San Joaquin County Grand Jury
• 2020-2021
City of Manteca: a City Government in Turmoil (Case #0320) City of Manteca: a City Government in Turmoil
⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings and Recommendations 21 findings
F1
1 The city manager and the assistant city manager positions were filled without the benefit of an established recruitment process. This caused community-wide turmoil while they struggled to learn the job.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
1 By December 31, 2021, develop, adopt, and implement effective written recruitment policies and procedures, and strictly adhere to them for all executive hiring. 1.2 Insufficient Training & Development There were concerns that employees in various departments were not sufficiently trained, particularly within the finance department. Employees were not provided periodic training to keep or improve current skills, nor were they updated on new processes or procedures. Leadership training was also noted as a critical need across departments. Due to a lack of qualified leadership in some departments, especially the finance department, and the absence of a training and development policy for city employees, there were few managers capable of identifying issues in order to provide necessary training and development for staff.
F2
2.1 There currently is no explicit requirement for previous city management experience for the position of city manager, leading to the hiring of inexperienced and unqualified personnel.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
1 By December 31, 2021, the city council review the structure of the city manager’s office to ascertain a management approach that is most efficient and cost-effective. 10 2.2 Qualifications of City Manager Manteca city manager’s job description includes the following minimum requirements • Education - bachelor’s degree in business administration, public administration, or related field; and • Experience - eight years of increasing responsibility in city or other government administration. The recent former city manager started working in Manteca on July 16, 2019, as the administrative services director (human resources), and within two months was appointed acting city manager. No other candidates were considered for the position.
F3
1 Councilmembers asked few questions of staff about the city’s financial condition or the fiscal impacts of major expenditures they were being asked to approve. This caused ill- informed decision making.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
1 Beginning October 1, 2021, the city council conduct public study sessions, at least quarterly, to receive and discuss complex financial issues. These sessions include, but not be limited to, the city’s financial condition, long-term impacts of past, current, and proposed fiscal obligations of the city, major capital outlays, and employee contracts.
F1.1
The city manager and the assistant city manager positions were filled without the benefit of an established recruitment process. This caused community-wide turmoil while they struggled to learn the job.
No recommendations for this finding
F2.1
A series of mistakes were made that more experienced managers could have avoided, costing the taxpayers undue financial expense.
No recommendations for this finding
F2.2
The team approach was inefficient, duplicating many efforts and requiring constant conferences to update other members of management. This cost unnecessary time and money.
No recommendations for this finding
F3.1
Councilmembers asked few questions of staff about the city’s financial condition or the fiscal impacts of major expenditures they were being asked to approve. This caused ill- informed decision making.
No recommendations for this finding
F3.2
Major projects were presented to councilmembers with inadequate time to review the complex issues involved. This caused ill-informed decision making.
No recommendations for this finding
F3.3
The city council’s approval of loans between restricted funds, without receiving any information or documents on the repayment requirements or fiscal impacts, created an unclear picture of the actual fund balances in the various accounts.
No recommendations for this finding
F1.2.1
Some managers were not capable of providing necessary training for staff, particularly within the finance department, which resulted in poor decision making.
No recommendations for this finding
F1.2.2
The city has no policy for employee training or professional development; therefore, employees lack the necessary skills to maintain efficient operations. 6
No recommendations for this finding
F1.3.1
City council approved the reorganization without the benefit of a detailed position control schedule, causing confusion and failure of the reorganization plan.
No recommendations for this finding
F1.4.1
The City of Manteca has a history of unfair promotional practices which caused low morale and the loss of employees.
No recommendations for this finding
F1.4.2
Employees were ill-prepared for promotions, leading to inexperienced and unqualified employees being promoted. 7
No recommendations for this finding
F1.5.1
The city has no succession plan to fill management positions with qualified candidates. Without a transitional process, there was a delay in the preparation and completion of important reports, including the annual audit.
No recommendations for this finding
F1.6.1
The policy for placing an employee on administrative leave, also called suspension, is ambiguous and subject to misinterpretation, leading to unfair practices.
No recommendations for this finding
F1.6.2
Investigations conducted by outside law firms are expensive and costly to taxpayers.
No recommendations for this finding
F1.7.1
Employees were afraid that if they complained they would become the subject of harassment and retaliation by management, causing them not to avail themselves of the existing grievance procedure, resulting in increased denigration of morale.
No recommendations for this finding
F1.7.2
Complaints were not addressed and no action was taken until the large volume of complaints could no longer be ignored, resulting in frustration and low morale. 9
No recommendations for this finding
F2.2.1
There currently is no explicit requirement for previous city management experience for the position of city manager, leading to the hiring of inexperienced and unqualified personnel.
No recommendations for this finding
F2.3.1
The mayor and some councilmembers violated Municipal Code section 2.08.080. This circumvented the public’s right to have city business conducted in public, and caused confusion among staff, subverting the required chain of command.
No recommendations for this finding
Conclusions 1
-
CL1The nature of our democratic form of government is not static. Changes are inevitable, leaders change, laws change, people and ideas change, and cities grow. The same is true for city employees: periodic elections decide the mayor and city council, employees are hired, fired, transfer, or retire. These changes are common but are generally not crippling. However, when there is an extraordinary and unexpected loss of key personnel, it can be disconcerting to the city’s employees and the public. This can lead to rumors and conspiracy theories about what is happening at “City Hall” and leaves remaining city employees uncertain about their futures. All these changes can also reveal problems that might otherwise go undetected. This is what happened in the City of Manteca. Overall lack of leadership from the mayor and city council and inexperience in the city manager’s office created a dysfunctional administration. Inconsistent employment practices and inadequate training compounded the problem. It is incumbent upon all public employees, especially publicly-elected officials, to be properly prepared and adequately trained to be the custodians of the public’s trust and taxpayers’ finances. The Grand Jury’s findings and recommendations reflect concerns that the city’s financial operations need strengthening in personnel and procedures. Audit activities, both internal and external, need better oversight by elected and appointed officials. Information on fiscal matters must be given greater emphasis, clarity, and attention. The elected city council must become better prepared to understand and to address the complexity of local government finances in Manteca. Acceptance of the Grand Jury’s findings and adoption of the recommendations in this report will enable Manteca to mitigate their current issues. This will empower the City of Manteca to successfully meet the challenges of the future. Disclaimer Grand Jury reports are based on documentary evidence and the testimony of sworn or admonished witnesses, not on conjecture or opinion. However, the Grand Jury is precluded by law from disclosing such evidence except upon the specific approval of the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court, or another judge appointed by the Presiding Judge (Penal Code Section 911. 924.1 (a) and 929). Similarly, the Grand Jury is precluded by law from disclosing the identity of witnesses except upon an order of the court for narrowly defined purposes (Penal Code Sections 924.2 and 929). Response Requirements California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05 require that specific responses to all findings and recommendations contained in this report be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the San Joaquin County Superior Court within 90 days of receipt of the report. The Manteca city council shall respond to all findings and recommendations. 14 Mail or hand deliver a hard copy of the response to: Honorable Xapuri B. Villapudua, Presiding Judge San Joaquin County Superior Court 180 E Weber Ave, Suite 1306J Stockton, California 95202 Also, please email a copy of the response to Ms. Trisa Martinez, Staff Secretary to the Grand Jury, at [email protected]. 15