Placer County 2005-2006 - California Grand Jury Reports

From the annual report

The consolidated year-end volume. The individual investigations it contains are listed separately below.

📑 Year-End Report

View the full annual report (PDF)

The full consolidated volume; individual reports are listed below.

Individual reports (6)

📋∼ June 30, 2006 — MountainQ uarryB ridge GnaNDJ uny

144 pages 6 findings 18 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 6 findings

F1: SierraC olle{e Foundationc ould legallyo peratea s an intermediary or$anizationfu ndin$the bond measuresa s definedi n the FPPCln formationM anual D, as advisedb y Gilbert& Associates,G overnm ent FinanciaSl trategfiesl,n c., Dr. Larry Toy (President/CEOF oundationf or California Community Colleges)a nd without objectionf or the CollegeD lstrict's Legalc ounsel,M arion Cantor." We agree with Finding 1. (Continuedo n nextp age...) MorganL ynn,E d.D. lnterim Superintendent/President 5oooR ocklinR oad I Rocklinc e 95677| (grO)7 8r-o54oI fax (9r6) 789-2855 ml ynn @ sierracollege.edu The Honorable FrancesK earney May5 ,2006 PresidingJ udge of the Superior Court Page- 2- CounV of Placer Responsesto Findings (Continued) "The

F2: Reviewed the 2005/06 Placer County Budget.

F3: (Continued) The Foundation was consistently open about the donors, posting the names of donors on its website. As soon as questions were raised concerning the committee's non-disclosure, the Foundation again provided all donor information to those requesting it and re-sent the information to the committees for the purpose of ensuring that a full and complete list was availablef or public disclosure. The College Administration and the Foundation believe that the committees involved and their volunteer treasurers were not fully aware of the requi.rementso f campaign reporting disclosure. The College Administration and the "money Foundation believe that the characterizattonor use of the term laundering" is undeserved. Government Code S 84301r equires the disclosureo f the true sourceo f a campaign contribution and the intermediary. In this case,t he inadvertent non, "money disclosureb y the committeesi nvolved was not laundering." We agreew ith Finding 3c.

F4: The FPPCf iling,e rrorsw ere relativelym inor and easityc oruectableT. he Committeesp romptly made amendedf ilingsto correctlyd isclosed onor names when the errorsw ere found. We agree with Finding 4. RESPONSEST O RECOMMENDATIONS "The

F5: Reviewed the published reports prepared by the independent auditors subsequent to their audits. NARRATIVE: The Grand Jury participated in interviews with the County Auditor/Controller, her assistant, and a partner with the CPA firm of Bartig, Basler & Ray on several occasions. The reasons for these interviews were to obtain their opinions regarding certain financial information pertinent to the County’s well-being and ability to properly function in performing its many responsibilities for the people of Placer County. We also reviewed the 2005/06 Placer County Budget and the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2005. Additionally, we inquired into the safety and security of the County’s money by reviewing the Audit reports for the fiscal year 2004/05, which were prepared by the independent auditor. FINDINGS:

F7: has no legally required respondent, but the Grand Jury hopes that the press and the public will take note of it. This page intentionally left blank. APPENDIX 1: THE COMPLAINT 36 A,tnox I(IEIN - l i i:.iI Siera CollegeT rustee Decembe2r 0,2004 i': r i'i i ;,r Mr. McCauley i i . - r, l . i

Additional Recommendations 6

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: 59 LIST OF RESPONDENTS RESPONDENT REPORT PAGE Board of the Ackerman Elementary School District Survey of Placer County Charter Schools 43 Board of the Auburn Union School District Survey of Placer County Charter Schools 43 Board of the Newcastle Elementary School District Survey of Placer County Charter Schools 43 Board of the Rocklin Unified School District Survey of Placer County Charter Schools 43 Community Development Resources Agency Findings from Investigation of the Building Department 17 Placer County Animal Control Department Turtlegate and Microchips 27 Placer County Board of Supervisors Tahoe Justice Center 39 Placer County Building Department Chief Findings from Investigation of the Building Department 17 Placer County Counsel Placer County Main Jail 9 Placer County Director of Adult System of Care Review of Placer County Adult Residential Facilities 33 Placer County Director of Health & Human Services Commendable Progress at Public Guardian’s Office 21 Turtlegate and Microchips 27 Review of Placer County Adult Residential Facilities 33 Placer County Director of Personnel Review of Placer County Adult Residential Facilities 33 Placer County Executive Officer Placer County Main Jail 9

R2: ADVANCE RELEASE OF GRAND JURY REPORT DISCLOSURE PROHIBITED PRIOR TO PUBLIC RELEASE Two working days prior to release of the Final Report, the Grand Jury will provide a copy of the portion of the report to all affected agencies or persons. No officer, agency, department, or governing body of a public agency shall disclose the contents of the report prior to its release. TIME TO RESPOND, WHERE AND TO WHOM TO RESPOND Section 933.(c), Penal Code, depending on the type of Respondent, provides for two different response times and to whom you must respond: 1. Public Agency: The governing body of any public agency must respond within ninety (90) days. The response must be addressed to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. 2. Elective Office or Agency Head: All elected officers or heads of agencies who are required to respond must do so within sixty (60) days, to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court, with an information copy provided to the Board of Supervisors. The Presiding Judge of the Placer County Superior Court system is: The Honorable Frances Kearney Presiding Judge of the Superior Court County of Placer 11546 B Avenue Auburn, CA 95603 Also, please send your responses in the form of an original hard copy as well as digital copy on compact disk to the Placer County Grand Jury, addressed as follows: C Avenue Auburn, CA 95603 CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE SECTION 933.05 a. For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each Grand Jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following:

