Plumas County Grand Jury
2012-2013
From the annual report
The consolidated year-end volume. The individual investigations it contains are listed separately below.
📑 Year-End Report
The full consolidated volume; individual reports are listed below.
Individual reports (8)
∼ June 30, 2013 — In the Crosshairs Plumas County Probation Department Report Executive Summary:
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
23 findings
F1:
The Probation Department prepares presentencing reports, using their best judgment about public safety, and information regarding the offender’s background, for the court’s use in sentencing. These court mandated reports can take at a minimum 6 to 8 hours to complete and often more. Their case load is not a factor in preparing the presentencing report so they have no control over the total number of cases they are required to handle.
F2:
Interviews with the County Board of Supervisors have found that the majority of the Board does not have public safety as their #1 priority for Plumas County.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Plumas County Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors make public safety their unanimous top priority for the protection and the wellbeing of the citizens of Plumas County. The Grand Jury requests the Board of Supervisors respond to this recommendation.
F3:
Grand Jury determined there is minimal support from the Board of Supervisors regarding department staffing levels.
F4:
The Probation Department is extremely under budgeted.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The Grand Jury believes the Board of Supervisors must recognize that the criminal justice dollar is favorably placed in probation efforts. By making a commitment to invest in probation services, Plumas County can increase rehabilitation of offenders, thereby decreasing recidivism and the high cost of re-incarceration. The Grand Jury requests the Board of Supervisors respond to this recommendation. Plumas County Probation Department Report
F5:
The Probation Department is critically under staffed because of budget cuts and the inability to fill positions.
Related Recommendations (2)
R2:
The Board of Supervisors should place an emphasis on returning the Probation Department’s staffing levels to sustainable working levels and attain a better caseload ratio by increasing the budget to authorize the hiring of additional probation officers. The Grand Jury requests the Board of Supervisors respond to this recommendation.
R3:
At the request of the Chief Probation Officer, the Board of Supervisors should increase the budget to authorize hiring additional probation officers so more probationers, who may be a threat to public safety, can be kept in the actively supervised categories. Grand Jury requests the Board of Supervisors respond to this recommendation.
F6:
The Department Head must depend on grant monies to pay some salary positions.
F7:
The Deputy Probation Officer (DPO) compensation is lower than those counties of similar size and population of Plumas County.
F8:
Plumas County is losing experienced DPO’s to other counties, due to better opportunity, advancement possibilities and salary.
F9:
When the Probation Department lost a line supervisor, the Board of Supervisors would not authorize the funding to replace that staff member.
F10:
SB678, enacted in 2009, grant monies took a 94% decrease, and going from $400,000 to $24,000 in 2012, further exacerbating the department’s funding issues.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The Grand Jury believes the Board of Supervisors must recognize that the criminal justice dollar is favorably placed in probation efforts. By making a commitment to invest in probation services, Plumas County can increase rehabilitation of offenders, thereby decreasing recidivism and the high cost of re-incarceration. The Grand Jury requests the Board of Supervisors respond to this recommendation. Plumas County Probation Department Report
F11:
A BoS Member stated that “arming probation officers would place them in a higher cost retirement category, costing the County money”. It was suggested probation call a deputy if they got “in trouble.” Lack of adequate availability due to Sheriff’s Office personnel makes this an officer safety issue. The Plumas County Grand Jury found this comment to typify the County Board of Supervisor’s attitude towards both officer and public safety and was found to be short sighted.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The Board of Supervisors should support the CPO in the arming of those DPO’s that must work with high risk probationers to ensure their personal protection. The Grand Jury requests the Board of Supervisors respond to this recommendation.
F12:
The Board of Supervisors mandated the Probation Department move to the Courthouse Annex, while every staff member interviewed felt the move an ill-conceived and an unwarranted waste of time and resources.
F13:
In spite of the number of high risk offenders, there are no Deputy Probation Officers (DPO) authorized to carry firearms; this is due to the fact that there is no Policy and Procedure in place regarding “Use of Force” as well as the lack of funds for required training.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The Board of Supervisors should support the CPO in the arming of those DPO’s that must work with high risk probationers to ensure their personal protection. The Grand Jury requests the Board of Supervisors respond to this recommendation.
F14:
Probation Officers have personal safety concerns in dealing with increasing numbers high risk offenders, partially due to AB-109. Plumas County Probation Department Report
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The Board of Supervisors should support the CPO in the arming of those DPO’s that must work with high risk probationers to ensure their personal protection. The Grand Jury requests the Board of Supervisors respond to this recommendation.
F15:
There are varied perceptions by Probation Office Staff of overall Judicial oversight.
F16:
Due to the lack of personnel there is high case/workloads resulting in low morale. Currently there are approximately 275 adult probationers and 30 juvenile probationers.
