Mono County Grand Jury
2011-2012
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
Availability of Documents to the Public: Research of the publicly available information determined that the budget documents from July 2007 to July of 2010 were not available in the public 20 domain as of Jan 2011. The Grand Jury was able to obtain these documents by making a formal request. It is unclear if the general public would have been provided these documents on request. The ESUSD has a website that includes a link to documents; however, no budget documents from the period in question were available. It should be noted that during the time of the investigation, more documents were added to the website. Meeting agendas and minutes were located, but no budget documents were added. The Grand Jury requested the budget documents, the communications between ESUSD and MCOE and the ESUSD Board meeting minutes. In this manner the Grand Jury was able to obtain documents. However, documents were NOT available in the public domain, as is required by the State of California, at the time of our initial investigation. This deficiency appears to have been partially corrected as of November 2010; however, budget documents were still not available on the website as of this date.
F2:
Budget Process Review: The Mono County Office of Education (MCOE) reviewed all budgets and responded formally to the ESUSD Board and Superintendent. Letters were sent to the District from MCOE, summarizing its findings and making
F3:
Interviews: The Mono County Office of Education Superintendent confirmed that the County Office of Education is responsible for fiscal oversight of both Districts in the County – Mammoth Unified School District (MUSD) and the Eastern Sierra Unified School District (ESUSD. The MCOE notified ESUSD regarding their deficit spending in written correspondence on several occasions. The MCOE Superintendent indicated that ESUSD failed to file the required paperwork for Categorical Programs in fiscal years 2007-08 and 2008-09, which would have resulted in the District receiving approximately $150,000 annually. The MCOE Superintendent attributed this oversight to the Business Manager’s lack of experience in educational finances. The MCOE worked with the State to have these funds released to ESUSD, which totaled more than $300,000. As of July 15, 2010, the MCOE is responsible for managing ESUSD financials at no cost to ESUSD. This agreement is in place until June 2011. When questioned about expenditures that may have caused ESUSD to overspend, the Superintendent 23 cited the hiring of Assistant Principals which is a luxury for a small district; purchasing 1-to-1 laptop computers for 7th – 12th grade students; hiring Technology staff; hiring an Academic Counselor; having all District administrators attend conferences/workshops, and hiring in-house trainers. The Mono County Office of Education Deputy Superintendent of Business and Operations has more than 20 years’ experience in working with school districts. School District budgeting is rather unique and requires a specific skill set, as opposed to having general accounting experience. This position is responsible for providing support to both Districts, providing oversight to the District’s budgetary process, assessing the District’s financial health and rating them accordingly, and alerting District staff and School Board members of the District’s rating. The Deputy Superintendent made it clear that budgetary support was offered to ESUSD, as it was to MUSD; however, the offer for guidance was not readily accepted. The ESUSD projection for fiscal year 2010-11 is a deficit of 6%. The Deputy Superintendent indicated that large reserves are more critical to a Basic Aid District since revenues are based upon property values which can fluctuate. When questioned as to why ESUSD was in a financial crunch when Mammoth Unified School District was able to manage their budget, the explanation was similar to that cited by the MCOE Superintendent. The Deputy Superintendent also indicated that salary increases were a factor, in addition to hiring new personnel. The former ESUSD Business Manager was interviewed via telephone. Although having experience as a Certified Public Accountant, this individual did not have experience working in a school district prior to being hired in July, 2006. ESUSD became a Basic Aid District the following fiscal year. The Business Manager’s responsibilities included creating a budget for ESUSD based upon the Superintendent’s educational goals for the District, an analysis of trends for expenditures and revenues, projection how much funding would be allocated to ESUSD. The Business Manager indicated that learning how to budget for a Basic Aid District was based upon tracking the District’s historical and regional trends through the help of School Services of California and the Department of Education, with little guidance from the Mono County Office of Education. The Business Manager indicated that meetings with the ESUSD Superintendent occurred routinely to discuss and determine how to balance the budget, although the Superintendent was primarily focused on educational issues. The budget was always presented to the Board of Trustees for review and comment. At times budget workshops were conducted to review