R3: Placer County Executive Officer: Finding 2c; Recommendation 2. This page intentionally left blank. TURTLEGATE and MICROCHIPS PLACER COUNTY ANIMAL CONTROL DEPARTMENT SUMMARY: The Placer County Grand Jury investigated two complaints against the Placer County Animal Control Department (PCACD). The first complaint concerned the actions of an employee who failed to use good judgment in his duties as an officer of the PCACD. This case involved the capture, theft, and subsequent return of a one hundred pound pet turtle. The evidence revealed the employee failed to follow department policy and procedures and was involved in other unlawful acts. These ultimately resulted in his termination. In our report, we refer to this investigation as “Turtlegate”. The second investigation involved a disagreement concerning the use of donated funds. The funds had been donated for the specific purpose of providing microchip identification of animals, but the department was considering using the funds for other purposes. The department subsequently agreed to reverse its position, so the funds were used in the way the donors intended, for microchipping animals placed for adoption. In our report, we refer to this investigation as “Microchips”. The Grand Jury’s investigations have resulted in a specific set of recommendations to to the PCACD for improvements in its practices and policies concerning control of firearms, training for their use, and for the receipt and processing of donations. METHODOLOGY: These complaints were received by the Grand Jury, and we verified that the actions took place within the jurisdiction of the county. We conducted interviews and gathered all available information to establish a comprehensive understanding of the complaints. In our investigation of the lost and found turtle, the Grand Jury took the following actions: • Interviewed the interim manager of the Placer County Animal Control Department. • Interviewed the lawyer from the County Legal Department who was assigned to investigate the accusations listed in the complaint. • Received and reviewed the report issued by the county counsel. • Contacted the Placer County Sheriff’s office to discuss the charges made by the complainant with the investigating detective. • Requested and received a copy of the detective’s investigation and arrest reports. In our second investigation, dealing with the donated money not assigned to the intended microchipping, the Grand Jury took the following actions: • Interviewed the interim manager of the Animal Control Department and the assistant director from the Department of Health who oversees the department. • Interviewed the complainant to better understand the background of the private animal protection group and their fund raising activities. • Interviewed an associate of the complainant who assisted in the writing of the complaint. • Thoroughly reviewed all attachments to the complaint. NARRATIVE/FACTS: Investigations into these two complaints revealed that personnel had failed to use good judgment in carrying out duties, and as a result, public trust was damaged. The PCACD is the responsible agency for the control, housing, health and adoption of stray animals within Placer County. Outside assistance from private groups such as the Placer Animal Coalition alliance and SPCA assist in various activities with these animals. In Placer County, the SPCA is very active in providing an animal shelter in the Roseville area. All cities within the county have a responsibility to provide for the management and control of domestic animals either through staff assigned to City Police Departments, by city law enforcement officers or by contract with the PCACD. Private groups are very supportive in the health and care of lost or abandoned domestic animals. There are a number of state laws and county/city ordinances that specify the handling, health care and general care of animals while in the control of the County and voluntary groups. Turtlegate The first complaint involved the loss of a one hundred pound pet turtle. The lost pet was found by a Placer County Animal control officer who took the pet to his home with the stated intent of adopting it as his own. This was done without supervisor approval or the completion of required documentation. The pet owner persisted in looking for the turtle, and this alerted the animal control officer. He contacted the legal pet owner and demanded money (five hundred and ninety nine dollars) for return of the pet. Following the filing of the complaint and subsequent investigation by the Placer County Sheriff Department and the PCACD, the employee was relieved of duty and subsequently terminated. During this investigation a potentially serious matter was reported by the complainant. The Animal Control Officer had placed his sidearm on a table and this caused the complainant to be concerned and intimidated. The Grand Jury reviewed this with other agencies involved in animal control to assess the wisdom of allowing sidearms to be carried by animal control officers. The agencies’ responses indicated that the preferred policy is to keep firearms in the animal control vehicles. This was discussed with the new interim manager. We are pleased to report that the new interim manager had already started action to remove sidearms and place long guns in a locked compartment within the animal control vehicles. One additional issue was found in the interviews involving the firearms training of animal control staff. The California Penal Code requires that field staff that handle fire arms be trained in accordance with Penal Code Section 832. Our 28 investigation revealed that this had not occurred with the Placer County Animal Control field staff. Thus, in the Grand Jury’s Turtlegate investigation, the facts are as follows: • There was sufficient evidence uncovered by the Placer County Animal Control Manager and the Placer Sheriffs Department to justify the termination of the employee for cause. • The pet turtle was returned to the rightful owner and all monies taken under fraudulent pretenses were returned to the complainant. Requiring that firearms be secured in the vehicles is a step in the right direction. Training of field staff to include Penal Code Section 832 Qualification has not occurred. Microchips The Microchips complaint arose when a nonprofit alliance group raised and donated funds for the explicit use of microchipping of animals prior to adoption. Microchipping of pets at the time of adoption is a permanent method of identification and has been used by a number of agencies for the last three to four years. Microchips have proven to be a successful means of increasing the return rate of lost pets. Historically dogs and cats that are adopted from shelters are disoriented in their new surroundings. Consequently, a large majority of recently adopted animals become lost in the first days or weeks following their adoption. As a result, animals with no information on them fail to get back to their owners. A new temporary manager in PCACD made the decision not to honor the special conditions placed on the donated funds. This was based on his opinion that there was no written agreement with the county, and, as a result, the donated funds were being redirected to other than the purpose intended by the donor. In investigating this complaint, we contacted both County Counsel (for its opinion regarding written versus verbal agreements) and the County Health Department, which is the controlling agency overseeing the PCACD. Our investigation revealed that: • There was a representative from Animal Control present at a fund raising activity. This, together with copies of e-mails from the alliance to animal control clearly indicated they had donated the funds for the sole propose of microchipping of adopted animals. • The response from the County Counsel was inconclusive. However, counsel believes that as a good faith gesture the verbal agreement should be honored. 29

