📋

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.

Score: 0 (0/4/0)

El Dorado County Grand Jury • 2002-2003

Inappropriate Tahoe Differential Pay

3 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 6 findings

F1 Page 33

The Sheriff told the Undersheriff he could be assigned to Lake Tahoe, with the hours and days to be set by the Sheriff.

F2 Page 33

The Sheriff did not set days or hours for the Undersheriff to work in South Lake Tahoe.

F3 Page 33

The Undersheriff received Tahoe Differential pay without working primarily in the South Lake Tahoe area.

F4 Page 33

Payroll clerks, without written authorization, routinely sign Payroll/Personnel Action forms on behalf of Division Chiefs, including those resulting in financial impact.

F5 Page 33

The Tahoe Differential pay received by the Undersheriff impacted his final compensation, which in turn was used to calculate his retirement benefits.

F6 Page 33

The Grand Jury investigation revealed this was an isolated case.

Recommendations 4

R1
Page 33

Payroll/Personnel Action Forms relating to the Undersheriff should be signed by the Sheriff.
R2
Page 33

Delegation of authority to Payroll Clerks to sign on behalf of Division Chiefs should be specific and exclude actions involving financial benefit.
R3
Page 33

The County should be reimbursed for the Tahoe Differential paid to the Undersheriff. 14
R4
Page 34

The County Counsel should review with the Board of Supervisors the issues presented and take whatever action(s) is deemed appropriate.

Agency Responses 1

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

Inappropriate Tahoe Differential Pay, Citizen Complaint #C19-02/03(PDF, 144KB)

September 23, 2003 • 3 pages • 4 responses • Score: 0 (+0, 4, 0) View Details ▾

PDF

4 responses to findings and recommendations

Payroll/Personnel Action Forms relating to the Undersheriff should be signed by the Sheriff.

Response: Implemented

Score: 0

The recommendation has been implemented. Implementation was effective December, 2002. The Grand Jury previously received a copy of the written directives sent to Sheriff's managers and Payroll Clerks. The Sheriff currently signs all Payroll/Personnel Forms for the department including those relating to the Undersheriff. 22 R2. Delegation of authority to Payroll Clerks to sign on behalf of Division Chiefs should be specific and exclude actions involving financial benefit.

Delegation of authority to Payroll Clerks to sign on behalf of Division Chiefs should be specific and exclude actions involving financial benefit.

Response: Implemented

Score: 0

The recommendation has been implemented. Implementation was effective December, 2002. The Grand Jury previously received a copy of the written directive sent to Payroll Clerks. The Sheriff has delegated to the Captains (Division Chiefs) the authority to sign Payroll/Personnel Forms in his absence. However, it is his practice to review and initial these forms as well. R3. The County should be reimbursed for the Tahoe Differential paid to the Undersheriff.

The County should be reimbursed for the Tahoe Differential paid to the Undersheriff. 14

Response: Implemented

Score: 0

The recommendation has been implemented. A lawsuit was filed to collect the Tahoe Differential pay. It was settled for an amount which reflected the factual and legal factors. R4. The County Counsel should review with the Board of Supervisors the issues presented and take whatever action(s) is deemed appropriate.

The County Counsel should review with the Board of Supervisors the issues presented and take whatever action(s) is deemed appropriate.

Response: Implemented

Score: 0

The recommendation has been implemented. The matter has been discussed with the Board of Supervisors in connection with the lawsuit referenced above. The Board feels that the new procedures implemented by the Sheriff are adequate to insure that a similar situation will not occur in the future. Commendations It should be noted that the Sheriff's Department recently took action to establish procedures to minimize the opportunity for future abuse. Responses Required for Findings F1 through F5 El Dorado County Sheriff Responses Required for Recommendations R1 and R2 El Dorado County Sheriff El Dor...