the budget in a more in-depth manner. The Business Manager provided 4 major budget reports to the Board annually. The challenges of preparing a budget prior to having solid figures were cited by the former Business Manager. For example, the District did not have the final budget numbers for fiscal year 2009-10 until early 2010. The Business Manager was first alerted that there would be a deficit in revenues when the 1st tax 24 apportionment was issued in January 2010. When questioned about the written warnings from the Mono County Office of Education, the former Business Manager responded by saying that when leaving ESUSD in midyear 2010, the District still had about a 10% in the reserve fund which is considered healthy in most districts. All 5 Board of Trustee members were interviewed; several served on the Board for 8 or more years. The interviews were conducted prior to the November election in which 3 Board members ran for re-election. Some Board members expressed concern about ESUSD’s deficit spending since fiscal year 2008-09; however, it was not perceived as a significant problem given that the District had large reserves. Some of the Board members interviewed continued to have the same belief despite recent budgetary reductions. This philosophy of spending “extra” funds on students, as opposed to maintaining a healthy reserve fund, appeared to be prevalent among the majority of Board members. Some Board members felt confident in the budgetary abilities of professional staff, while others indicated that staff failed the Board. One Board member believed that there was a failure in District leadership and a failure of the Board to reign-in said leadership, while another Board member thought highly of the Superintendent’s leadership and financial abilities. All Board members acknowledged having attended annual budgetary workshops. When questioned about the brevity of Board minutes with reference to budgetary matters, one Board member indicated that the minutes did not always reflect the flavor of the meeting. During fiscal year 2009-10 when the budgetary crisis was at its height, the Board requested several scenarios for budget cuts. At least one Board member suggested that this approach be taken when presenting budgets in the future. The Special Projects Coordinator was interviewed, as this individual was previously the Business Manager prior to 2006. The Special Projects Coordinator indicated that ESUSD works with the Mono County Finance Director and the Mono County Property Tax Collector to gather information regarding County revenues, which has an impact to ESUSD’s Basic Aid status. In early 2010 it was noted that there was a drastic reduction in Mono County revenues received from the Previous Year tax collection efforts. The Special Projects Coordinator indicated that the Mono County Office of Education provided minimal support to ESUSD regarding being a Basic Aid District, a concern also voiced by the former Business Manager. When questioned about large expenditures initiated by ESUSD when becoming a Basic Aid District, this individual acknowledged that spending funds on salary increases were necessary to bring salary levels up to par with similar districts. There was also a significant increase in personnel from 2007 until 2009. Prior to employment with the ESUSD, the Superintendent did not have Basic Aid experience and it was noted that there was a steep learning curve. The Superintendent and key staff attended seminars and web-based training regarding being a Basic Aid District 25 The Superintendent indicated that calculating Basic Aid funding is difficult as there are projections from the State of California, plus input from the Mono County Office of Education and the Assessor’s Office. To determine the revenue stream, the current year taxes are considered along with unsecured taxes and the prior year tax assessments. Unanticipated expenditures helped to create the recent budgetary situation. For example, the State is now requiring “Fair Share” funds from Basic Aid school districts which is $250 per student; plus the State reduced transportation funding to ESUSD by 20% which resulted in a decrease of $600,000 annually. These expenditures and reductions affected both ESUSD and MUSD. Both districts incurred additional expenditures when Special Education programs were transferred from MCOE. ESUSD also experienced an adjustment to their revenues when a charter school based in Fresno, California was extracted from the District through recent State Legislation, which requires charter schools to operate through the county in which it resides. The Superintendent believed the District had the money in the reserve fund and the need, so the funds were spent. In retrospect, the Superintendent now believes that Basic Aid Districts should have a reserve fund of 20%. The ESUSD’s goal is to achieve a 20% reserve, hopefully in approximately 3 years, but the Superintendent wouldn’t be surprised if that goal was achieved in 1 year, or in 6 years. When questioned about the transparency of providing crucial ESUSD information to the community, the Superintendent indicated that the District is in the process of updating the website, however, the District is contracting for technological support since technology staff were eliminated from the budget.