R4: AUBURI{ AREA RECREATIOND ISTRICT IMMEDIATE /,S,SUE,S IT{TERIM REPORT PLACERC OUI{TY GRAND JURY 2005-2006 January 5o2 006 PL,A,.CE R C OUNTY GRAh{D JI.IRY (530) 889-7469 FAX (530)8 89-7447 MailingA ddress: 11 490C AvenueA, uburnC, A 95603 Januar5y, 2006 The 2005-2006P lacer County Grand Jury is issuing an Interim Reportr elatedt o the culrent situationa t the Auburn RecreationD istrict. This Interim Report is part of an ongoingi nvestigationo f Auburn RecreationD istrict by the Grand Jury. It is being issuedb ecauset he Grand Jury believess pecifica ctionss houldb e takeni mmediately. Sincerely, tu@ PaulR idgewayF, oreman 2005-2006P lacerC ountyG randJ ury Placer County Grand Jury IMMEDIATE ISSUES INTERIM REPORT Auburn Recreation District (ARD) SUMMARY: The District Administrator of the Auburn Recreation District (ARD) has presented the Board with a draft of a new employment contract. This contract was discussed by the Board at its closed session meetings in November and December without resolution. Earlier, in 2004, the District Administrator had filed claims against the Board alleging violations of his rights as an employee, and the status of those claims is a matter of debate. Some Board members believe that offering to abandon the prior claims is being used as leverage by the District Administrator to gain a new contract. All of this has received substantial publicity in the Auburn community including several articles in local newspapers. The Placer County Grand Jury, having monitored ARD for the past three years, has chosen to investigate this matter and to publish a formal Interim Report. Based on our investigation, we find that a new contract should not be considered at this time, and we recommend that the Board cease considering it. Further, we recommend that the Board and the District Administrator make every attempt to put their differences behind them in order to provide cohesive and effective leadership for the District. The Board should clearly state its rejection of prior claims by the District Administrator. We also recommend that all involved in closed session meetings adhere to their legal responsibilities under the Brown act. BACKGROUND: The Placer County Grand Jury has maintained cognizance of ARD for the past several years. Each year’s final report has included findings and recommendations regarding ARD. Although ARD has been generally responsive to Grand Jury recommendations, some problems persist as evidenced by the on-going negative attention given to ARD in the community and in local newspapers. The ARD Board and the District Administrator have continued to have difficulty conducting themselves as an effective team. Their divisiveness is apparent to anyone who attends an ARD monthly public meeting. By state law, the Grand Jury makes the results of its investigations known by the means of a Final Report published in June of each year and where circumstances demand, Interim Reports published at any time. All reports are structured in the form of facts derived from investigation, findings based on those facts and related experience, and recommendations made to appropriate public officials. Each report identifies respondents who, by law, must respond in writing indicating agreement, disagreement, and resulting actions. This is an Interim Report whose necessity is dictated by the unresolved discussion by the ARD Board of a proposed new contract for its District Administrator. This item has been under discussion at ARD Board closed session meetings for the past three months. It has Placer County Grand Jury become an increasingly contentious matter among Board members and has led to strong negative comments concerning ARD in the local press. The matter is clearly detrimental to the effective functioning of the ARD. Thus, the Grand Jury has chosen to prepare an Interim Report. Our facts, findings, and recommendations are reported below. METHODOLOGY: The 2005-2006 Grand Jury is continuing to monitor ARD and anticipates that a new set of overall findings and recommendations will be made in this year’s final report. Toward that end, members of the Grand Jury attend every public Board meeting. Each meeting agenda and report is read and discussed. The Grand Jury has conducted interviews with the Board and others using carefully prepared sets of questions. NARRATIVE/FACTS: The facts related to the consideration of a new contract for the ARD District Administrator are presented in three sections: A: Facts Preceding the Presentation of the Proposed Contract to the ARD Board; B; Facts Regarding the Content of the Proposed Contract; and C: Facts Following the Presentation of the Proposed Contract to the ARD Board. A. FACTS PRECEDING THE PRESENTATION OF THE PROPOSED CONTRACT TO THE ARD BOARD Following are facts that occurred before the presentation of the proposed contract to the ARD Board. The source of these facts are previous Grand Jury Reports concerning ARD, observations of Grand Jury members from attending ARD public board meetings, and Grand Jury interviews of ARD board members and the district administrator. 1. The District Administrator currently serves under a contract, which expires in 2008. 2. He filed two complaints against the ARD board in 2004. These complaints alleged violations of his rights as an employee. They named both the board as a whole and Directors Holbrook and Kirby as individuals. 3. Under normal legal process, the Board had a specified period of time to respond to these complaints. If rejected, then the District Administrator had a specified period of time to press his claims through the courts. If suit was not filed before the end of that period of time, then under law his right to sue expires. 4. The ARD Board’s response to the claims was not precise. That has created a situation in which both the board and the District Administrator are uncertain of his right to sue. He maintains that his right remains open. Some board members hold that the claims were all rejected and his right to sue has expired. Others are uncertain. 5. Some present and past board members have admittedly favored termination of the District Administrator. This has created a situation Placer County Grand Jury of tension between the District Administrator and the Board that has been evident at every recent board session and by the testimony of all concerned to the Grand Jury. 6. The District Administrator has sought to resolve his situation by proposing and drafting a new contract. 7. The draft of a proposed new contract was distributed at the closed session of the November 2005 Board meeting. B. FACTS REGARDING THE CONTENT OF THE PROPOSED CONTRACT Following are facts concerning the content of the proposed contract. The source is a copy of the draft. a. The period of the contract is July 1, 2005 to October 31, 2013, a period of 8 years, 4 months. b. The initial salary is $89,758 with an annual cost of living increase of 2% (or by the amount of the percentage increase in the consumer price index for urban areas), plus a 5% - 10% annual merit increase. c. There is no provision for a cost of living decrease nor for an annual merit review of less than 5%. d. Thus, for example, if the annual cost of living were 2% and an annual merit increase of 7.5% were granted, the annual salary by year would be: July 1, 2005 - $89,758; July 1, 2006 - $98,285; July 1, 2007 - $107,622; July 1, 2008 - $117,846; July 1, 2009 - $129,041; July 1, 2010 - $141,299; July 1, 2011 - $154,723; July 1, 2012 - $169,422; July 1 thru -October 31, 2013 - $46,379. This amounts to an aggregate basic salary of $1,054,375 not including any fringe benefit costs. e. The proposed effective contract date would include retroactive compensation from the date of contract signing to July 1, 2005 – a period of at least seven months with a cash value of more than $50,000. f. The contract requires that ARD pay for medical, dental, vision, and short and long term disability for the District Administrator and his dependents, or at his option he could elect to be paid in cash for the annual costs of these benefits. In addition, $50,000 in life insurance benefit is specified. The grand jury has not attempted to estimate the annual and aggregate costs of these benefits, but they would be substantial. g. ARD is required to annually reimburse him for his employee contribution to PERS and in addition to match his contribution by a like amount into a tax deferred account. The grand jury has not attempted to estimate the annual and aggregate costs of these benefits, but they would be substantial. h. ARD is required to provide a district vehicle for his unlimited use within a 100-mile radius of the district and beyond 100 miles with notification to the Board. There is no provision for the board to limit use beyond 100 miles even when notified. i. ARD is required to reimburse him for all costs and expenses for him to attend any accredited college or university up to and including a master’s degree in a related field. Placer County Grand Jury j. There are additional provisions for reimbursement of expenses at professional meetings at local, state, or national levels and for membership expenses in service organizations. k. The initial paid vacation allowance is 18 days per year increasing to 25 days per year on February 1, 2008. An additional 12 days of paid discretionary leave days is granted. An additional 12 days of sick leave time is granted. In sum, these vacation, discretionary, and sick leave days total 49, or 9.8 workweeks after February 1, 2008. He may elect at any time to take cash in lieu of unused vacation or discretionary time. l. In the event of termination for by the Board or upon his 60 day written notice, the contract provides that “during the remaining time of this contract plus two years, the District Administrator will be paid at the same rate and benefits as provided by this contract. In other words, it is within the scope of the contract as written that he could give 60 days notice the day after the contract was signed and ARD would still be financially obligated to him until October 31, 2015 In summary, the contract specifies an ARD obligation to the District Administrator that would exceed $1.5 Million over a period of 10 years, 4 months. C. FACTS FOLLOWING THE PRESENTATION OF THE PROPOSED CONTRACT TO THE ARD BOARD Facts following in time from the presentation of the proposed contract to the board are listed below. The sources are interviews with all board members and the District Administrator, citizen complaints filed with the grand jury, and observations by grand jury members attending ARD board meetings. 1. The proposed contract has been an agenda item for the closed session of the monthly ARD meeting in both November and December. 2. No resolution of the matter has been made. 3. Board members are uncertain as to the positions on the new contract of other board members. 4. Some board members believe that the District Administrator is attempting to use the possibility of pursuing his claims in court and the naming of individual board members as plaintiffs as leverage to gain approval of a new contract. 5. The tension surrounding this matter has materially affected the Board’s ability to function as a cohesive group. 6. Details of the proposed contract have appeared in the local press suggesting the possibility that one or more closed session attendees have violated the Brown Act provisions regarding public disclosure of closed session content. 7. Two board members took the extraordinary step of addressing the board as members of the public during the public comments agenda item of the December Board meeting. Some board members have filed complaints with the Grand Jury concerning issues involving the proposed contract. Placer County Grand Jury FINDINGS: Based on the facts presented above, the 2005-2006 Placer County Grand Jury makes the following findings with respect to the matter of a proposed new contract for the District Administrator and the ensuing public discussion. 1. This year’s Grand Jury believes that there is no circumstance in which it is advisable to allow an employee to draft his or her own employment contract and under no circumstances should such a draft be considered as a basis for contract discussion or negotiation. 2. We find that there is no logic which would permit an employee’s legal complaints to be any basis whatsoever for considering a new contract. The two matters must be maintained as separate and distinct. 3. The proposed contract extends far beyond the term of any current board member. It would be poor practice to award a new contract that obligates future boards when it is impossible to understand if that action will cause great harm to the budget process of those future boards. The uncertainty of future income and the uncertainty as to the need in the future for ARD to have an executive director are unknown at this time. 4. Considering that the District Administrator is currently under a contract not expiring until 2008, there is no apparent need to consider an extension or modification at this time, especially considering the tenuous relationship between the District Administrator and the Board. 5. The draft contract presented by the District Administrator requests compensation far beyond the value of the position. 6. The termination provisions are almost certainly illegal under state law in exceeding the maximum allowable 18-month severance compensation. 7. Continuing consideration of this matter in ARD Board closed session meetings has been divisive and an impediment to the Board’s effective direction of ARD. 8. There is a likelihood that the content of closed session meetings of the ARD Board regarding the proposed contract has been disclosed to local newspapers either by one or more meeting attendees or through intermediaries. Such disclosures, if they in fact occurred, are a violation of the Brown Act, Section 54963, and are subject to legal remedies. Placer County Grand Jury RECOMMENDATIONS: As noted previously, the Grand Jury anticipates that it will continue to investigate ARD and to report its overall findings and recommendations. This report addresses only the immediate questions of considering a new contract for the District Administrator and the public disclosure of the proposed terms. Thus, the Grand Jury makes the following recommendations at this time 1. All discussion and consideration of a new contract for the District Administrator should cease. 2. The Board should document and state clearly in writing to the District Administrator that it has rejected all of his claims. If he then chooses to resign or to pursue the matter by other legal means, that is his decision. 3. The Grand Jury urges all board members and the District Administrator to put personal agendas and differences behind them and to make a conscientious and sincere attempt to begin to work together as an effective team. Anyone who cannot with clear conscience adhere to this recommendation and act accordingly should resign in the best overall interest of ARD. The Grand Jury reminds all participants in closed session meetings of the ARD Board that the proper avenues under the law for strong disagreement with meeting content are the Grand Jury and the District Attorney. We offer no sympathy to anyone who has chosen, out of disagreement with other members of the board or the District Administrator, to violate the law governing the conduct of elected boards. Such actions run the risk of further diminishing ARD’s reputation and of subjecting ARD and individual members to liability.

