"Madera County and City of Madera: Public Servants or Self Serving"*

The MCGJ finds that the Board of Supervisors committed nonfeasance by not taking appropriate action on a timely basis on the ongoing workplace harassment complaints and issues. Response Respondent disagrees with the finding per California Penal Code 933.05 (a) (2). As set forth in the County Policy and Guidelines on Discrimination and Harassment (policy), the Board of Supervisors believes that all workers are entitled to work in an environment free of discrimination, harassment and abusive conduct. Consistent with County policy, all complaints are investigated in a fair, complete, and timely manner and if determined to have merit, appropriate disciplinary measures are taken. All complaints received during the period which is the subject of the Grand Jury's report were addressed consistent with County policy including any complaints regarding the former CAO.

The MCGJ finds that the CAO's $306,000 salary is excessive commensurate to the size of the County population and budget. Respondent disagrees with the finding per California Penal Code 933.05 (a) (2). The finding is misleading in that the figure represented as salary is not delineated in terms of base salary and benefits. As to whether the then CAO's salary was reasonable under the circumstances, it should be noted that the County conducted a total compensation survey during the Spring of 2015, the results of which were presented to the Board of Supervisors at its August 25, 2015 meeting. The purpose of the survey was to determine how competitive the County was within its labor market of ten county agencies. Among the one hundred thirty-nine (139) classifications studied was that of CAO. The base salary survey results for the classification of CAO found the Madera County salary associated with the position was 13.39% below the labor market median. At the January 26, 2016 Board of Supervisors meeting, the Board approved implementation of the survey salary

The MCGJ finds that the CAO's severance of $113,168.34 was paid by county taxpayers. Respondent partially disagrees with the finding per California Penal Code 933.05 (a) (2). The finding is an oversimplification of the complexities of funding County operations. The County Administrative Office expenditures are part of the County's total administrative overhead cost and are funded by various state, federal and local funding sources. Based on the historical net County cost percentage of administrative overhead costs, approximately $39,608 of the total severance amount was funded through local taxes. This impact was fully offset with salary savings in the FY 2019-20 budget by the delay in hiring of a permanent CAO.

The MCGJ finds that the Board of Supervisors negligent in failing to address the ten years of harassment thus allowing the unhealthy work environment to persist. Respondent disagrees with the finding per California Penal Code 933.05 (a) (2). As previously stated, the Board of Supervisors is committed to fostering an environment free of workplace discrimination and harassment. Consistent with County policy, all complaints of discrimination or harassment are acted upon promptly. Fair and timely investigations are conducted and when appropriate, disciplinary measures are taken. The Grand Jury's narrow presentation of the facts aside, the Board's actions in this regard have been consistently applied prior to, and since the allegations that are the subject of the report.