F4:
Review of ESUSD Monthly Meeting Minutes: Meeting minutes for the period January 2008 through May 2009 were reviewed for items that referred to the budget. The Business Manager reported frequently at these meetings, however the wording in the minutes was limited to one or two sentences and revealed no fiscal reporting or discussion. However a large number of new expenditures were documented and approved by the Board. These expenditures came in the form of additional personnel and new project approvals. DISCUSSION:
Additional Recommendations
7
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Sheriff’s Department should acknowledge the receipt of citizen complaints made to an officer, in writing, and inform the citizen that the complaint has been investigated.
R2:
All altercations, charges or accusations against or between citizens brought to the Sheriff’s Department should be documented, investigated, and a complete written report filed. A policy regarding use of additional officers should be included.
R3:
The Sheriff’s Department should establish a policy of regular training for officers, which would prevent situations where a citizen could feel intimidated by the Sheriff’s Department. 15
R4:
The Sheriff’s Department should have procedures to identify and minimize disagreements between officers and citizens when those conflicts have the potential to jeopardize the safety of the citizens of the County.
R5:
The Sheriff’s Department should have a plan to distribute required safety codes to businesses that affect the safety of the public, or to provide owners of businesses with the sources from which they can acquire these codes.
R6:
The Sheriff’s Department should carry out an internal investigation of the August 28, 2009 confrontations of the three deputies and the complainant.
R7:
The Sheriff’s Department should maintain quality assurance procedures to insure that all required policies and procedures contained in the Policies and Procedures Manual are followed, to track failures of compliance, and to reduce the chances of future failure. MONO COUNTY GRAND JURY FOR THE YEAR 2010-2011 COMPLAINT 10-02 TOWN OF MAMMOTH LAKES FINANCE DEPARTMENT FINAL REPORT BY GRAND JURY INVESTIGATION COMMITTEE SUMMARY: Complaint: The 2009-2010 Grand Jury received a letter dated May 27, 2100 from an individual who owns a condominium in the Town of Mammoth Lakes. This property owner complained that a staff member from the Town of Mammoth Lakes Finance Department harassed and threatened arrest if said property owner refused to comply with the Town’s Tourist Operational Tax (T.O.T). Methods: The 2010-2011 Grand Jury accepted the complaint as #10-02. The investigation by the Grand Jury included interviews, document reviews and internal departmental notes. The Grand Jury interviewed the Finance Director of the Town of Mammoth Lakes along with the Finance Department’s Office Manager.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
Interviews: a. The interview with the complainant indicated that they are law-abiding citizens who would have proceeded in a different manner had they known that a mailbox structure could not be located within the County’s right-of- way. They stated that they and their architect performed due diligence in determining if there was a need for an encroachment permit to install a mailbox in the County’s right-of-way and consulted with the United States Postal Service for specifications when directed to that source by a Mono County Public Works staff member. The complainant also experienced frustration and a sense of arrogance when interacting with a Public Works staff member. The complainant not receive either of the two communications sent by the Public Works Department (dated May 26, 2010 and June 7, 2010). The Compliance Division assumed the complainant to be unresponsive to the letters of violation. In addition, information in the June 7, 2010 letter was misleading in that an encroachment permit, which was enclosed in the letter, could not be submitted as it would be denied based upon the existing mailbox structure. b. The interview with the architect reiterated the process that occurred when trying to determine if an encroachment permit was required for a mailbox. When contacting the Mono County Public Works Department, the architect was told that a mailbox did not require an encroachment permit; however, the United States Postal Service should be consulted for mailbox guidelines. This agent has also noted that throughout the County there are objects in the right-of-way (i.e. boulders, fire hydrants, etc.) that do not appear to be in violation of Mono County Code as these objects have not been removed. This individual indicated that Mono County Counsel is in the process of developing an agreement between the complainant and Mono County which will release the County from liability for damage/injury that may occur as a result of the mailbox structure from being in the right-of-way. c. The Compliance Officer was also interviewed and cited that placing anything in the Mono County right-of-way requires an encroachment permit; however, the Officer indicated that Public Works has an informal, unspoken policy allowing landscaping and breakaway mailboxes to be placed in the right-of-way. The Compliance Officer participated in the on- site meeting with Mono County staff and a Board of Supervisor to view the mailbox structure in question. This individual concluded that an agreement was being developed and that the concrete base of the mailbox structure would be saw-cut to enable it to breakaway if hit. As of 49 the writing of this report, the Grand Jury has learned that the concrete base of the mailbox structure has been saw-cut.