R5: The then acting PCACD manager failed to use good judgment in dealing with the funds donated by the voluntary animal alliance group.

R7: This has been resolved and the donated funds are now identified for the sole purpose of animal identification using microchips. The 2005-2006 Grand Jury believes that special recognition should be given to private nonprofit organizations that do an outstanding job in animal protection and adoption within Placer County. RECOMMENDATIONS: The Grand Jury recommends that the following actions be taken by the Placer Animal Control Department:

📋∼ June 30, 2006 — MountainQ uarryB ridge GnaNDJ uny

144 pages 19 findings 18 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 19 findings

F1: Interviewed the County Auditor/Controller regarding her operation, requirements and responsibilities.

F2: Reviewed the 2005/06 Placer County Budget.

F3: Reviewed the county Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2005.

F4: Interviewed the accounting firm of Bartig, Basler & Ray, who were hired to perform the state mandated independent audit of the county, the county redevelopment agency, the county air pollution district, and several grant programs operated by the county.

F5: Reviewed the published reports prepared by the independent auditors subsequent to their audits. 6

F6: Can check out car from City carpool

F7: After 12 years @ 2.7 % at 55 years

F8: Mayor receives $150.00 /month

F9: Mayor receives an additional $150.00/month 16 This page intentionally left blank. 17

F10: PGO had a history of hiring inexperienced Supervisors who required basic PGO training. To remedy those findings the Grand Jury recommended:

F11: Client medications require professional medical supervision. Prescriptions may be changed as much as 3-4 times weekly as doses and types are adjusted to meet the clients’ needs.

F12: Rosewood staff testified that the facility operates very much like a hospital and should meet the same standards. (A hospital of comparable size and services would be required to have 4 nurses.)

F13: The current supervising nurse at Rosewood testified that she works an average of 70 hours a week attending to client needs.

F14: In addition to nursing duties, she also grocery shops at Sam’s Club and serves as dietician for the facility.

F15: This facility currently has only one apartment scale washer and dryer for all 15 clients’ laundry needs (clothing and bedding). The facility had a commercial scale washer, but it broke two years ago and has been deemed un-repairable by the County Maintenance Department. Therefore the supervising nurse sometimes takes the clients’ laundry home to wash and dry it on her own time.

F16: Staff at Rosewood is inadequate to support preparing documentation of the variety of health forms required for reimbursement from Medicare, Medicaid, etc.

F17: Rosewood currently has a transport van that carries 12 persons. This is inadequate for group outings that should include all 15 live-in clients plus staff.

F18: The facility was clean but in need of repairs in the kitchen high traffic areas (flooring separating at the seams). 36

F30: The warehouse, which at last year’s first review was disorganized and unprotected, now has a proper building of its own to store labeled, shipping boxes (instead of grocery bags) containing clients’ personal belongings, with various locked rooms set aside for specific uses.

Additional Recommendations 18

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: LIST OF RESPONDENTS RESPONDENT REPORT PAGE Board of the Ackerman Elementary School District Survey of Placer County Charter Schools 43 Board of the Auburn Union School District Survey of Placer County Charter Schools 43 Board of the Newcastle Elementary School District Survey of Placer County Charter Schools 43 Board of the Rocklin Unified School District Survey of Placer County Charter Schools 43 Community Development Resources Agency Findings from Investigation of the Building Department 17 Placer County Animal Control Department Turtlegate and Microchips 27 Placer County Board of Supervisors Tahoe Justice Center 39 Placer County Building Department Chief Findings from Investigation of the Building Department 17 Placer County Counsel Placer County Main Jail 9 Placer County Director of Adult System of Care Review of Placer County Adult Residential Facilities 33 Placer County Director of Health & Human Services Commendable Progress at Public Guardian’s Office 21 Turtlegate and Microchips 27 Review of Placer County Adult Residential Facilities 33 Placer County Director of Personnel Review of Placer County Adult Residential Facilities 33 Placer County Executive Officer Placer County Main Jail 9 Findings from Investigation of the Building Department 17 Commendable Progress at Public Guardian’s Office 21 Turtlegate and Microchips 27 Tahoe Justice Center 39 Placer County Public Guardian Supervisor Commendable Progress at Public Guardian’s Office 21 Placer County Sheriff Placer County Main Jail 9 Turtlegate and Microchips 27 Placer County Superintendent of Schools Survey of Placer County Charter Schools 43

R2: NOTE TO RESPONDENTS The legal requirements affecting respondents and responses to Grand Jury findings and recommendations are contained in California Penal Code, Section 933.05. The full text of the law is printed below. Each Respondent should become familiar with these legal requirements and, if in doubt, should consult legal counsel prior to responding. For the assistance of all Respondents, Sections 933.05 of the California Penal Code is summarized as follows: The responding person or entity must respond in one of two ways: 1. That you agree with the findings. 2. That you disagree wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons for the disagreement. HOW TO REPORT ACTION IN RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendations by the Grand Jury require action. The responding person or entity must report action on all recommendations in one of four ways: 1. The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary of the implemented action. 2. The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. 3. The recommendation requires further analysis. If a person or entity reports in this manner, the law requires a detailed explanation of the analysis or study must be submitted to the officer, director, or governing body of the agency being investigated. 4. The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore. BUDGETARY or PERSONNEL RECOMMENDATIONS If either a finding or recommendation deals with budgetary or personnel matters of a County department headed by an elected officer, both the elected officer and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if the Grand Jury so requests. While the Board of Supervisors’ response is somewhat limited, the response by the department head must address all aspects of the findings and recommendations. APPEARANCE BEFORE THE GRAND JURY Prior to the publication or release of Grand Jury findings, the Grand Jury may request a personal appearance by the person or entity to discuss the proposed findings.

