📋

Extraído del Informe Consolidado

Esta investigación fue publicada originalmente como parte de un informe consolidado más amplio que contiene múltiples investigaciones. Consulte el PDF consolidado para ver el documento completo.

Yolo County Grand Jury • 2012-2013 • Agency Response

Responses to the 2012–2013 Grand Jury Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Published: June 28, 2013 24 pages

View PDF View Full Original

⚠️ Aviso de traducción: Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.

⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.

Findings 19 findings

F1 Page 18

YCPD is supportive of “Evidence Based Practice” through the use of ADC’s assessment tools.

F2 Page 18

ADC is the sole provider of assessment tools used by YCPD.

F3 Page 18

The YCPD manager was the sole contract administrator for ADC.

F4 Page 18

The YCPD manager had a dual relationship with the CEO of ADC.

F5 Page 18

ADC invoices were received and approved solely by the YCPD manager.

F6 Page 18

YCPD management exhibited questionable ethical conduct.

F7 Page 18

The YCPD manager did not disclose a personal relationship with the CEO of ADC in a timely manner.

F8 Page 18

The YCPD manager traveled from Sacramento to other states to intervene in the CEO’s substance abuse.

F9 Page 18

The YCPD manager used airline credits earned as a Yolo County employee to travel from Sacramento to Utah and Arizona on non-county business.

F10 Page 18

The YCPD manager did not disclose the CEO’s substance abuse to Yolo County administrators in a timely manner.

F11 Page 18

The YCPD manager guided ADC in completing invoices for payment despite having a dual relationship with the CEO.

F12 Page 18

The YCPD manager authorized a strategically complex pay package for MIT trainers.

F13 Page 18

The method of compensation for MIT trainers was not approved by Yolo County Human Resources (YCHR).

F14 Page 18

Some trainers were directed to falsify timesheets.

F15 Page 18

Timecards were submitted improperly.

F16 Page 18

There are no agreements for other counties to reimburse Yolo County for MIT training conducted by the Yolo County staff.

F17 Page 18

No invoices have been submitted by YCPD to other counties for training reimbursement and no reimbursements have been received by Yolo County.

F18 Page 18

Yolo County has no code of conduct or professional code of ethics for high level management employees to follow.

F19 Page 18

At the time of this investigation, ADC was in receivership. 18 2012–2013 Yolo CountY GRAnd JuRY FinAl RepoRt: inveStiGAtionS & RevieWS Yolo CountY pRoBAtion depARtMent: A tRouBlinG ContRACt, QueStionABle etHiCS

Recommendations 14

R1
Page 19

The ADC contract should be reviewed by Yolo County Counsel and the County Administrative Officer to determine by December 28, 2012 the operational fitness and financial viability of ADC.
R2
Page 19

Yolo County should develop and implement a code of conduct, clarifying professional protocol for high level management employees to avoid dual relationships, conflicts of interest, improprieties or the appearance of impropriety
R3
Page 19

The MIT compensation package should be reviewed by December 28, 2012 to determine if YCPD management has the authority to authorize a compensation package.
R4
Page 19

The scheduling of MIT training on days not at work should be reviewed by December 28, 2012 to determine if this is a violation of the MOU.
R5
Page 19

No single Yolo County manager should have sole authority over the development and implementation of a contract or vendor.
R6
Page 19

The timesheets for MIT trainers should be audited and overpayments should be recovered
R7
Page 19

Yolo County should closely monitor YCPD to ensure no dual relationships exist between employees and outside contractors.
R8
Page 19

Yolo County should perform an audit of payments to ADC and determine if any payment irregularities occurred and recoup funds as necessary
R9
Page 19

Any agreements and/or payments for reimbursement for MIT training from other counties should be reviewed for compliance with Yolo County’s financial policies and procedures.
R10
Page 25

The Board Audit Committee should request internal audits when financial problems are brought forward.
R11
Page 25

The Board Audit Committee should recruit an independent private financial expert to serve on that committee, which should meet at least quarterly. 25 2012–2013 Yolo CountY GRAnd JuRY FinAl RepoRt: inveStiGAtionS & RevieWS Yolo CountY FinAnCe: tRACKinG CHAnGeS
R12
Page 26

Department supervisors should be trained to be sensitive to employee issues created by staff reductions and changes to organization and operating systems to avoid creating hostile work environments.
R13
Page 26

Employees should be allowed to voice complaints and should receive timely responses, addressed in an open and professional manner.
R14
Page 26

All HR recommendations for remedial action should be addressed with transparency and due diligence.

No Responses Found 2

Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.

Yolo County County

Yolo County Board of Supervisors Elected County Office