Related Recommendations (2)
R2:
The Board of Supervisors should place an emphasis on returning the Probation Department’s staffing levels to sustainable working levels and attain a better caseload ratio by increasing the budget to authorize the hiring of additional probation officers. The Grand Jury requests the Board of Supervisors respond to this recommendation.
R3:
At the request of the Chief Probation Officer, the Board of Supervisors should increase the budget to authorize hiring additional probation officers so more probationers, who may be a threat to public safety, can be kept in the actively supervised categories. Grand Jury requests the Board of Supervisors respond to this recommendation.
F17:
There is no Line Probation Supervisor for the Probation Officers.
F18:
There are currently 9 vacant positions out of 21 full time positions.
F19:
Staff members use their own vehicles to come to the Court House from the Probation Department due to few County vehicles being available.
F20:
The Chief Probation Officer (CPO) has nearly 20 years of experience.
F21:
The Probation Department and the Sheriff Department have a cooperative working relationship.
F22:
The District Attorney and the Probation Department have a cordial working relationship.
F23:
Interaction between the Board of Supervisors and the Chief Probation Officer continues to be confrontational, demeaning, and unprofessional toward the CPO.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
The Board of Supervisors should work toward fostering a more constructive working relationship with the CPO based on professionalism and respect for each other’s values and viewpoints. The Grand Jury requests the Board of Supervisors respond to this recommendation.
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R7:
The Grand Jury further recommends that should there ever be any kind of potential conflict of interest that could be construed, that County Supervisor must recuse from any decision making in regards to that Department. This action will ensure all efforts are in place to preserve transparency, ethics and prevent possible conflict. The Grand Jury requests the Board of Supervisors respond to this recommendation.
∼ June 30, 2013 — G R a N D J U R Y R E P O R T
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
The audit found four recurring deficiencies. These are repeats of prior year findings. a. Lack of Timely Processing: Disbursements were paid in excess of 30 days past the invoice date of the vendor billing. The Auditor staff was not able to perform this function in a timely manner due to the departments not submitting claims for payment to the Auditor’s office in a timely manner. b. Sheriff Inmate Welfare Reconciliation: Although the Inmate Trust bank account is being reconciled to the accounting records on a monthly basis, the balance held in the account does not appear to be reconciled to an open listing of balances held for each inmate. The County could not provide a listing of balances held for inmates that reconciled to the bank balance. c. Compensated Absences: For the close of FY 2011/2012, the audit exposed a negative balance of $25,202 in the County’s Compensated Absences Account. In simple terms, the County paid out over $25k to employees for vacation time, leave time, and comp time before the benefits were earned. d. Risk Management – Landfill: The County does not have adequate insurance coverage for the landfill.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends that the County immediately correct the deficiencies found during the audit. These are repeats of prior year findings. a. Modify procedures to ensure that County departments submit invoices to the Auditor for processing and payment in a timely manner. b. Reconcile the Inmate Trust bank account to an open listing of balances held by each inmate on a monthly basis. The detailed listing of inmate balances should be printed and maintained as an audit trail showing that this procedure was performed. c. Review balances of compensated leave on a regular basis to determine that employees are not being paid for more time than what has accrued. d. Maintain adequate insurance coverage for the landfill to minimize the risk of loss. e. Take steps to re-negotiate its employee retirement and sick leave policies to be more in line with other counties of similar size and population.
F2:
The audit found two new items requiring correction this year: a. Outside Bank Accounts: There is an inadequate review of all outside bank accounts. Various departments of the County hold bank accounts outside the County Treasury for which the purpose of these accounts is to collect credit card payments. There are several accounts that the County Auditor Controller’s office has not been obtaining monthly bank statements and reconciliations from the departments and the reconciled balance for one bank account had not been recorded on the general ledger of the County. Animal Control: There is a lack of controls within the Animal Control department and department employees are not following policies and procedures. Even though the Animal Control department is not authorized to accept cash, the department still accepts cash and an employee writes a personal check to cover the amount of cash received, deposits the personal check with department deposit, and takes the cash. Good internal control requires proper cash handling. The risk of errors or irregularities is increased when department employees are not following proper policies and procedures. Plumas County Audit Report