R3: ADVANCE RELEASE OF GRAND JURY REPORT DISCLOSURE PROHIBITED PRIOR TO PUBLIC RELEASE Two working days prior to release of the Final Report, the Grand Jury will provide a copy of the portion of the report to all affected agencies or persons. No officer, agency, department, or governing body of a public agency shall disclose the contents of the report prior to its release. TIME TO RESPOND, WHERE AND TO WHOM TO RESPOND Section 933.(c), Penal Code, depending on the type of Respondent, provides for two different response times and to whom you must respond: 1. Public Agency: The governing body of any public agency must respond within ninety (90) days. The response must be addressed to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. 2. Elective Office or Agency Head: All elected officers or heads of agencies who are required to respond must do so within sixty (60) days, to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court, with an information copy provided to the Board of Supervisors. The Presiding Judge of the Placer County Superior Court system is: The Honorable Frances Kearney Presiding Judge of the Superior Court County of Placer 11546 B Avenue Auburn, CA 95603 Also, please send your responses in the form of an original hard copy as well as digital copy on compact disk to the Placer County Grand Jury, addressed as follows: C Avenue Auburn, CA 95603 CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE SECTION 933.05 a. For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each Grand Jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following:

R4: Field staff should be required to meet the qualifications criteria in California Penal Code 832.

R5: The then acting PCACD manager failed to use good judgment in dealing with the funds donated by the voluntary animal alliance group.

R6: Due to the lack of adequate written procedures, an oral agreement was not kept and the donated funds were placed into an account that could have been used for other than the purpose intended by the group making the donation (microchipping of adopted animals).

R8: Rosewood has 15 live-in clients (usually transfers from state hospitals) who stay for an average of 3 months in order to learn skills to transition to independent living.

R9: Rosewood has a continual waiting list of 4 persons.

R10: Rosewood is licensed as a “Board and Care” facility, so they are not legally required to have nurses.

R11: Client medications require professional medical supervision. Prescriptions may be changed as much as 3-4 times weekly as doses and types are adjusted to meet the clients’ needs.

R12: Rosewood staff testified that the facility operates very much like a hospital and should meet the same standards. (A hospital of comparable size and services would be required to have 4 nurses.)

R13: The current supervising nurse at Rosewood testified that she works an average of 70 hours a week attending to client needs.

R14: In addition to nursing duties, she also grocery shops at Sam’s Club and serves as dietician for the facility.

R15: This facility currently has only one apartment scale washer and dryer for all 15 clients’ laundry needs (clothing and bedding). The facility had a commercial scale washer, but it broke two years ago and has been deemed un-repairable by the County Maintenance Department. Therefore the supervising nurse sometimes takes the clients’ laundry home to wash and dry it on her own time.

R16: Staff at Rosewood is inadequate to support preparing documentation of the variety of health forms required for reimbursement from Medicare, Medicaid, etc.

R17: Rosewood currently has a transport van that carries 12 persons. This is inadequate for group outings that should include all 15 live-in clients plus staff.

R18: The facility was clean but in need of repairs in the kitchen high traffic areas (flooring separating at the seams). 36

📋∼ June 30, 2006 — MountainQ uarryB ridge GnaNDJ uny

144 pages 19 findings 18 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 19 findings

F1: "The Sierra Colle{e Foundation could legally operate as an intermediary or$anization fundin$the bond measures as defined in the FPPC lnformation Manual D, as advised by Gilbert & Associates, Govern ment Financial Strategfies, lnc., Dr. Larry Toy (President/CEO Foundation for California Community Colleges) and without objection for the College Dlstrict's Legal counsel, Marion Cantor." We agree with Finding 1. (Continued on next page...) 5ooo Rocklin Road I Rocklin ce 95677 | (grO) 78r-o54o m lyn n @sierracollege.edu I fax (9r6) 789-2855 The Honorable Frances Kearney Presiding Judge of the Superior Court CounV of Placer May 5,2006 Page -2- Responses to Findings (Continued)

F2: Reviewed the 2005/06 Placer County Budget.

F3: (Continued) The Foundation was consistently open about the donors, posting the names of donors on its website. As soon as questions were raised concerning the committee's non-disclosure, the Foundation again provided all donor information to those requesting it and re-sent the information to the committees for the purpose of ensuring that a full and complete list was available for public disclosure. The College Administration and the Foundation believe that the committees involved and their volunteer treasurers were not fully aware of the requi.rements of campaign reporting disclosure. The College Administration and the Foundation believe that the characterizattonor use of the term "money laundering" is undeserved. Government Code S 84301 requires the disclosure of the true source of a campaign contribution and the intermediary. In this case, the inadvertent non, disclosure by the committees involved was not "money laundering." We agree with Finding 3c.

F4: The FPPC filing, errors were relatively minor and easity coruectable. The Committees promptly made amended filingsto correctly disclose donor names when the errors were found. We agree with Finding 4. RESPONSES TO RECOMMENDATIONS

F5: Reviewed the published reports prepared by the independent auditors subsequent to their audits. 6

