Mono County Grand Jury
2013-2014
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
Mammoth Lakes Tourism appears to operate with a reasonable degree of transparency. It appears to comply with open meeting requirements under the Brown Act and responded appropriately to the Grand Jury’s Public Records Act request. It has also made appropriate efforts to disseminate information about its operations to the public by means of a public event on April 30, 2014, and VisitMammoth.com. Its leaders acknowledged that the quality of the website is not up to par, and that there are plans to launch a re-vamped website by Thanksgiving 2014. They also acknowledged that more detailed financial information about MLT and its operation is not currently available on the web, but that this will be remedied with the impending launch of MLTIndustryinsider.com. Recommendation: Ensure that a new, user-friendly VisitMammoth.com goes live by Thanksgiving 2014. In addition, ensure that MLTIndustryInsider.com contains sufficient information to allow concerned citizens to make an informed assessment of MLT’s performance, including information on operations, marketing plans, budgets, revenues, expenses, audited financials, Board agendas and minutes, relevant travel statistics and trends, and return on investment. When this website is ready to go live, it should be widely advertised within the Town.
F2:
Bookkeeping and accounting services are provided by an independent accounting firm, Porter & O’Dell. Payroll is done by direct deposit, prepared by Porter & O’Dell. For accounts payable, checks are cut every two weeks. The executive director organizes the payables and presents them to MLT’s treasurer (an office held for a one-year term by a member of the Board of Directors) for approval. The treasurer reviews and approves the payments, which are then submitted to Porter & O’Dell. Porter & O’Dell prepares the checks. The executive director is authorized for amounts up to $500. Over that amount, checks must be countersigned by a member of the Board’s Executive Committee (i.e., the chair, vice-chair, secretary or treasurer). Recommendation: None.
F3:
In general, MLT employees charge business-related travel and meal expenses to credit cards for which they are personally responsible. They then recover their costs by submitting claims for reimbursement. The only exception is the executive director, who instead uses a credit card billed directly to MLT. This credit card is also used by other MLT employees, with the executive director’s permission, for MLT’s general business expenses, such as advertising and office supplies. The executive director is responsible for turning over credit card receipts for this account, including his travel/entertainment expenses, to Porter & O’Dell, which uses them to reconcile and pay the periodic credit card statement. Recommendation: The Grand Jury reviewed the executive director’s expenses as 32 charged on the MLT credit card and found them appropriate, even fairly modest. In the interest of increased accountability, however, we recommend that the executive director be required to use the same procedure as other employees for travel and entertainment expenses — that is, charge these costs to a separate credit card for which he is personally responsible and then submit expense reimbursement claims.
F4:
In reviewing employee expense records, we found the expenses incurred to be reasonable and appropriate. We did note, however, that receipts for business meals/entertainment too frequently failed to identify the business purpose for the expense and the names of the persons who attended. Recommendation: Receipts for meals/entertainment should always identify the business purpose and names of the persons who attended.
F5:
Paragraph 3.5.5 of the Agreement requires MLT to provide each of its employees with a copy of the Town’s Fraud Policy. MLT is then required to provide the Town with a signed statement by each employee certifying that they have received and read it. As of May 2, 2013, MLT had not complied with this provision. Recommendation: MLT should immediately comply with Paragraph 3.5.5 of the Agreement. The Mono County Grand Jury closed the investigation of this matter on _________, 2014. 33
Findings & Recommendations
10 findings
F1:
Complainant did not provide any credible evidence to substantiate claims of discrimination and harassment by her DSS eligibility worker. Recommendation: None.
F2:
Complainant did not provide any credible evidence to substantiate claims that Complainant’s civil rights were violated. Recommendation: None. 9
F3:
Complainant’s Medi-Cal benefits were correctly calculated according to applicable laws and regulations. Recommendation: None.