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The County needs to correct the deficiencies found during the audit. a. Record on the County general ledger all bank accounts in the County’s name, reconcile all outside bank accounts, and forward the information to the Auditor Controller monthly. b. All County departments must follow County policies and procedures for cash handling. c. All department employees must follow policies and procedures. Plumas County Audit Report CONCLUSION: Turning the Ship Around For the past several years, Plumas County has shown little interest in tackling the County’s financial problems and getting its fiscal house in order. It seemed the attitude that prevailed from the Board of Supervisors all the way down to every department was, “we just have to hang in there for a while, get by with less, and all will be right again.” This attitude resulted in the County spending more on public services and its own processes than it was taking in. During these years, Plumas County has shown a lack of cohesive teamwork with each department competing with other departments for the limited funding. In simple terms, not working together, but fighting together. This conflict was in fact the major reason the previous County Auditor Controller resigned in early 2012. The Grand Jury is pleased to report that there is a new attitude coming to the fore in Plumas County. It is an attitude of determination and self-responsibility. This is good to see. Perhaps last year’s stinging report from the Grand Jury had a positive effect. No one knows for sure, but there is definitely a new attitude in the halls of the County Courthouse these days. The transition from not taking responsibility to one of shared responsibility was not easy. This is to be expected when any type of positive change occurs. Positive and effective change is always met with resistance, from within and from without. However, to the County’s credit, it seems to have come thru this rough period intact, and is now on a new path of teamwork and constructive problem solving. This does not mean that all is well and no problems exist. Plumas County has monumental challenges that must be met in the coming years. The County must be determined to maintain conservative administrative practices regarding the County’s financial management in order to avoid further erosion of its economic base. This report is focused only on the audit report for FY 2011/2012, and does not show the positive changes that are taking place behind the scenes this year. The current fiscal year (FY 2012/2013) is the first year in recent memory in which the County is operating under a balanced budget. In August 2012 with the implementation of several budget workshops and the help of a sharp and strong local budget consultant; a balanced budget was hammered out. The Grand Jury has no audit report information that confirms this, but according to the Plumas County Auditor, the fiscal bleeding appears to have stopped and one can hope that next year’s Grand Jury report will show that the County has got its fiscal house in order. Although the County is still in poor financial shape, it seems the ship is turning around and heading in the right direction. Plumas County Audit Report
F3:
The General Fund’s Unassigned Fund balance is down from $410,299 in 2011 to zero as of June 30, 2012.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Schools establish regular system to inventory and restock Emergency Supplies.
F4:
The County’s Reserve Fund has been used to cover temporary shortfalls and to pay bills. GASB 54 (Governmental Accounting Standards Board) calls for a target balance of 8% of the previous year’s General Fund revenues, or a minimum of $2 million to be in the Reserve Fund account. The Reserve Fund balance was $454,253 as of June 30, 2012.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Revise Gun/Weapon on Campus procedure to include more detail and ensure student and personnel safety.
F5:
Over the last 11 years, the County has spent on average $397,353 more per year from the General Fund than it is taking in.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
Plan in place to secure funding for automated alert system at each Elementary and Jr/Sr High Schools.
F6:
The County Auditor reported that the County has not been funding its Retiree Health Benefit Program. As such, the potential liability to the County as of this writing is approximately $5.4 million dollars.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
The District requires a timeline for establishing an Off-campus Evacuation Center.
∼ June 30, 2013 — G R a N D J U R Y R E P O R T
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
The audit found four recurring deficiencies. These are repeats of prior year findings. a. Lack of Timely Processing: Disbursements were paid in excess of 30 days past the invoice date of the vendor billing. The Auditor staff was not able to perform this function in a timely manner due to the departments not submitting claims for payment to the Auditor’s office in a timely manner. b. Sheriff Inmate Welfare Reconciliation: Although the Inmate Trust bank account is being reconciled to the accounting records on a monthly basis, the balance held in the account does not appear to be reconciled to an open listing of balances held for each inmate. The County could not provide a listing of balances held for inmates that reconciled to the bank balance. c. Compensated Absences: For the close of FY 2011/2012, the audit exposed a negative balance of $25,202 in the County’s Compensated Absences Account. In simple terms, the County paid out over $25k to employees for vacation time, leave time, and comp time before the benefits were earned. d. Risk Management – Landfill: The County does not have adequate insurance coverage for the landfill.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends that the County immediately correct the deficiencies found during the audit. These are repeats of prior year findings. a. Modify procedures to ensure that County departments submit invoices to the Auditor for processing and payment in a timely manner. b. Reconcile the Inmate Trust bank account to an open listing of balances held by each inmate on a monthly basis. The detailed listing of inmate balances should be printed and maintained as an audit trail showing that this procedure was performed. c. Review balances of compensated leave on a regular basis to determine that employees are not being paid for more time than what has accrued. d. Maintain adequate insurance coverage for the landfill to minimize the risk of loss. e. Take steps to re-negotiate its employee retirement and sick leave policies to be more in line with other counties of similar size and population.
