Score: 0 (6/1/6)

Mendocino County Grand Jury • 2015-2016

Proposition 172 Funds:

10 pages

Ver PDF 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 and Recommendations 4 findings

The current method of budgeting the distribution of Proposition 172 funds to County government public safety is not transparent, either to the public or to the County agencies eligible to receive these funds.

Related Recommendations (2)

The CEO and the Auditor-Controller adopt a method of budgeting Proposition 172 funds to County government public safety in a manner that is transparent to the public and to affected agencies, and employ this method for FY2016-2017 and subsequent budget cycles. (F1-F3)

The new budgeting method clearly demonstrates the full distribution of Proposition 172 funds to County public safety agencies. (F1-F3)

This lack of transparency violates the spirit of the original proposition and could be easily rectified by a simple alteration to the format of the County budget.

Related Recommendations (2)

The new budgeting method clearly demonstrates the full distribution of Proposition 172 funds to County public safety agencies. (F1-F3)

Related Recommendations (2)

The new budgeting method clearly demonstrates the full distribution of Proposition 172 funds to County public safety agencies. (F1-F3)

The failure to update the MOE calculation annually as required, has placed the County in a position of non-compliance with State requirements.

Related Recommendations (1)

The Auditor-Controller resume performing the MOE calculation annually and report on its completion to the Board of Supervisors annually as well. (F4) RESPONSES Pursuant to Penal Code §933.05, responses are required from the following individuals: Board of Supervisors (All Findings and Recommendations) County Executive Officer, Mendocino County (All Findings and All Recommendations) Auditor-Controller, Mendocino County (All Findings and Recommendations) Sheriff, Mendocino County (All Findings and Recommendations) District Attorney, Mendocino County (All Findings and Recommendations)

Agency Responses 2

Government agencies' official responses to this report's findings and recommendations. Click on a response to see the structured breakdown.

BOS

∼ February 23, 2017 • 5 pages • 7 responses • Score: +6 (+6, 1, 0) View Details ▾

PDF

7 responses to findings and recommendations

Response: Agree Score: +1

agree with the Findings numbered: F1, F2, F4 <math>\boxtimes</math> I (we) disagree wholly or partially with the Findings numbered below, and have attached, as required, a statement specifying any portion of the Finding that are disputed with an explanation of the reasons therefore.

Response: Will Implement

Score: +1

R1, R2, R3 The following Recommendation(s) have not yet been implemented, but Ш will be implemented in the future, attached, as required is a time frame for implementation: GRAND JURY REPORT RESPONSE FORM PAGE TWO The following Recommendation(s) require further analysis, and attached as required, is an explanation and the scope and parameters of the planned analysis, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared, discussed and approved by the officer and/or director of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed: (This time frame shall not exceed six (6) months from the date of ...

This lack of transparency violates the spirit of the original proposition and could be easily rectified by a simple alteration to the format of the County budget.

Response: Agree Score: +1

The new budgeting method clearly demonstrates the full distribution of Proposition 172 funds to County public safety agencies. (F1-F3)

Response: Will Implement

Score: +1

R2, R3 The following Recommendation(s) have not yet been implemented, but Ш will be implemented in the future, attached, as required is a time frame for implementation: GRAND JURY REPORT RESPONSE FORM PAGE TWO The following Recommendation(s) require further analysis, and attached as required, is an explanation and the scope and parameters of the planned analysis, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared, discussed and approved by the officer and/or director of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed: (This time frame shall not exceed six (6) months from the date of publ...

Response: Disagree Partially Score: 0

The Auditor-Controller has been able to demonstrate the appropriate distribution of Proposition 172 Funds to municipalities within the County. However, the Auditor-Controller has been unable to demonstrate that the remaining Proposition 172 revenues have been entirely distributed to County public safety agencies as required. Partially disagree. The Board of Supervisors is not in a position to know what the Auditor-Controller was able to demonstrate to the Grand Jury. The Board of Supervisors agrees that Proposition 172 funds have been properly distributed to local municipalities. The Board of...

Response: Will Implement

Score: +1

R3 The following Recommendation(s) have not yet been implemented, but Ш will be implemented in the future, attached, as required is a time frame for implementation: GRAND JURY REPORT RESPONSE FORM PAGE TWO The following Recommendation(s) require further analysis, and attached as required, is an explanation and the scope and parameters of the planned analysis, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared, discussed and approved by the officer and/or director of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed: (This time frame shall not exceed six (6) months from the date of publicat...

The failure to update the MOE calculation annually as required, has placed the County in a position of non-compliance with State requirements.

Response: Agree Score: +1

BOS

September 13, 2016 • 5 pages • 7 responses • Score: -6 (+0, 0, -6) View Details ▾

PDF

7 responses to findings and recommendations

Response: Disagree Score: -1

the BOS. The Board of Supervisors disagrees with F1.

Response: Unknown

Score: 0

This lack of transparency violates the spirit of the original proposition and could be easily rectified by a simple alteration to the format of the County budget.

Response: Disagree Score: -1

The Board of Supervisors disagrees with F2.

The new budgeting method clearly demonstrates the full distribution of Proposition 172 funds to County public safety agencies. (F1-F3)

Response: Will Not Implement

Score: -1

. The County acquire email software that adequately allows for super-user segregation of certain sensitive email accounts and provides management access to employee email only under circumstances as defined by County policy. (F1, F2 and F3.). R2 will not be implemented because it is not warranted. The Board of Supervisors believes that the current procedures in place appropriately limit management access to employee email and that acquisition of additional software is not necessary. R3. The County adopt in its revised Policy 22, a best business practice to restrict the Mail Auditor function...

Response: Disagree Score: -1

the County to unnecessary liability. The Board of Supervisors disagrees with F3.

Response: Will Not Implement

Score: -1

. The County adopt in its revised Policy 22, a best business practice to restrict the Mail Auditor function to one vetted employee. (F1, F2 and F3.) R3 will not be implemented because it is not warranted or reasonable. The Board of Supervisors does not believe it is a best business practice to allow only one employee to have access to or knowledge of sensitive systems. R3 also ignores the practical need to grant access to more than a single employee to account for absence caused by vacation, illness or training. The current procedure, which allows access to three specific employees, is a reas...

The failure to update the MOE calculation annually as required, has placed the County in a position of non-compliance with State requirements.

Response: Disagree Score: -1

The Board of Supervisors disagrees entirely with F4.