Mono County Grand Jury
2002-2003
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
Committee members attended numerous meetings of the Boord of Supervisors. They reported that meetings were lengthy at times, but allowed for the public to comment to ~ fullest Public comment was actively sought as a rule. Business was conducted in a moo professional manner, and posted agenda times were adhered to completely.
F2:
At its meetings dJe Administration committee interviewed the County Adminisuative Officer; discussed revenue and finance issues at leng~ explored areas for increased cooperation between the Town of Mammoth Lakes and Mono County; and moved toward development of a county Health and Human Services Agency that would combine the current somewhat fragmented system.
F3:
Inquiries into a possible conflict of interest in regaro to filling a vacancy on the boord of directors of the Mammoth Community Water District determined that a written MCWD procedure in place was followed at the time of appointment, and that fInancial benefit to the existing boord members seemed unlikely.
F4:
The various governmental agencies reviewed need to establish a system whereby cost benefits could be realized from cooperative and expert capital improvement purchasing. Various agencies purchase similar costly items and appear to rely chiefly on in- house advice and expertise. While tailored function is important, greater communication and joint purchasing could realize cost savings. S. The planning, design and construction oversight fa- fixed facilio~ needed now and in the near future appear to be dealt widt on an agency-specific basis. Widt the tremendous sums of capital involved in one-ome only projects for the agencies, the sharing of a resource that might include expertise could prove cost efficient RECOMMENDA nON As had been ~mmended by a previous grand jury. the County has developed a new position and hired a Human Servi~ Manager. Providing general personnel oversight and the assigned task of updating the Personnel Policies and Procedures manual should improve employer/employee relations. 17
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
The <Xmmittee found no evidence of misappropriation or misuse of funds. There were, however, numerous examples of poor judgment and inexperienced financial management by the Executive Director. as well as financial oversight by the ~ of directors. 19
F2:
As with many volunteer boards, there often does not exist ~ necessary experience in management This experience must CX:Ime from the people charged to operate the organization or from other sources, such as consultants or ~rvice providers.
F3:
The Exocutive Directa' indicated he had lime experience running an organization such as the Mono County Arts Council, yet the bcmrd of directors took no don to fill this void
F4:
Knowing what one does not know is an important"assel RECOMMENDA nONS
F6:
Ann's-length transactions and avoiding the appearance of a conflict of in~t should be included in "Policies and Procedures." COMMENDA nONS At the writing of this report ~ Executive Directa' and the boord of directors had already started addressing many of ~ issues. All l:8rties cooperated openly widt the ammittee. 20
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
The funds spent by MUSD on construction of Sien-a High SchoollDistrict Office appear to fall within the scope of items listed on ~ ballot measure submitted to vo~rs April 14, 1998. Although the measure does not specIfically state that MUSD was planning to build a District Office, the classrooms provided at Sien-a High School were clearly J:mrt of the description listed in the text of the measure. The actions of the district and the logic of locating the superintendent, who acts as principal of Sien-a High School, in the same structure are reasonable.
F2:
The documents reviewed show that the decision to combine SielTa High School and the District Office was based on sound reasoning. It appears, however, that this change in srope of the project C3USed a major imi:BCt on the budget a. Construction on Sien-a High School/District Office began even though costs for the project had climbed significantly from.the original budget It appears that either little effort was mOOe to bring the costs back into line, or the effort was ineffective. b. Splitting up the earthwork and building construction did not reduce overall costs. There was no fonnal value engineering review of the project during design process dJat would have identified the areas where costs could have been reduced. c. The project was an award-winning design. Even taking into account a difficult site, the ~t for building construction appears very high. d. The final ~t of tile project on a dollar-per-square-foot basis is higher than it needed to be for the intended use.
F3:
The community was justified in its unhappiness concerning d1e timelin~ of the middle school construction. A review of the records revealed that MUSD gave high priority to Sierra High School/District Office. The architect then gave it high priority, and the design was finished ahead of the middle school. a. Part of the reason for d1e shift of priority was the overcrowded conditions of Sierra High School, which had been moved into a portable office on the MHS campus. b. It should be noted that d1e middle school is a larger project and involved more staff review and comment time than Sierra High School/District Office. If MUSD had set the middle school as the highest priority, given the fact that it impacts significantly more students, there would not have been community discontent Community-wide support for the new middle school is the reason the bond issue passed with such a wide margin. c. The district did not communicate adequately to the public the decisions and reasons for putting Sierra High School/District Office first place in line. Football Field Relocation
F4:
The ardritect was working on multiple projects fa- MUSD. In OOdition to Sierra High School/District Office, NrD was working on m<xlernization details for MHS, portable classrooms for the elementaJy school.. relocation of the footOOll field, d.esign of ~ middle school and a master plan for ~ enbre campus. NrD was also ardritect fa b MalO County OOice of Education and preparing plans fa that f~ty on ~ South Gateway site. It is possible that handling aU these projects at once beaune a oontributing factor in the schedule slippage of the middle school project. s. Consb"Uction of ~ new footOOlI field proceeded under pressure to clear tIx: site for the antici~ted start of oonsb"UCtion for the middle school. a. The school boord members did not have a clear idea of the overall project ~ts fa this facility. b. There was pressure from parents and staff to continue d1e footmll program unintemlpted, which neressitated moving forward quickly with oonstruction. c. Interviews with the board of trustees reveal that there was little discussion about alternatives to ~ field relocation, and a total project ~ estimate fcr field relcx.-ation was never ~nted to ~ board. FlNDINGS
F5:
In the case of the MUSD Facilities Master Plan, a fonnal master plan document was never published after the series of meetings of the steering rommittee.
F6:
The infonnation developed during the steering ammittee meetings remains in dle form of meeting notes and exhibits prepared by NTD Architects.
F7:
Public agencies should I:8Y close attention to project budgets in approval of capital projects. There does not appear to be a depth of understanding among the members of dle MUSD booId concerning the growth and upward movement of estimated project ~ during the design development stage and later the bid-and-award stage of its projects. RECOMMENDA nONS
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
2 findings
F2:
ANDINGS: After meeting with the Sheriff's De~ent and reviewing the incident, it was found that the ~ was resolved to the satisfaction of all parties. RECO~DATION: None of property in Crowley 37 COMPLAINr #01-16: Complainant allegOO violations of rights by Mamm~ Lakes Police Depu'tment with regaro to reading of Miranda rights and an'esting procedures.
F3:
FINDINGS: Upon meeting widt d1e Mrro and reviewing d1e incident report, it was detennined that all procedures were adhered to in proper order. RECO~A nONS: LA W ENFORCEMENT FACILITIES VISITATION The Law and Justice facilities: Oct. 17, 2001: Meeting with Sheriff Dan Paranick at the Mono County Sheriff's DeJ8ftment March 20, 2002: Meeting with Chief Mike Donnelly at the Mammoth Lakes Police DeJ:lU1ment and a tour of the office and detention facility. It was clear that OOditional SpI.ce is desperately needed for all operations. including processing. storage. holding cells and lockers. A new facility is planned for the future. AprU 17, 2002: Tour of office and detention facility at the Mono County Sheriff's DeJm'tment in Bridgeport. At this time the facility has adequate s~ for all operations, but within the next 10 years there will be a need for expansion. It was noted that an additional food service worker is needed COMMENDA nON The Law and Justice ccmmittee expresses its gmtitude to the Mono County Sheriff's DeJBI'tment and the Mammoth Lakes Police DeJmtment for their prompt and efficimt responses to all inquiries. None visits to l<:x=al law enforcement C(mJninee conducted several 38