F2:
The audit found two new items requiring correction this year: a. Outside Bank Accounts: There is an inadequate review of all outside bank accounts. Various departments of the County hold bank accounts outside the County Treasury for which the purpose of these accounts is to collect credit card payments. There are several accounts that the County Auditor Controller’s office has not been obtaining monthly bank statements and reconciliations from the departments and the reconciled balance for one bank account had not been recorded on the general ledger of the County. Animal Control: There is a lack of controls within the Animal Control department and department employees are not following policies and procedures. Even though the Animal Control department is not authorized to accept cash, the department still accepts cash and an employee writes a personal check to cover the amount of cash received, deposits the personal check with department deposit, and takes the cash. Good internal control requires proper cash handling. The risk of errors or irregularities is increased when department employees are not following proper policies and procedures. Plumas County Audit Report
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The County needs to correct the deficiencies found during the audit. a. Record on the County general ledger all bank accounts in the County’s name, reconcile all outside bank accounts, and forward the information to the Auditor Controller monthly. b. All County departments must follow County policies and procedures for cash handling. c. All department employees must follow policies and procedures. Plumas County Audit Report CONCLUSION: Turning the Ship Around For the past several years, Plumas County has shown little interest in tackling the County’s financial problems and getting its fiscal house in order. It seemed the attitude that prevailed from the Board of Supervisors all the way down to every department was, “we just have to hang in there for a while, get by with less, and all will be right again.” This attitude resulted in the County spending more on public services and its own processes than it was taking in. During these years, Plumas County has shown a lack of cohesive teamwork with each department competing with other departments for the limited funding. In simple terms, not working together, but fighting together. This conflict was in fact the major reason the previous County Auditor Controller resigned in early 2012. The Grand Jury is pleased to report that there is a new attitude coming to the fore in Plumas County. It is an attitude of determination and self-responsibility. This is good to see. Perhaps last year’s stinging report from the Grand Jury had a positive effect. No one knows for sure, but there is definitely a new attitude in the halls of the County Courthouse these days. The transition from not taking responsibility to one of shared responsibility was not easy. This is to be expected when any type of positive change occurs. Positive and effective change is always met with resistance, from within and from without. However, to the County’s credit, it seems to have come thru this rough period intact, and is now on a new path of teamwork and constructive problem solving. This does not mean that all is well and no problems exist. Plumas County has monumental challenges that must be met in the coming years. The County must be determined to maintain conservative administrative practices regarding the County’s financial management in order to avoid further erosion of its economic base. This report is focused only on the audit report for FY 2011/2012, and does not show the positive changes that are taking place behind the scenes this year. The current fiscal year (FY 2012/2013) is the first year in recent memory in which the County is operating under a balanced budget. In August 2012 with the implementation of several budget workshops and the help of a sharp and strong local budget consultant; a balanced budget was hammered out. The Grand Jury has no audit report information that confirms this, but according to the Plumas County Auditor, the fiscal bleeding appears to have stopped and one can hope that next year’s Grand Jury report will show that the County has got its fiscal house in order. Although the County is still in poor financial shape, it seems the ship is turning around and heading in the right direction. Plumas County Audit Report
F3:
The General Fund’s Unassigned Fund balance is down from $410,299 in 2011 to zero as of June 30, 2012.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Schools establish regular system to inventory and restock Emergency Supplies.
F4:
The County’s Reserve Fund has been used to cover temporary shortfalls and to pay bills. GASB 54 (Governmental Accounting Standards Board) calls for a target balance of 8% of the previous year’s General Fund revenues, or a minimum of $2 million to be in the Reserve Fund account. The Reserve Fund balance was $454,253 as of June 30, 2012.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Revise Gun/Weapon on Campus procedure to include more detail and ensure student and personnel safety.
F5:
Over the last 11 years, the County has spent on average $397,353 more per year from the General Fund than it is taking in.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
Plan in place to secure funding for automated alert system at each Elementary and Jr/Sr High Schools.
F6:
The County Auditor reported that the County has not been funding its Retiree Health Benefit Program. As such, the potential liability to the County as of this writing is approximately $5.4 million dollars.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
The District requires a timeline for establishing an Off-campus Evacuation Center.
∼ June 30, 2013 — The Thin Blue Line Gets Thinner Plumas County Jail Report Executive Summary:
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
Electronic security systems in the control center are in partial failure due to previous power surges with no funds to repair or replace.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Plumas County Board of Supervisors make Public Safety their number one priority for Plumas County. The Grand Jury requests the Board of Supervisors respond to this recommendation.
F2:
At least three floor drains have been plugged with concrete, thereby compromising adequate drainage in food preparation areas.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Grand Jury strongly recommends the Board of Supervisors support the Sheriff in the acquisition of a new Correctional Facility and Administration Office, and submit a plan for public comment that will move this much needed project forward. The Grand Jury requests the Board of Supervisors respond to this recommendation.
F3:
The jail lacks a sufficient number of electrical circuits and outlets resulting in over loading of electrical systems.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors increase the Sheriff’s Jail budget when requested by the Sheriff, specifically targeting staffing and essential inmate needs. The Grand Jury requests the Board of Supervisors respond to this recommendation.
F4:
Missing filters from the kitchen hood allows grease to accumulate in the flue. The exhaust fan was found to be pushing air into the kitchen rather than exhausting it.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors make an annual tour of the Jail Facility when requested by the Sheriff. The Grand Jury requests a response to this recommendation.