F6: Can check out car from City carpool

F7: has no legally required respondent, but the Grand Jury hopes that the press and the public will take note of it. This page intentionally left blank. APPENDIX 1: THE COMPLAINT A,tnox I(IEIN Siera College Trustee - l i i : . i I December 20,2004 Mr. Jirn McCauley Placet County Clerk/Recorder PO Box 5278 Aubutn, Cabfornta 9 560 4 Dear Jrm, i ' : r i ' i i ; , r i . r , . i _ , t - . t - , t l i-l i r1.i' l'i r t,; Thrs letter constitutes an official complaint tegardrng what appears to be over $100,000 in potential violations of campaign finance law on the pat of the Ptesident and Superintendent of the Sierra Joint Community College District, I{evin Ramirez. The televant facts ate ^s follows. I(evin Ramirez is the President and Supenntendent of the Sierra Joint Community College District. As President, he has supervision and management control over the college and its related entities. Ramirez is the one rndividual who has contact with the college vendors who made the donations in question, who serves as a member of the Sierra College Foundauon Board of Ditectors, who supervises the Sierra College Foundation Executive Director and who is ultimately tesponsible fot all management decisions made by the Foundation. As a result, I(evin Ramirez is at the centef of these allegations, and either conceived of and authorized this scheme, or should have known and reported it to the Board of Trustees and the appropriate authorities rmmedrately In March of 2004, a bond election was held withrn the counties of Placer, Nevada, Sactamento and El Dorado for the purpose of determining whether the Sierra Joint Community College District should be authorized to float $394 mrllion in bonds for the tenovation, repair and expansion of Sierra College facilities. This measule was placed on the ballot as Measure E. Campaign frnance reports filed by the committee show a $60,000 contribution from the Sierra College Foundation, which is a nonprofit foundation organized and operated fot the purpose of supporung Sierra Community College. As the attached evidence shows, donors were solicited to support the Measure E bond electton through a donation to the Sierra College Foundation, and the Foundation tllen eatmarked those funds and contributed them to the bond measure political comrnittee at a later date. Tlus money laundering scheme allowed the administration to hide the true identities of donors to the bond campaign's politrcal committee. The funds received from these solicitations were deposited in accounts operated by the Foundation. There were no frhngs with the appropriate authoritres in Placer Counf/, Nevada County, El Dorado County, Sacramento County or the Secretary of State to disclose these donations or report the balances of these accounts, as required by the Political Refotm Act and its implementrng tegulauons. 4055 GMSS VALLEY HrcHwAy, SUrTE 104 AUBURN, CaltFonNn 95602 530-346-8175 rax 530-886-0710 Not prepared or nailed at taxpaJer exPewe 't. 2. -). 4. 5. t. There was no consultation with or approval by the Board of Ttustees in regards to this scheme (although two trustees did serve on the Foundation board at the time, and continue to sewe). These funds were earmarked in a "special fund" for the Measure E bond campaign that was aggregated and then donated to the Measure E political committee shortly before the funds were needed for theu expenditure. The Foundatron neither added to or subttacted from these funds: the Foundauon was srmply used as a "pass-through" to funnel the dollars to the politrcal committee. Thus, the true donors to the Yes on Measure E committee wete never properly drsclosed to the public as tequired by the Political Reform Act and its implementing regulations. By makrng donad.ons to the foundation instead of the committee, theit identities wete never drsclosed because only the name of the Siera College Foundation appears on the campaign finance repofts relating to this $60,000 contribution. I want to emphasize that I do not believe that the donors themselves played any role in the conception or execution of thrs scheme. In fact, many of. the donors turned out to be indrviduals or companies whose only interest was the broad betterment of the community. Howevet, a number of the donots did rnclude enhties with a financial interest in the outcome of the election, including several ftms who have ongoing conftactual relationships with the college in the areas of construction, architectutal sewices, food service/vending and finance. These ftms would stand to gteady increase their business with the college upon passage of the measures. Further, the Board of Trustees relies on Ptesident I(evin Ramrrez to recommend which hrms the college should grant contracts to, giving these fums an additional reason to provide the financial support to the bond measures as requested by him or his designee. Whether the donor had a financial interest or not, President Ramirez or his subordinate was clearly wrong to conceive of and execute a scheme that deprived the public of the dght to know who was mfluencrng the potential passage of the measure prior to the election. 13. There is some case to be made that the Foundation, a 501(h) otgatizztton, can legally make contributions to ballot measure committees, without losrng its tax exempt status. However, this does flot exempt the Foundation ftom the provisions of the Political Reform Act and its rmplementing regulations, forbidding it to accept poliucal donations without the proper filing disclosures. 14. The SieraJornt Community Coliege District funds the entire salary of the President Ramirez, and partially funds the salary of the Foundation Executive Djrector. Therefore, if President Ramrez spent taxpayer-funded time conceiving of, authorizing or parucipatirg ir this scheme, or if he instructed the Executive Director to c^try out this scheme, those activities would constitute a felony or misdemeanor under Education Code $ 7054, which provides: (a) No school district or community college district funds, services, supplies, or equipment shall be used for the putpose of urging the support or defeat of any ballot measure or candidate, including, but not limited to, any candidate for election to the governing board of the disttict. (b) Nothing in this section shall prohibit the use of any of the pubhc resources described in subdivision (a) to provide information to the public about the possible effects of any bond issue or other ballot measure if both of the following conditions are met: 10. 11,. 12. 1 5 . 1,6. (1) The informational activities are otherwise authorized by the Constitution or laws of this state. (2) Ihe info-rmation provided constitutes a fa'. and,impartial presentation of relevant facts to aid the electorate in reaching an inftrmedl"dgr";, regardrng the bond issue or ballot measure. (c) A violauon of this section shall be a misdemeanor or felony punishable by imprisonment in the counry jarl not exceeding.on e year or by " fir" not exceiding one thousand dollars ($1,000)' or by both, ot it rpiirorr-ent in a state pflson for 1,6 months, or fwo or three years. The actions described above were repeated for the two additjonal bond measures proposed for the November 2004 election. Me.asure-G was proposed to provide funding for the renovation, repair and expansion of Sierta college facilities in Grass valley, califorrua. c"-purgr finance r.poro frl.d b;i;" Measure G committee show a $16,000 contribution from the Foundation, as well as a $10,000 contribution from excess funds left over from the Measure E committee. Measure ! -1t proposed to ptovide funding for the construction of new Sierra college facilities rn Truckee, califotnia' As of this- writing, the Nevada counry clerk-Recorder,s office has still been unable or unwilling to.forward a copy of campaign fin^n.. reports fi.led by the Measure H committee, but we estimate that ovet $28,000 was conftibuted by the Fo.rrrdutro., based on the evidence received from the Foundauon. 