📋

Extracted from Consolidated Report

This investigation was originally published as part of a larger consolidated report containing multiple investigations. View the consolidated PDF for the complete document.

Orange County Grand Jury • 2010-2011

County Of Orange COMPENsATiON DisClOsURE Fact

Published: June 21, 2011 44 pages

View PDF View Full Original

⚠️ 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 7 findings

F1 Page 118

The quality and extent of compensation disclosure by the County of Orange on its Internet web- site is inadequate.

F2 Page 118

There is currently no reasonably accessible disclosure of written employment contracts on the County of Orange website. RECOMMENDATIONS: The 2010/2011 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following recommendations: In accordance with California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, the 2010-2011 Grand Jury requests a response from the County of Orange Executive Office to the recommendations presented in this sec- tion. The response is to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on its review and evaluation of the compensation disclosure provided by the County of Orange, the 2010-2011 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following two recommendations:

F3 Page 146

Compensation of individual high-level positions bears no significant relationship to city population.

F4 Page 146

Public disclosure of municipal compensation levels is widely inconsistent, ranging from good to non-existent.

F5 Page 146

With the exceptions of Laguna Beach and Newport Beach, the number of high-level positions in each city is generally commensurate with its population.

F6 Page 146

The compensation of the City Manager and Assistant City Manager/Finance Director in the City of Laguna Hills exceeds levels in other comparably sized cities both inside and outside of Orange County.

F7 Page 146

There is currently no disclosure of written employment contracts on the majority of cities’ websites. /2011 139 COMPENsATiON sTUDY Of ORANGE COUNTY CiTiEs RECOMMENDATIONS: The 2010/2011 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following recommendations: In accordance with California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, the 2010-2011 Grand Jury requires responses from each city affected by the recommendations presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on its investigation of the 34 cities in Orange County, the 2010-2011 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following four recommendations:

Recommendations 4

R1
Page 118

Compensation Disclosure – The County of Orange report compensation information to the public on the Internet in an easily accessible manner. The Compensation Disclosure Model (Appendix 2) provides a sample as to the items that are recommended to be includ- ed in determining total compensation.
R2
Page 118

Employment Contracts – The County of Orange reveal any individual employment con- tracts in an easily accessible manner. REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS: The California Penal Code Section 933(c) requires any public agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, to comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the agency. Such com- /2011 111 COUNTY Of ORANGE COMPENsATiON DisClOsURE ment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report (filed with the Clerk of the Court); except that in the case of a report containing findings and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected County official (e.g. District Attorney, Sheriff, etc.), such comment shall be made to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors. Furthermore, California Penal Code Section 933.05(a), (b), (c), details, as follows, the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made: (a) As to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding (2) The respondent disagrees 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 therefore. (b) As to each grand jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implement- ed 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, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for dis- cussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not rea- sonable, with an explanation therefore. (c) If a finding or recommendation of the grand jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if requested by the grand jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those budgetary or personnel matters over which it has some decision making authority. The response of the elected agency or department head shall ad- dress all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department. Comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with the Penal Code Section 933.05 are requested from the: Responding Agency Findings Recommendations The County of Orange F.1, F.2 R.1, R.2 Executive Office 112 /2011 COUNTY Of ORANGE COMPENsATiON DisClOsURE
R3
Page 147

Upper level Employees – The cities of Newport Beach and Laguna Beach conduct a review of their organizations to reconcile the necessity of maintaining a relatively large number of upper level positions in relation to their populations.
R4
Page 147

Compensation Levels – The City of Laguna Hills conduct a compensation review of top officials. REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS: The California Penal Code Section 933(c) requires any public agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, to comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the agency. Such com- ment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report (filed with the Clerk of the Court); except that in the case of a report containing findings and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected County official (e.g. District Attorney, Sheriff, etc.), such comment shall be made to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors. Furthermore, California Penal Code Section 933.05(a), (b), (c), details, as follows, the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made: (a) As to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding (2) The respondent disagrees 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 therefore. 140 /2011 COMPENsATiON sTUDY Of ORANGE COUNTY CiTiEs (b) As to each grand jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implement- ed 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, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for dis- cussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not rea- sonable, with an explanation therefore. (c) If a finding or recommendation of the grand jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if requested by the grand jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those budgetary or personnel matters over which it has some decision making authority. The response of the elected agency or department head shall ad- dress all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department. Comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with the Penal Code Section 933.05 are required from the city council of each of the following Orange County cities: Responding Agency Findings Recommendations All Orange County Cities F.4, F.7 R.1, R.2 Laguna Beach and Newport Beach F.5 R.3 Laguna Hills F.6 R.4 /2011 141 COMPENsATiON sTUDY Of ORANGE COUNTY CiTiEs 142 /2011 COMPENsATiON sTUDY Of ORANGE COUNTY /2011 143 COMPENsATiON sTUDY Of ORANGE COUNTY CiTiEs 144 /2011 COMPENsATiON sTUDY Of ORANGE COUNTY /2011 145 COMPENsATiON sTUDY Of ORANGE COUNTY CiTiEs 146 /2011 COMPENsATiON sTUDY Of ORANGE COUNTY /2011 147 COMPENsATiON sTUDY Of ORANGE COUNTY CiTiEs 148 /2011 COMPENsATiON sTUDY Of ORANGE COUNTY /2011 149 COMPENsATiON sTUDY Of ORANGE COUNTY CiTiEs 150 /2011 COMPENsATiON sTUDY Of ORANGE COUNTY /2011 151

No Responses Found 1

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

Orange County County