F5:
The last Health Department inspection was completed 3 years ago.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The Grand Jury encourages the Board of Supervisors to do a ride-along with a Deputy when requested by the Sheriff, within three months of this report. This would enable the Board of Supervisors to have a clearer understanding of what Deputies are facing with the implementation of AB-109, the Federal Consent Decree and the effects on Officer Safety, both on the street and within the Jail. The Grand Jury requests the Board of Supervisors respond to this recommendation.
F6:
The Jail’s Policy and Operations Manual is still outdated as reported in previous 2010- 2011 and the 2011-2012 Grand Jury Reports.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Sheriff‘s request from the Board of Supervisors of additional funding for additional staffing to enable the Jail’s Policy and Procedure Manual be updated and in place by no later than 31 December 2013. The Grand Jury requests the Sheriff respond to this recommendation. Plumas County Jail Report
∼ June 30, 2013 — G R a N D J U R Y R E P O R T
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
The audit found four recurring deficiencies. These are repeats of prior year findings. a. Lack of Timely Processing: Disbursements were paid in excess of 30 days past the invoice date of the vendor billing. The Auditor staff was not able to perform this function in a timely manner due to the departments not submitting claims for payment to the Auditor’s office in a timely manner. b. Sheriff Inmate Welfare Reconciliation: Although the Inmate Trust bank account is being reconciled to the accounting records on a monthly basis, the balance held in the account does not appear to be reconciled to an open listing of balances held for each inmate. The County could not provide a listing of balances held for inmates that reconciled to the bank balance. c. Compensated Absences: For the close of FY 2011/2012, the audit exposed a negative balance of $25,202 in the County’s Compensated Absences Account. In simple terms, the County paid out over $25k to employees for vacation time, leave time, and comp time before the benefits were earned. d. Risk Management – Landfill: The County does not have adequate insurance coverage for the landfill.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends that the County immediately correct the deficiencies found during the audit. These are repeats of prior year findings. a. Modify procedures to ensure that County departments submit invoices to the Auditor for processing and payment in a timely manner. b. Reconcile the Inmate Trust bank account to an open listing of balances held by each inmate on a monthly basis. The detailed listing of inmate balances should be printed and maintained as an audit trail showing that this procedure was performed. c. Review balances of compensated leave on a regular basis to determine that employees are not being paid for more time than what has accrued. d. Maintain adequate insurance coverage for the landfill to minimize the risk of loss. e. Take steps to re-negotiate its employee retirement and sick leave policies to be more in line with other counties of similar size and population.
F2:
The audit found two new items requiring correction this year: a. Outside Bank Accounts: There is an inadequate review of all outside bank accounts. Various departments of the County hold bank accounts outside the County Treasury for which the purpose of these accounts is to collect credit card payments. There are several accounts that the County Auditor Controller’s office has not been obtaining monthly bank statements and reconciliations from the departments and the reconciled balance for one bank account had not been recorded on the general ledger of the County. Animal Control: There is a lack of controls within the Animal Control department and department employees are not following policies and procedures. Even though the Animal Control department is not authorized to accept cash, the department still accepts cash and an employee writes a personal check to cover the amount of cash received, deposits the personal check with department deposit, and takes the cash. Good internal control requires proper cash handling. The risk of errors or irregularities is increased when department employees are not following proper policies and procedures. Plumas County Audit Report
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The County needs to correct the deficiencies found during the audit. a. Record on the County general ledger all bank accounts in the County’s name, reconcile all outside bank accounts, and forward the information to the Auditor Controller monthly. b. All County departments must follow County policies and procedures for cash handling. c. All department employees must follow policies and procedures. Plumas County Audit Report CONCLUSION: Turning the Ship Around For the past several years, Plumas County has shown little interest in tackling the County’s financial problems and getting its fiscal house in order. It seemed the attitude that prevailed from the Board of Supervisors all the way down to every department was, “we just have to hang in there for a while, get by with less, and all will be right again.” This attitude resulted in the County spending more on public services and its own processes than it was taking in. During these years, Plumas County has shown a lack of cohesive teamwork with each department competing with other departments for the limited funding. In simple terms, not working together, but fighting together. This conflict was in fact the major reason the previous County Auditor Controller resigned in early 2012. The Grand Jury is pleased to report that there is a new attitude coming to the fore in Plumas County. It is an attitude of determination and self-responsibility. This is good to see. Perhaps last year’s stinging report from the Grand Jury had a positive effect. No one knows for sure, but there is definitely a new attitude in the halls of the County Courthouse these days. The transition from not taking responsibility to one of shared responsibility was not easy. This is to be expected when any type of positive change occurs. Positive and effective change is always met with resistance, from within and from without. However, to the County’s credit, it seems to have come thru this rough period intact, and is now on a new path of teamwork and constructive problem solving. This does not mean that all is well and no problems exist. Plumas County has monumental challenges that must be met in the coming years. The County must be determined to maintain conservative administrative practices regarding the County’s financial management in order to avoid further erosion of its economic base. This report is focused only on the audit report for FY 2011/2012, and does not show the positive changes that are taking place behind the scenes this year. The current fiscal year (FY 2012/2013) is the first year in recent memory in which the County is operating under a balanced budget. In August 2012 with the implementation of several budget workshops and the help of a sharp and strong local budget consultant; a balanced budget was hammered out. The Grand Jury has no audit report information that confirms this, but according to the Plumas County Auditor, the fiscal bleeding appears to have stopped and one can hope that next year’s Grand Jury report will show that the County has got its fiscal house in order. Although the County is still in poor financial shape, it seems the ship is turning around and heading in the right direction. Plumas County Audit Report
F3:
The General Fund’s Unassigned Fund balance is down from $410,299 in 2011 to zero as of June 30, 2012.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Schools establish regular system to inventory and restock Emergency Supplies.