F2:
The Public Works Road Operations Supervisor, who has been in this position for approximately 2 years, was interviewed. This individual explained that the Mono County Code does not permit anything to be placed in the right-of-way without an encroachment permit, which requires County review. When questioned about the distances involved in the right-of-way, this individual indicated that the right- of-way is an average of 60 feet from the center of the road. According to this Supervisor, the Post Office requires mailboxes to be of a breakaway design; however the investigating committee found that the USPS indicates that breakaway supports are ideal but not a requirement. The process involved in notifying the complainant regarding the Code violations was questioned. This individual indicated that two forms of correspondence were sent to the complainant citing the violations and a timeline for removing the mailbox structure. The communication indicated this matter would be turned over to the Code Compliance Officer for action if the mailbox was not removed from the right-of-way. If not removed, fines would be levied and ultimately the structure would be removed at County cost.
F3:
Documents: The investigating committee reviewed a variety of documents, including correspondence, emails, Mono County Code and United Stated Postal Service standards for residential mailboxes. a. In reviewing United States Postal Service Residential Mailbox Standards, there are several requirements which conflict with Mono County Code. • Install the mailbox with the bottom of the box at a vertical height of between 41-45 inches from the road surface, unless there is a road or curb condition that prevents this. • Mailbox should be set back 6 – 8 inches from the front face of the curb or road edge to the mailbox door • For posts and supports, it’s up to you to keep them neat and adequate in strength and size. Ideally, its assembly should bend or fall away when struck by a vehicle. The Postal Service doesn’t regulate mailbox supports except for purposes of carrier safety and delivery efficiency. • Installation of curbside mailboxes must meet our specific construction standards, which you can find at your local Post Office or mail away for a copy of our standards. b. In conducting a “search” of the Mono County website for information regarding mailbox specifications and a definition of right-of-way, the information was not found. The website should be easier to navigate 50 rather than having to guess which section to explore. Specific information regarding mailboxes was not located. Although Code Section 13.04.020 regarding an encroachment permit being required is rather explicit, a reference to mailboxes, and any other object that the County now deems important, should be included and easy to find. DISCUSSION:
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The CWS should keep as a high priority their search to add a fourth Social Worker to its staff to better balance the workload, and to adjust for the added time spent in travel to placement sites outside of County.
R2:
The CWS should keep as a high priority their search to find and certify new foster homes in Mono County. Action: Director Duration: 3 months 44 MONO COUNTY GRAND JURY FOR THE YEAR 2010-2011 COMPLAINT 10-06 EASTERN SIERRA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT FINAL REPORT BY GRAND JURY INVESTIGATION COMMITTEE (COMBINED WITH 10-03) SUMMARY: Complaint: The letter requested investigation of the ESUSD regarding the contract with the Superintendent and subsequent budgetary processes and decisions. Methods: Two investigations have been made of both topics in the complaint. Examination of both investigations revealed that the complaint overlapped the other two investigations. A report was issued July 2010 that included an ESUSD Superintendent Contract report. Another investigation of the ESUSD budgeting Process is complete and will be made public in mid-2011.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
Deputy Safety Officer’s Intimidation and Harassment on August 28, 2009: a. The complainant stated that the Deputy Safety Officer arrived in a marked Mono County Sheriff car on August 28, 2009 accompanied by two additional deputies to deliver a safety code. The complainant complained feeling intimidated and harassed by the unnecessary presence of the additional officers. The deputy’s report of the incident stated that the Deputy Safety Officer asked that the deputy and one additional officer to be present on August
