to evaluate and compare schools within the districts, e.g., SARC and API. Offering this allows the students to enroll in the school which is best aligned with their needs,
F3:
The district schools are changing their curricula to attract students and increase their ADA funding.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3:
post a link to the school, district and state SARC and API scores on the school’s website, 5
F4:
Where existing, the assigned oversight person between the district and the charter schools has not looked for opportunities to broaden the success of the district schools. Currently, the GJ found no evidence of collaborative processes between the charter and district schools.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R4:
build a space on the MCOE website for teachers at any school in Mendocino County to publish tips and suggestions to improve the classroom experience, e.g., behavior and teaching methodologies.
F5:
Many parents are not aware of the availability, or even the existence, of SARC, API, and other scores and reports to determine the best educational experience for their students. Parents have traditionally not been educated in the availability of these tools.
F6:
The GJ has found in Mendocino County the mission of charter schools as originally envisioned has not been fulfilled.
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
9 hallazgos
F1:
There is no published long term county-wide strategic planning by the BOS, e.g., fire response, homelessness, cannabis, housing and economic development.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1:
strategic goals should be formulated by the BOS each year, prioritized and posted on the BOS page of the County website,
F2:
There is no written succession plan for the CEO of Mendocino County.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2:
develop a succession plan for the CEO position,
F3:
The BOS does not adequately track directives given to the CEO. The current list of directives has inadequate status and descriptors and there are no timelines or milestones for completion.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3:
determine whether an Assistant CEO position is necessary. If the position is not going to be filled, it should be unfunded,
F4:
The CEO Report does not include substantive department updates, e.g. new jail addition, Sheriff overtime, BOS directive status, departmental statistics and major road project status.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R4:
the BOS needs to include expectations for completion at the time directives are given to the CEO,
F5:
The Consent Agenda has often included controversial items, e.g. salary increases and cost over runs.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R5:
directive status should include goal, proposed action, funding status and primary agency,
F6:
In the BOS minutes, the name of the public speaker is listed but not a description of the issue raised.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R6:
the BOS meeting agenda should include directives and status updates, 4
F7:
There are no scheduled proactive meetings with residents of individual districts to speak with their Supervisor.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R7:
improve the CEO Report to include information on current major projects, tracking, expenditures and strategic goals,
F8:
The GJ could not find a complaint or issue form on the Mendocino County website.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R8:
the Consent Agenda should not include controversial items, e.g., salary adjustments or cost Overruns,
F9:
There is no procedural requirement for any Supervisor to respond to a constituent complaint or issue.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R9:
the BOS minutes should include the name of the speaker and the issue raised during public expression,
Recomendaciones adicionales
3
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R10:
publicized, regularly scheduled district town hall meetings should be held by each Supervisor,
R11:
the BOS page of the County website should contain an embedded complaint/issue form that requires sender contact information sent directly to the individual supervisor,
R12:
the BOS should draft and publish a policy for responding to constituent complaints and issues. The policy should include an expectation of timely response by the Supervisor. RESPONSES Pursuant to Penal Code §933 responses are required within 60 days from the following individuals from the following governing bodies:
• Board of Supervisors (F1-F3,F5-F9 and R1,R2,R4-6,R8-R12) Pursuant to Penal Code 933.05, responses are required within 90 days from the following individuals from the following governing bodies:
• Chief Executive Officer (F2-F5,F8 and R2,R3,R5,R7-R9,R11) The governing bodies indicated above should be aware that the comment or response of the governing body must be conducted subject to the notice, agenda and open meeting requirements of the Brown Act.