1 7 . 1 8 .In order to attempt to address the concerns over thrs activity, the Foundation provided electronic -copies of its spteadsheets that were used to record the donations solicited and earmarked for the eventual transfer to their appropriate bond measure committees. printed copies of those spreadsheets are attached. 19' The spreadsheet detaihng Measu.te E donors includes a notation that the donatrons at rssue are classified for a "0724A Special Fund", separate ftom the *1l24Annual Fund,,. 20' The spreadsheet detailing Measute G and H donors is even more explicit, stating line-by-line which ballot measure the donation is earmarked for. There is $16,400 earmatked for Measure G, and $28,560 earmarked for Measure H. I am seeking a fotmal investigauon by the appropriate rnvesugatory and law enforcement agencies of these campaign finance issues. If I can provide any additional information, please do not hesitate to call me at 530-gg5-95 00 x215. Srncerelv. t l -ffiV- Aaron I(lein Trustee, Sierra Joint Commurury College District 40 APPENDIX 2: REFERENCE DOCUMENTS APPENDIX 2: REFERENCE DOCUMENTS Item # Date of Origin or Receipt Category Source Title or Comments 1 12/20/04 Grand Jury Complaint Complainant Complaint alleging criminal charges against SC President Dr. Kevin Ramirez 2 12/23/04 Letter Clerk-Recorder's Office 4 Letters: forwarding same complaint to FPPC, Grand Jury, State Attorney General, and Placer County District Attorney 3 12/27/04 Letter FPPC Acknowledgement of complaint receipt 4 1/24/05 Letter Clerk-Recorder's Office Letter to SCFoundation advising of possible obligation to file 5 1/7/05 Grand Jury Complaint California Grand Jury Association Citizen complaint regarding Sierra College Foundation 6 2/4/05 Letter Clerk-Recorder's Office 3 Letters: to Placer County District Attorney, Grand Jury and FPPC w/enclosures of Measure G filings from Nevada County w/attachments of Foundation's accounting for bond measure donors 7 3/7/05 Letter Foundation President Response to Recorder's office outlining results of legal advice and filing violations being "technical and inadvertent" 8 9/22/05 Grand Jury Complaint Former Grand Jury Member Citizen complaint regarding Sierra College Foundation 9 12/8/05 Meeting notes Clerk-Recorder's Office Meeting 10 .12/15/05 Testimony notes Foundation Exec Director Testimony 11 12/18/05 Working Paper Grand Jury "Analysis of the Klein Complaint" 12 1/11/06 Testimony notes Former Foundation Board President Testimony 13 1/12/06 Testimony notes Current Foundation Board Presdent Testimony 14 1/12/06 Testimony notes Sierra College Interim President Testimony 15 Working Paper Sierra College Interim President Graph, FTES (full time equivalent student) decline 12/04-2/05 16 1/17/06 Testimony notes Former Treasurer, Committee for Measure E Testimony 17 1/18/06 Testimony notes Sierra College VP Finance & Admin Testimony 18 1/23/06 Testimony notes Sierra College Board Member 1 Testimony 19 1/24/06 Testimony notes Sierra College Board Member 2 Testimony 20 2/1/06 Testimony notes Former Treasurer, Committee for Measure H Testimony 21 2/13/06 Packet Former Treasurer, Committee for Measure H Measure H Campaign documents (e-mails, FPPC instructions, letter from Sec'y of State, letter from Streamline Consulting Group, copies of receipts) 22 2/8/06 Testimony notes Complainant Testimony 23 2/8/06 Working Paper Complainant Complainant's "Grand Jury Outline" 24 2/8/06 FPPC Complainant FPPC No.: 04/593 Stipulation, Decision and Order in the Matter of Foothilld-De Anza Community Colleges Foundation 25 2/8/06 Letter Complainant Correspondence between Foundation and a significant business donor to all 3 bond measures 26 2/18/06 Testimony notes Notes from Foundation business donor interviews Testimony 27 2/20/06 Testimony notes Former Sierra College Director of Business Services Testimony 28 2/27/06 Testimony notes Treasurer, Committee for Measure B Testimony (Complainant's source for "is this legal?") 29 2/27/06 Testimony notes Former Sierra College Board Member Testimony (party to Complainant's alleged bathroom conversation) 30 3/6/06 Testimony notes Sierra College Board President Testimony (Complainant's advisor) 31 12/15/05 Bond Measures Clerk-Recorder's Office Measure E: Proposal to issue bonds for Sierra Joint Community College District 32 3/2/04 Internet League of Women Voters Measure E Description 33 12/15/05 Bond Measures Clerk-Recorder's Office Measure H: Proposal to issue bonds for Sierra Joint Community College School Facilities Improvement District Number 1 34 12/8/05 FPPC Clerk-Recorder's Office Election Filing Reports: Copies of all campaign filings for Measures E, G, and H 35 12/8/05 FPPC Clerk-Recorder's Office Election Results: Local Measures G and H 36 12/31/94 FPPC Fair Political Practices Commission Information Manual D: Manual for recipient committees formed to support or oppose the passage of ballot measures 37 2/15/06 FPPC Fair Political Practices Commission 2004 Addendum: Supplement to Manual D 38 1/1/05 FPPC Fair Political Practices Commission 2005 Addendum: Supplement to Manual D 39 11/15/05 Internet County Counsel Education Code 7050-7058 40 11/28/05 Internet Education Code Section 72670 - 72682 Code governing formation of auxiliary organizations by community colleges APPENDIX 2: REFERENCE DOCUMENTS Item # Date of Origin or Receipt Category Source Title or Comments 41 10/15/02 Working Paper Financial Strategies Inc. Memo: "Relationship of Sierra College Foundation to Expanding Horizons for Lifelong Learning 42 6/26/02 e-mail Larry Toy, President, Foundation for California Community Colleges Statewide/Local Bond Campaign Contributions Through Your Foundation 43 5/10/02 Working Paper Gilbert Associates, Inc. CPAs and Advisors Memo: Allowable Financial Support from the Foundation for Proposed Sierra Junior College Bond Measure 44 7/8/02 Internet Online Compendium of Federal and State Regulations for U.S. Non-Profit Organizations Lobbying and Political Activity by Tax-Exempt Organizations 45 11/5/03 e-mail Sierra College Rules regarding the bond campaign 46 12/19/02 Letter Gilbert Associates, Inc. CPAs and Advisors Letter to SC VP Business Services re: form and filing for IRS for the Foundation to allow expenditures to influence legislation 47 1/11/05 Formal Meeting Minutes Minutes - Sierra College Board Mtg. Special meeting of the Board with public comments re: Dr. Ramirez 48 7/1/03 Contract Sierra College Contract Extension between Sierra College and Kevin Ramirez 49 1/21/05 Contract Sierra College Settlement Agreement between Sierra College Board and Kevin Ramirez; attachment of Foundation donor accounting 50 1/23/06 Working Paper Sierra College General Fund 10-year History with Ramirez Buyout Expenses Removed 51 1/23/06 Working Paper Sierra College Sierra Community College District Facilities Funding Challenges 52 3/7/08 Formal Meeting Minutes Sierra College Sierra Joint Community College Districts Minutes (Oct 2002 - Dec 2004) 53 12/15/05 Contract Foundation Executive Director Foundation Bylaws 54 12/15/05 Financial Foundation Executive Director Foundation Financial statements, independent auditor's reports and IRS filings (2002-2004) 55 12/15/05 Foundation Board members Foundation Executive Director Foundation's 2002-2003 Board of Directors 56 12/15/05 Foundation Board members Foundation Executive Director Foundation's 2003-2004 Board of Directors 57 12/15/05 Foundation Board members Foundation Executive Director Foundation's 2004-2005 Board of Directors 58 10/13/03 Formal Meeting Minutes Minutes - Foundation Board Mtg. Agenda Item III.C "Foundation Support of March, 04 Bond Measure" 59 1/13/03 Formal Meeting Minutes Minutes - Foundation Board Mtg. Agenda Item IV.B "Election of 501(h) option to the Foundation's 501(c)(3) Status" 60 10/11/04 Agenda Agenda - Foundation Board Mtg. attachment "Transfer of Funds from Special Account in accordance