F4:
The County’s Reserve Fund has been used to cover temporary shortfalls and to pay bills. GASB 54 (Governmental Accounting Standards Board) calls for a target balance of 8% of the previous year’s General Fund revenues, or a minimum of $2 million to be in the Reserve Fund account. The Reserve Fund balance was $454,253 as of June 30, 2012.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Revise Gun/Weapon on Campus procedure to include more detail and ensure student and personnel safety.
F5:
Over the last 11 years, the County has spent on average $397,353 more per year from the General Fund than it is taking in.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
Plan in place to secure funding for automated alert system at each Elementary and Jr/Sr High Schools.
F6:
The County Auditor reported that the County has not been funding its Retiree Health Benefit Program. As such, the potential liability to the County as of this writing is approximately $5.4 million dollars.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
The District requires a timeline for establishing an Off-campus Evacuation Center.
∼ June 30, 2013 — G R a N D J U R Y R E P O R T
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
The audit found four recurring deficiencies. These are repeats of prior year findings. a. Lack of Timely Processing: Disbursements were paid in excess of 30 days past the invoice date of the vendor billing. The Auditor staff was not able to perform this function in a timely manner due to the departments not submitting claims for payment to the Auditor’s office in a timely manner. b. Sheriff Inmate Welfare Reconciliation: Although the Inmate Trust bank account is being reconciled to the accounting records on a monthly basis, the balance held in the account does not appear to be reconciled to an open listing of balances held for each inmate. The County could not provide a listing of balances held for inmates that reconciled to the bank balance. c. Compensated Absences: For the close of FY 2011/2012, the audit exposed a negative balance of $25,202 in the County’s Compensated Absences Account. In simple terms, the County paid out over $25k to employees for vacation time, leave time, and comp time before the benefits were earned. d. Risk Management – Landfill: The County does not have adequate insurance coverage for the landfill.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends that the County immediately correct the deficiencies found during the audit. These are repeats of prior year findings. a. Modify procedures to ensure that County departments submit invoices to the Auditor for processing and payment in a timely manner. b. Reconcile the Inmate Trust bank account to an open listing of balances held by each inmate on a monthly basis. The detailed listing of inmate balances should be printed and maintained as an audit trail showing that this procedure was performed. c. Review balances of compensated leave on a regular basis to determine that employees are not being paid for more time than what has accrued. d. Maintain adequate insurance coverage for the landfill to minimize the risk of loss. e. Take steps to re-negotiate its employee retirement and sick leave policies to be more in line with other counties of similar size and population.