F2:
Deputy Harassments on August 28, 2009: The audio digital recording confirmed that the deputy interrupted the Deputy Safety Officer and began to interrogate the complainant about agitation and drug use. The voices of the Deputy Safety Officer and the other deputies did not appear on the recording after the deputy initiated questioning. The deputy's first comment to the complainant was to calm down, followed by a question about agitation. The Investigative Committee could not detect this agitated behavior on the audio digital recording. During the next recorded 30-45 minutes, the deputy reported observations of the complainant's pupils, eyelid tremor, eye redness, as well as pulse rate, speech rate and agitation, postural steadiness, and general calmness. The deputy linked each observation back to drugs that the deputy suspected the complainant had taken. The Investigative Committee could find no evidence on the recording that demonstrated agitation or aggression. The Investigative Committee heard the complainant agreeing to all requested searches without complaint. The deputy asked the complainant's permission to search the truck parked next to the residence, which the deputy also asked permission to search. The complainant agreed. The deputy asked the complainant to produce any guns present (which were seized), and medications (which were seized). The complainant showed the deputy where each item in the home was located. The deputy read the complainant a Miranda warning, and requested that the 11 complainant come to the Sheriff’s Station for further drug testing, including a blood sample to be drawn by an EMT. The complainant agreed to come voluntarily. The deputy handcuffed the complainant, drove to the Station, and proceeded to repeat the same observational tests and measure blood pressure. After the blood test, a deputy returned the complainant to the individual’s business. The deputy’s written report of the incident indicated that some of the physical observations of the complainant were consistent with use of a single drug: some observations indicated a central nervous system depressant and others a central excitant. The deputy explained these contradictions by concluding that the complainant may have taken more than one kind of central nervous system narcotic drug. The deputy, in both report and interview, did not accept any of the complainant’s explanations, all of which the Investigative Committee could hear on the audio digital recording. The complainant stated that he has a chronic eye disease that produces red eyes, and had constricted pupils because the sun was very bright. The complainant denied being agitated, but admitted to being a fast talker. The Investigative Committee heard the deputy on the audio recording frequently repeating the statement that these questions were being asked for the complainant’s own benefit. The Investigative Committee reviewed a copy of the action report prepared by the District Attorney (DA) and sent back to the Sheriff’s Department about a week later on September 10, 2009. This action report noted that the State's results of the blood tests were all negative, and concluded that no further investigation or arrest was justified. The Investigative Committee asked the deputy about the training and experience received in detecting the presence of illegal drugs. The deputy stated having 29 years of experience in high drug areas regarding characteristics and behavior indicative of drug ingestion. The Investigative Committee asked the deputy if it was possible that the complainant might display these behaviors without having ingested any drugs, and that the behavior observed might be attributed to personality, abetted by eye disease and the circumstances. The deputy did not accept these possibilities, and reported that narcotics are always the cause of these behaviors and symptoms. He said to the complainant on the audio recording: "The eyes don't lie." The Investigative Committee asked the deputy about the State's negative drug findings, and the deputy reported he disagreed with the State's findings.