F4:
No evidence was found to substantiate Complainant’s claim that communications by DSS were in Spanish rather than English. Recommendation: None
F5:
Complainant’s assertion that information about and documentation for the Medi- Cal program was withheld may have resulted from Complainant’s misunderstanding of DSS procedures intended to reduce duplication of materials (multiple languages used in form documents to mention availability of materials in other languages). Recommendation: None
F6:
Food stamps were not improperly withheld from Complainant. Recommendation: None
F7:
The current Director of DSS began serving in this position recently and was not the director during the time period on which the complaint was based. Recommendation: After the Director has one or two years’ tenure in the position, the Grand Jury should consider an overall review of DSS operations to generally determine how effective DSS is operating and to specifically examine whether the DSS workload continues to be heavily impacted by adverse economic conditions.
F8:
Complainant’s failure to comply with reasonable DSS procedural requirements substantially contributed to the denial and termination of benefits that Complainant would have otherwise received in a timely manner. Recommendation: None.
F9:
DSS procedures failed to correlate documents received from applicants with the deadlines to which those incoming documents were responding. As a result, one of Complainant’s responses, because it was overdue, was overlooked by DSS for a period of time since it was not prioritized for handling before other submittals, which were responding to more recent deadlines. In mitigation, this deficiency in DDS procedures did not cause a problem until a major increase in DSS cases (due to economic conditions) caused eligibility workers at DSS to experience large increases in their workloads. Furthermore, the problem would not have occurred but for Complainant’s failure to submit the response at issue in a timely manner. Recommendation: As soon as DSS became aware of this problem, it revised its procedures to ensure that this problem did not occur in the future. For this reason, the Grand Jury finds no need to make any further recommendation.
F10:
The July 25, 2013 Mono County DSS internal investigation contained a number of factual errors and lacked adequate detail in some findings. Recommendation: DSS should consider establishing a procedure to ensure that internal investigations are reviewed for accuracy and completeness. 11
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
Between 2009 and July 2013, there was only one discussion of the proposed MRF in an open session of Town Council, although Town staff were actively working on a proposed project during portions of that time. Aside from this single discussion, Council as a whole held other discussions relating to the MRF and other solid waste issues in closed sessions, purportedly under the Brown Act exception for real property negotiations. Such discussions should have been limited to the price and terms of payment to be negotiated for purchase of the Expansion Parcel or the Solid Waste Transfer Station, in accordance with the notice given in the agenda. Discussions that went beyond this limited scope, including whether and where to build a MRF, broader solid waste issues (e.g., Mono County parcel fees), and long-term solutions, violated the Brown Act because they were, at best, only tangentially-related to the proposed transactions. They were and are the public’s business. They could have and should have been discussed in open Council meetings where the public could participate. Recommendations: 1. Closed sessions of Town Council should be recorded. Recordings should be kept for a period of at least three years. The recordings would not, of course, be released except as authorized by law. Recording closed sessions will heighten Council’s awareness of the Brown Act’s limitations. It will also allow for subsequent follow-up to ensure that Council adheres to the law. 2. All Town Council members and managerial staff should be required to attend regular periodic training on the Brown Act, the Public Records Act, and the public’s right to information about what their government is doing — the people’s business. In light of our findings, particular attention should be given to the Brown Act requirements for closed Council sessions, including the scope of permissible discussions under the various exceptions and their narrow construction by California courts. Such training should be documented. In addition, the Town Attorney should consider taking a more active role in advising Council on the proper scope of closed session discussions as the discussions occur, perhaps by reviewing agenda bills in advance and by actively advising Council members if and when a discussion may be heading beyond legal limits. 