F2:
The audit found two new items requiring correction this year: a. Outside Bank Accounts: There is an inadequate review of all outside bank accounts. Various departments of the County hold bank accounts outside the County Treasury for which the purpose of these accounts is to collect credit card payments. There are several accounts that the County Auditor Controller’s office has not been obtaining monthly bank statements and reconciliations from the departments and the reconciled balance for one bank account had not been recorded on the general ledger of the County. Animal Control: There is a lack of controls within the Animal Control department and department employees are not following policies and procedures. Even though the Animal Control department is not authorized to accept cash, the department still accepts cash and an employee writes a personal check to cover the amount of cash received, deposits the personal check with department deposit, and takes the cash. Good internal control requires proper cash handling. The risk of errors or irregularities is increased when department employees are not following proper policies and procedures. Plumas County Audit Report
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The County needs to correct the deficiencies found during the audit. a. Record on the County general ledger all bank accounts in the County’s name, reconcile all outside bank accounts, and forward the information to the Auditor Controller monthly. b. All County departments must follow County policies and procedures for cash handling. c. All department employees must follow policies and procedures. Plumas County Audit Report CONCLUSION: Turning the Ship Around For the past several years, Plumas County has shown little interest in tackling the County’s financial problems and getting its fiscal house in order. It seemed the attitude that prevailed from the Board of Supervisors all the way down to every department was, “we just have to hang in there for a while, get by with less, and all will be right again.” This attitude resulted in the County spending more on public services and its own processes than it was taking in. During these years, Plumas County has shown a lack of cohesive teamwork with each department competing with other departments for the limited funding. In simple terms, not working together, but fighting together. This conflict was in fact the major reason the previous County Auditor Controller resigned in early 2012. The Grand Jury is pleased to report that there is a new attitude coming to the fore in Plumas County. It is an attitude of determination and self-responsibility. This is good to see. Perhaps last year’s stinging report from the Grand Jury had a positive effect. No one knows for sure, but there is definitely a new attitude in the halls of the County Courthouse these days. The transition from not taking responsibility to one of shared responsibility was not easy. This is to be expected when any type of positive change occurs. Positive and effective change is always met with resistance, from within and from without. However, to the County’s credit, it seems to have come thru this rough period intact, and is now on a new path of teamwork and constructive problem solving. This does not mean that all is well and no problems exist. Plumas County has monumental challenges that must be met in the coming years. The County must be determined to maintain conservative administrative practices regarding the County’s financial management in order to avoid further erosion of its economic base. This report is focused only on the audit report for FY 2011/2012, and does not show the positive changes that are taking place behind the scenes this year. The current fiscal year (FY 2012/2013) is the first year in recent memory in which the County is operating under a balanced budget. In August 2012 with the implementation of several budget workshops and the help of a sharp and strong local budget consultant; a balanced budget was hammered out. The Grand Jury has no audit report information that confirms this, but according to the Plumas County Auditor, the fiscal bleeding appears to have stopped and one can hope that next year’s Grand Jury report will show that the County has got its fiscal house in order. Although the County is still in poor financial shape, it seems the ship is turning around and heading in the right direction. Plumas County Audit Report
F3:
The General Fund’s Unassigned Fund balance is down from $410,299 in 2011 to zero as of June 30, 2012.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Schools establish regular system to inventory and restock Emergency Supplies.
F4:
The County’s Reserve Fund has been used to cover temporary shortfalls and to pay bills. GASB 54 (Governmental Accounting Standards Board) calls for a target balance of 8% of the previous year’s General Fund revenues, or a minimum of $2 million to be in the Reserve Fund account. The Reserve Fund balance was $454,253 as of June 30, 2012.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Revise Gun/Weapon on Campus procedure to include more detail and ensure student and personnel safety.
F5:
Over the last 11 years, the County has spent on average $397,353 more per year from the General Fund than it is taking in.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
Plan in place to secure funding for automated alert system at each Elementary and Jr/Sr High Schools.
F6:
The County Auditor reported that the County has not been funding its Retiree Health Benefit Program. As such, the potential liability to the County as of this writing is approximately $5.4 million dollars.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
The District requires a timeline for establishing an Off-campus Evacuation Center.
August 01, 2012 — Better Safe Than Sorry Plumas County School Safety Report Executive Summary:
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
The School Administration does not update the Emergency Action Plan on a regular basis.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Each member of the Safe School Leadership Team is to review the responsibilities for the position they are assigned to ensure they fully understand and accept the responsibility of the position.
F2:
School’s Emergency Supplies not inventoried on a regular schedule.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Provide training, if needed, to each member of the Safe School Leadership Team.
F3:
Members of the Safe School Leadership Team do not review their individual duties, at time of assignment.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Schools establish regular system to inventory and restock Emergency Supplies.
F4:
Not all school locations have completed lockdown drills involving student participation.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Revise Gun/Weapon on Campus procedure to include more detail and ensure student and personnel safety.
F5:
Off-campus Evacuation Centers not secured for each school location.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
Plan in place to secure funding for automated alert system at each Elementary and Jr/Sr High Schools.
F6:
Lockdown drills, which occur for armed intruder and hostage crisis events, have not occurred at all sites with school personnel and students. Plumas County School Safety Report
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
The District requires a timeline for establishing an Off-campus Evacuation Center.