F3:
Adherence to the Policies and Procedures Manual of the Sheriff’s Department: The Investigative Committee requested a copy of the Sheriff’s Department's Policies and Procedures Manual, which was furnished. It contains the required policies and procedures covering all of their operations, including investigations 12 and reports. The Investigative Committee examined this manual for policies and procedures that applied to the activities of the officers in the Sheriff’s Department involved in these complaints. The Investigative Committee found four relevant policies. These included:
F4:
If an officer observes a citizen engaged in potentially illegal behavior, a report is to be filed and an investigation initiated (complaint 1b). The Investigative Committee asked the Sheriff about each of these policies and procedures. The Sheriff acknowledged that these policies are included in the Policies and Procedures Manual, and that officers are expected to follow them. DISCUSSION:
F28:
The report stated that the three officers arrived in three marked vehicles. The complainant approached the officers, and the Deputy Safety Officer handed the complainant a one-page copy of the Safety Code, which the complainant read and acknowledged. The audio digital recording made by this deputy confirmed the Deputy Safety Officer told the complainant that the complainant was in violation of a safety code requirement for which a citation and fine could be issued. The complainant said the safety device looked appropriate and a good idea and that it would be immediately purchased. (Proof of this purchase was given to the Investigative Committee). The complainant questioned the Deputy Safety Officer why it was necessary to bring addition officers to serve this notice. The Investigative Committee could hear on the audio digital recording that the complainant maintained composure and at no time displayed agitation or anger. In the interviews, the Investigative Committee asked the Sheriff, and the two deputies involved if it was unusual to bring supporting officers along when delivering a code document. They all stated that while it might be unusual in this circumstance, an officer is trained to err on the side of safety. If the officer has any concern regarding safety, backup support should be considered. According to the deputy’s report and the audio 9 digital recording, no safety concerns occurred. The complainant was not cited for the absence of the safety device. b. The complainant was of the opinion that the Deputy Safety Officer brought the extra officers and acted in a threatening manner because of two earlier incidents. According to the complainant, the Deputy Safety Officer showed up on May 9, 2009 and stated to the complainant that there was equipment on the premises that was in violation of the code. The complainant told the Investigative Committee that he offered to show the Deputy Safety Officer evidence that no violation was present. The Deputy Safety Officer rejected the offer; they argued; and the complainant finally ordered the Deputy Safety Officer to get off the property, which the Deputy Safety Officer did. When the Investigative Committee interviewed the Deputy Safety Officer’s supervisor, the supervisor said that the Deputy Safety Officer verbally reported his visit on May 9 to the complainant, but the Deputy Safety Officer said that the complainant feloniously threatened the Deputy Safety Officer, who was forced to flee to safety. This may have been the reason the Deputy Safety Officer decided to bring backup on Aug 28. However, the Investigating Committee had no access to the Deputy Safety Officer to verify this. The supervisor told the Investigative Committee that neither the Deputy Safety Officer, the supervisor, nor any other officer filed a report, or initiated any investigation of this claimed felony, and no documentation is available. In the written complaint, the complainant had no knowledge of the Deputy Safety Officer’s version of what occurred on May 9. The Investigative Committee discovered the second version when it compared the interviews of the complainant and the Deputy Safety Officer's supervisor. At the time the complaint was written, the complainant had no knowledge that the Deputy Safety Officer had reported that confrontation to his superior and to other officers in the Sheriff’s Department as a felonious assault. c. A few days later, the second incident occurred that the complainant felt contributed to the August 28, 2009 confrontation. The complainant told the Investigative Committee of observing the Deputy Safety Officer running into boats, while on the lake, and reported these observations to the Deputy Safety Officer's supervisor. When interviewed, the supervisor acknowledged receiving this verbal complaint from the complainant, but did not write a report, so there was no specific written report of the “unsafe and dangerous manner”. d. The complainant stated that the Mono County Sheriff’s Department, and particularly the Deputy Safety Officer neither provided nor assisted the complainant in obtaining safety materials. In its interview with the Deputy Safety Officer’s supervisor, the Investigative Committee showed the 10 supervisor the materials it obtained from the complainant, and the supervisor stated these materials were unfamiliar, he did not know their content, or their distribution. In return, the supervisor gave the Investigative Committee a much larger book containing the relevant State and County laws and practices, saying that this larger manual was the guide used by the Deputy Safety Officer. The supervisor reported to the Investigative Committee that the source of the safety notice handed to the complainant on August 28 was unknown. Ten days later, the supervisor informed the Investigative Committee finding that it was from p. 211 of that book. The supervisor stated that he did not know what the Deputy Safety Officer distributed to relevant citizens. e. The complainant stated in the complaint: "I want very much to work with the various agencies here, but this previous situation with the County has made me completely distrustful of this agency". In the Investigative Committee's interview, the complainant stated that the context of this quote referred to the Sheriff’s Department, and especially to this Deputy Safety Officer. In the interview with the Investigative Committee, the complainant reiterated repeatedly about being unable to work with the Deputy Safety Officer. The Investigative Committee questioned each of the two deputies, the Safety Officer’s supervisor and the Sheriff, and each reported that they perceived the complainant to be unreliable, excitable, and argumentative.