with 501h allowance" 61 10/11/04 Formal Meeting Minutes - Foundation Board Mtg. Agenda Item IV.B "Transfer of Funds to Measures G & H" 62 1/26/04 Formal Meeting Minutes Minutes - Foundation Board Mtg. Agenda Items III.B "Amendment to the Articles of Incorporation" and III.D "Transfer of Funds from Special Account in Accordance with the 501(h) Allowance" 63 1/3/05 e-mail Foundation Executive Director response from ELAC Foundation re: use of 501(h) 64 1/4/05 e-mail Foundation Executive Director response from Merced College Foundation re: use of 501(h) 65 1/4/05 e-mail Foundation Executive Director response from Ventura College Foundation re: use of 501(h) 66 1/4/05 e-mail Foundation Executive Director response from Cabrillo College Foundation re: use of 501(h) 67 3/8/05 e-mail Foundation Executive Director re: memo from SCF President about filings failures 68 1/28/04 e-mail Foundation Executive Director from campaign group for E titled "Campaign Contribution Update" with lengthy list of Foundation contributors 69 9/8/04 - 10/14/04 e-mail Foundation Executive Director series of e-mails form 9/8/04 - 10/14/04 reporting donations to G & H bond measure committees 70 11/17/03 Letter Foundation Executive Director Thank you letters to a major donor from SCF President 71 12/17/03 Letter Foundation Executive Director Thank you letters to a 4 major donors from SCF President 72 10/18/04 Letter Foundation Executive Director Thank you letters to 7 major donors from SCF Executive Director w/receipts attached 73 11/29/04 Letter Foundation Executive Director Thank you letters to 9 major donors from SC President and SCF Executive Director 74 3/7/05 Letter Sierra College Foundation Letter responding to County Clerk-Recorder concerning filing violations 75 7/26/04 Letter TRR (Teresa R. Ryland, C.P.A) To SCF Exec Director re: continued tax-exempt status; outlining that 20% of expenditures could be contributed to the bond measure 76 8/13/05 Marketing Survey Fairbank, Maslin, Maulin & Associates Sierra Joint CCD Marketing Survey (August 13-19, 2005) 77 2/11/05 Newspaper Article Auburn Journal "Award, allegations complicate legacy of Sierra President" APPENDIX 2: REFERENCE DOCUMENTS Item # Date of Origin or Receipt Category Source Title or Comments 78 2/4/05 Newspaper Article Auburn Journal "Campaign watchdog group investigating Ramirez fundraising" 79 2/3/05 Newspaper Article Auburn Journal "Diverse group holds reins of Sierra College" 80 12/24/04 Newspaper Article Auburn Journal "Further charges fly at college 81 2/2/05 Newspaper Article Auburn Journal "Grand Jury reports show Sierra leaders no strangers to contoversy" 82 3/10/05 Newspaper Article Auburn Journal "Klein recall effort folds" 83 1/28/05 Newspaper Article Auburn Journal "Lynn in as Sierra interim president" 84 3/27/05 Newspaper Article Auburn Journal "Politics at work in parcel tax? 85 1/30/05 Newspaper Article Auburn Journal "Ramirez buyout may have cost over $500,000 86 12/24/04 Newspaper Article Auburn Journal "Sierra college trustee calls on College President Ramirez to resign" 87 2/6/06 Newspaper Article Auburn Journal "Sierra inducts 46 into Hall of Fame" 88 11/4/05 Newspaper Article Auburn Journal "Sierra probes support for new bond 89 12/24/04 Newspaper Article Auburn Journal "Trustee alleges Ramirez funneled political spending" 90 3/3/05 Newspaper Article Lincoln News Messenger "Klein speech rekindles Sierra debate" 91 12/23/04 Newspaper Article Lincoln News Messenger "Ramirez Claims Pressure from Board to Resign" 92 12/30/04 Newspaper Article Lincoln News Messenger "Ramirez Rebuts charges by new board member" 93 1/27/05 Newspaper Article Lincoln News Messenger "Ramirez to step down as President of Sierra College" 94 2/1/05 Newspaper Article Lincoln News Messenger "Ramirez, Sierra board faced scrutiny in the past" 95 12/24/04 Newspaper Article Placer Herald "Sierra president alleges pressure to resign post" 96 12/20/04 Newspaper Article Sacramento Bee "College chief should quit, trustee says" 97 3/10/05 Newspaper Article The Union "Effort to recall Klein abandoned" 98 2/10/05 Newspaper Article The Union "Klein focuses on future for college" 99 2/22/05 Newspaper Article The Union "Making deals normal at college" 100 12/29/04 Newspaper Article The Union "Trustee: Sierra College leader should leave" 101 12/22/04 Internet Complainant's Blog "An Open Letter to our Sierra College Faculty, Classified Staff and Administration 102 1/4/06 Internet Complainant's Blog "Auburn Journal Article on the Proposed Sierra College Bond 103 5/27/05 Internet Complainant's Blog "Commencement, Part II" 104 2/4/04 Internet Complainant's Blog "Making Progress at Sierra College" 105 5/20/05 Internet Complainant's Blog "My Speech on a New College for a New Day" 106 6/20/05 Internet Complainant's Blog "Sierra College … On the Right Track" 107 8/27/05 Internet Complainant's Blog "The journal attempts to right a wrong …" 44 APPENDIX 3: TIME LINE OF EVENTS 45 This page intentionally left blank. APPENDIX 3: TIME LINE OF EVENTS • Foundation approves 501(h) election Î 01/13/03 • Foundation donor list circulates among Committee for Measure E Î 01/22/04 • Foundation approves $60,000 transfer to Measure E Î 01/26/04 • Foundation transfers $60,000 to Committee for Measure E Î 02/14/04 • Committee for E files Form 460 ($60,000 wo/donor detail) Î 02/18/04 • ELECTION: Bond Measure E Fails Î 03/02/04 • Foundation e-mails provide donor lists to G & H Committees Î 09/08-10/14/04 • Foundation approves funding up to $60,000 for Measures G & H Î 10/11/04 • Committee for Measure E files Form 460 Î 10/11/04 (shows transfers of $10K to Committees for G & H; returns $2419 to Foundation) • Foundation transfers $25,210 to Committee for Measure H Î 10/16/04 • Committee for Measure H files Form 460 ($25,210 wo/donor detail) Î 10/21/04 • Complainant detects FPPC filing errors for E, G & H Î 10/24/04 • ELECTION: Complainant elected as Trustee; Measures G & H pass Î 11/02/04 • Committee for E files amendment identifying individual donors Î 11/16/04 • Complainant writes & sends complaint to Grand Jury & Recorder Î 12/20/04 • Grand Jury receives 1st complaint (also County Recorder’s Office) Î 12/23/04 • FPPC acknowledges receipt of complaint from Recorder’s Office Î 12/27/04 • Grand Jury receives 2nd citizen complaint re: investigation of FoundationÎ 01/07/05 • Sierra College Board special meeting re: Ramirez/Board conflict Î 01/11/05 • Settlement agreement between Ramirez & College Î 01/21/05 • Letter from Recorder’s office to Foundation (‘You may need to file’) Î 01/24/05 • Foundation replies to Recorder’s Office letter re: attorney’s assessment Î 03/07/05 • Committee for H files amended Form 460 showing $25,210 donor detailÎ 03/22/05 • Grand Jury begins inquiry (attend Sierra College Board Meeting) Î 09/13/05 • Grand Jury receives 3rd citizen complaint Î 09/22/05 • Press repeats allegations upon Ramirez hall of fame induction Î 02/06/06 47 This page intentionally left blank. INSTRUCTIONS TO RESPONDENTS w" Morgan Lynn, Ed.D. lnterim Superintendent/President ffi,ffi@q;f QIT,RRAC \ Il'L--rr. W e f a c i l i t a t e l e a r n i n g , i n s p i r e May 5,2006 The Honorable Frances Kearney Presiding Judge of the Superior Couit Counfy of Placer 11.546 B Avenue Auburn, CA 95603 Dear Judge Kearney, We acknowledge and offer our appreciation for the Grand Jury's Report. This Report was thorough and fully accurate as to the circumstances, motivations and the lack of intent involved in the inadvertent campaign disclosure problems associated with the bond measure campaigns. This response to the Grand Jury Report entitled Refutation of Charge Against Former Sierra College President, dated March 2'1,,2006, is made by Dr. Morgan Lynn, Interim Superintendent/President, Sierra College, and Sonbol Aliabadi, Executive Director, Sierra Coilege Foundation. We have been directed to respond to Findings 1 through 4; and Recommendations L and 5. , RESPONSES TO FINDINGS