3. While the proposed purchase of real property, including the Expansion Parcel, its financing through a rate increase, and the planned use of the Solid Waste Transfer Station/Expansion Parcel to expand the Town’s solid waste operations, was minimally disclosed in public notices and hearings in 2009, we found only one explicit mention of the proposed MRF thereafter during a public Town Council meeting (i.e., the June 2012 letter to CalRecycle seeking an extension of time to comply and setting out a timeline for construction of a MRF). There was little evidence presented demonstrating that information about any MRF proposal was ever actively disseminated to the public. The consequences of this lack of public discussion became evident by July 2013, as rumor and speculation had been circulating about the project and its anticipated cost. At 24 about that time, and based on information that may or may have not been accurate, concerned citizens made their opinions known. Thereafter, following the closed session on July 24, 2013, Council announced that any further MRF plans would proceed publicly. At the present time, it appears Council has been and will continue to adhere to this commitment. As Council knows, it is engaged in the people’s business. Effective government depends on public trust. Such trust is undermined when governmental officials (elected or otherwise) withhold, or appear to withhold, information about the people’s business. Thus, we recommend that Council adhere not only to the letter of the Brown Act, but to its spirit as well, and actively foster the principle of open government. Questions will no doubt arise in the future about the propriety of particular issues for closed session discussion. When they do, we recommend that Council choose always to err on the side of public disclosure, participation, and discussion. 4. In the future, citizens who are concerned about possible Brown Act violations by Town Council may immediately contact the Mono County District Attorney for assistance. The DA’s office has assured the Grand Jury that it is prepared to investigate and resolve such matters expeditiously. Making a citizen’s complaint to the Grand Jury remains an alternative, of course, but we believe a more prompt investigation and resolution through the DA’s office could better serve the public interest in open government.
F2:
Despite the fact that a street address for the Expansion Parcel was readily available, it was never described in the closed session portion of Town Council agendas by reference to such an address. Instead, it was at times described as the Mammoth Firewood lot, or by reference to the names of its owners, or by Assessor’s Parcel Number. Recommendation: Real property should always be identified in closed session notices in such a way that it may be readily identified by the public. Doing otherwise could be construed as an attempt to avoid public interest and discussion. (See Recommendation 3, Finding No. 1.) Using the Assessor’s Parcel Number, for example, when a street address is available, should be avoided.
F3:
Council repeatedly held closed sessions prior to regular meetings, sometimes as early as 4:00 p.m. In many cases, there was no oral announcement of the matter in an open meeting before Council went into closed session, which the Brown Act requires. Recommendation: While Finding No. 3 may be viewed as a technicality, we think that, in the interest of building and maintaining public trust, Council should be scrupulous in following the requirements of applicable law. In addition, the minutes of any such Council meeting should always accurately reflect that a public meeting was properly opened and the required announcement made before Council went into closed session, even if members of the public were not then present. Following the law fosters public trust. Doing otherwise can serve only to discourage public attendance, awareness, and discussion. We also recommend that Council seek to schedule meetings at times that maximize the opportunity for public participation.
F4:
In pursuing this investigation, we were unable to obtain much information of substance from most Town Council members. We did not conclude that these witnesses deliberately withheld information, but rather that they had failed to retain, understand, and 25 recollect information that would allow us to be confident of informed decisions on solid waste issues or, in fact, other issues, in the future. Recommendation: It is understood that service on Town Council is part-time, poorly compensated from a financial standpoint, and that most Council members engage in other full-time employment during their terms in office. The Grand Jury offers no remedy for this situation. We are concerned, however, because lack of time and preparation by these officials does not bode well for the prospect of informed policy and decision-making. Staff members, on the other hand, generally seemed to be more well-informed. But given the recent reductions and turnover in staff, “institutional memory” has been damaged. Under these circumstances, it is all the more important for Council to foster full public participation in local policy and decision-making. We recommend that, moving forward, Town Council and staff rededicate themselves to working openly and in partnership with the people they serve. Council should also take full advantage of current staff’s knowledge by directing the Town Manager to ensure that Council is fully informed of all reasonable solutions, alternatives, and consequences to issues under their consideration.
F5:
Town Council agendas for closed sessions typically lump multiple matters into a single paragraph. This makes them difficult to read and understand. Recommendation: Agendas for closed sessions of Town Council should list each item separately. We note that this is the Mono County Board of Supervisors’ practice. The Mono County Grand Jury closed the investigation of this matter on June 10, 2014. 26