∼ June 30, 2012 — A County Still Struggling Plumas County Audit Report Executive Summary:
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
The audit found four recurring deficiencies. These are repeats of prior year findings. a. Lack of Timely Processing: Disbursements were paid in excess of 30 days past the invoice date of the vendor billing. The Auditor staff was not able to perform this function in a timely manner due to the departments not submitting claims for payment to the Auditor’s office in a timely manner. b. Sheriff Inmate Welfare Reconciliation: Although the Inmate Trust bank account is being reconciled to the accounting records on a monthly basis, the balance held in the account does not appear to be reconciled to an open listing of balances held for each inmate. The County could not provide a listing of balances held for inmates that reconciled to the bank balance. c. Compensated Absences: For the close of FY 2011/2012, the audit exposed a negative balance of $25,202 in the County’s Compensated Absences Account. In simple terms, the County paid out over $25k to employees for vacation time, leave time, and comp time before the benefits were earned. d. Risk Management – Landfill: The County does not have adequate insurance coverage for the landfill.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends that the County immediately correct the deficiencies found during the audit. These are repeats of prior year findings. a. Modify procedures to ensure that County departments submit invoices to the Auditor for processing and payment in a timely manner. b. Reconcile the Inmate Trust bank account to an open listing of balances held by each inmate on a monthly basis. The detailed listing of inmate balances should be printed and maintained as an audit trail showing that this procedure was performed. c. Review balances of compensated leave on a regular basis to determine that employees are not being paid for more time than what has accrued. d. Maintain adequate insurance coverage for the landfill to minimize the risk of loss. e. Take steps to re-negotiate its employee retirement and sick leave policies to be more in line with other counties of similar size and population.
F2:
The audit found two new items requiring correction this year: a. Outside Bank Accounts: There is an inadequate review of all outside bank accounts. Various departments of the County hold bank accounts outside the County Treasury for which the purpose of these accounts is to collect credit card payments. There are several accounts that the County Auditor Controller’s office has not been obtaining monthly bank statements and reconciliations from the departments and the reconciled balance for one bank account had not been recorded on the general ledger of the County. Animal Control: There is a lack of controls within the Animal Control department and department employees are not following policies and procedures. Even though the Animal Control department is not authorized to accept cash, the department still accepts cash and an employee writes a personal check to cover the amount of cash received, deposits the personal check with department deposit, and takes the cash. Good internal control requires proper cash handling. The risk of errors or irregularities is increased when department employees are not following proper policies and procedures. Plumas County Audit Report
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The County needs to correct the deficiencies found during the audit. a. Record on the County general ledger all bank accounts in the County’s name, reconcile all outside bank accounts, and forward the information to the Auditor Controller monthly. b. All County departments must follow County policies and procedures for cash handling. c. All department employees must follow policies and procedures. Plumas County Audit Report CONCLUSION: Turning the Ship Around For the past several years, Plumas County has shown little interest in tackling the County’s financial problems and getting its fiscal house in order. It seemed the attitude that prevailed from the Board of Supervisors all the way down to every department was, “we just have to hang in there for a while, get by with less, and all will be right again.” This attitude resulted in the County spending more on public services and its own processes than it was taking in. During these years, Plumas County has shown a lack of cohesive teamwork with each department competing with other departments for the limited funding. In simple terms, not working together, but fighting together. This conflict was in fact the major reason the previous County Auditor Controller resigned in early 2012. The Grand Jury is pleased to report that there is a new attitude coming to the fore in Plumas County. It is an attitude of determination and self-responsibility. This is good to see. Perhaps last year’s stinging report from the Grand Jury had a positive effect. No one knows for sure, but there is definitely a new attitude in the halls of the County Courthouse these days. The transition from not taking responsibility to one of shared responsibility was not easy. This is to be expected when any type of positive change occurs. Positive and effective change is always met with resistance, from within and from without. However, to the County’s credit, it seems to have come thru this rough period intact, and is now on a new path of teamwork and constructive problem solving. This does not mean that all is well and no problems exist. Plumas County has monumental challenges that must be met in the coming years. The County must be determined to maintain conservative administrative practices regarding the County’s financial management in order to avoid further erosion of its economic base. This report is focused only on the audit report for FY 2011/2012, and does not show the positive changes that are taking place behind the scenes this year. The current fiscal year (FY 2012/2013) is the first year in recent memory in which the County is operating under a balanced budget. In August 2012 with the implementation of several budget workshops and the help of a sharp and strong local budget consultant; a balanced budget was hammered out. The Grand Jury has no audit report information that confirms this, but according to the Plumas County Auditor, the fiscal bleeding appears to have stopped and one can hope that next year’s Grand Jury report will show that the County has got its fiscal house in order. Although the County is still in poor financial shape, it seems the ship is turning around and heading in the right direction. Plumas County Audit Report
F3:
The General Fund’s Unassigned Fund balance is down from $410,299 in 2011 to zero as of June 30, 2012.
F4:
The County’s Reserve Fund has been used to cover temporary shortfalls and to pay bills. GASB 54 (Governmental Accounting Standards Board) calls for a target balance of 8% of the previous year’s General Fund revenues, or a minimum of $2 million to be in the Reserve Fund account. The Reserve Fund balance was $454,253 as of June 30, 2012.
F5:
Over the last 11 years, the County has spent on average $397,353 more per year from the General Fund than it is taking in.
F6:
The County Auditor reported that the County has not been funding its Retiree Health Benefit Program. As such, the potential liability to the County as of this writing is approximately $5.4 million dollars.