County of San Bernardino Grand Jury

The facilitation of new and higher paying jobs within the county, 2. The expansion, growth, development and retention of small businesses, and 3. The enhancement of international marketing and trade. The mission of the Legislative Liaison Department is to assist San Bernardino County by developing and supporting legislation that is beneficial to the county. FINDINGS While travel and miscellaneous expenditures may be reasonable costs in the attainment of mission goals, they must be carefully planned and executed. During the investigation, the Grand Jury found a lack of written expenditure guidelines for achieving those project goals. Following are examples, in excess of a quarter of a million dollars total, which the Grand Jury questions as to the effective rate of return for county taxpayers, because the expenditures do not seem to be part of a cohesive, objective- directed strategic plan. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT (EDD) Expense Expenditure 1 Corenet Global Summit – Orlando, FL $ 8,825.31 2 attendees and presentation booth Payment requests to Auditor/Controller 11/06-2/07 2 Promotional Items – EDA Business Golf Tournament $ 2,422.23 Payment request to Auditor/Controller 10/06 3 Interviewee for Director of Economic Development $ 718.70 Paid for travel for one person Payment request to Auditor/Controller 6/06 4 Corenet Conference – Philadelphia, PA $15,854.55 4 attendees and presentation booth Payment requests to Auditor/Controller 3/06-5/06 5 International Council of Shopping Centers Conference - Las $42,552.14 Vegas, NV 11 attendees, includes some elected officials, staff members and key department heads Payment requests to Auditor/Controller 3/06-6/06 6 Virtual One Stop Training Conference - Clearwater, FL $ 3,698.79 2 attendees Payment request to Auditor/Controller 5/06 7 National Rapid Response Conference - St. Louis, MO $ 3,497.41 2 attendees Payment request to Auditor/Controller 5/06 8 NACO Conference - Washington, DC $49,500.99 11 attendees, some elected officials and staff Payment requests to Auditor/Controller 2/06-3/06 9 NACO Legislative Conference - Sacramento, CA $ 5,443.36 15 attendees, some elected officials and staff Payment request to Auditor/Controller 2/06 10 Air Freight Asia 2006 Conference – Shanghai, China $ 1,745.21 1 attendee Payment request to Auditor/Controller 2/06 11 Environmental Assessment Workshop – Los Angeles, CA $ 1,602.81 4 attendees Payment request to Auditor/Controller 3/06 12 CSAC Conference – Sacramento, CA $ 6,653.33 3 attendees and hospitality suite Payment request to Auditor/Controller 3/06 13 Limousine Service – Orange, CA $ 503.55 Payment request to Auditor/Controller 12/06 14 Men’s Warehouse – San Bernardino, CA $ 284.33 Payment request to Auditor/Controller 12/06 15 International Council Shopping Centers – Western Division $ 3,610.88 Conference – San Diego, CA 13 3 attendees and business dinner Payment request to Auditor/Controller 10/06 16 Building Industry Association – Rancho Cucamonga, CA $ 1,250.00 Table of 10 (attendees) – Installation dinner and awards Payment request to Auditor/Controller 10/06 17 At International Council Shopping Centers Conference – $ 9,623.66 San Diego, CA (September 2007) 2 attendees stayed at US Grant Hotel 1 attendee stayed at Sheraton Payment request to Auditor/Controller 10/07 (why did they not all stay at the less expensive Sheraton?) 18 Corenet Global Summit – Denver, CO $12,723.60 2 attendees and presentation booth Payment requests to Auditor/Controller 4/07-5/07 19 40” TV for EDA Director’s monitor $ 1,453.83 Payment request to Auditor/Controller 8/07 20 Economic Development Advisory Council – Flemings $ 2,531.29 Steakhouse – Rancho Cucamonga, CA 17 attendees – cost per attendee $148.90 Payment request to Auditor/Controller 8/07 21 Economic Development Advisory Council – Flemings $ 2,641.74 Steakhouse – Rancho Cucamonga, CA 18 attendees – cost per attendee $146.76 Payment request to Auditor/Controller 4/07 22 Lunch meeting with employee – San Bernardino, CA $ 22.88 2 attendees (why do taxpayers pay for lunch in San Bernardino?) Payment request to Auditor/Controller 8/07 23 International Council of Shopping Centers Conference – Las $44,687.69 Vegas, NV 16 attendees, includes some elected officials, staff members, and key department heads Payment requests to Auditor/Controller 4/07-5/07 24 Investigative Reporters and Editors Conference, Phoenix, $ 2,708.43 AZ 1 attendee Payment request to Auditor/Controller 5/07 25 Interviewee for Director of Community Development and $ 1,366.50 Housing Paid for travel for one person being interviewed Payment request to Auditor/Controller 5/07 Note: individual has since left county employment 26 Two Classes (over 7 days) – San Diego, CA $ 2,446.32 a. Governmental Financial Management and Control b. Governmental Accounting, Financial Reporting and Budgeting 14 1 attendee Payment request to Auditor/Controller 4/07 LEGISLATIVE LIAISON DEPARTMENT Expense Expenditure 27 California State Association of Counties 113th Annual $18,679.92 Conference 11/13/07 through 11/16/07 – Oakland, CA 6 attendees Payment requests to Auditor/Controller 10/07 – 11/07 28 NACO Conference – Washington, DC $ 9,967.19 3 attendees Payment request to Auditor/Controller 3/07 NOTE: Attention should be directed to the following points: (cid:120) Amounts expended – examples 4, 5, 8, 23, 27 (cid:120) Location of conferences – examples 1, 4, 18 (cid:120) Number of attendees at conferences – examples 5, 8, 9, 20, 21, 23 (cid:120) Purpose or effectiveness of all example expenditures As it is difficult for taxpayers to determine the value of these expenditures to the county in general, and to themselves in particular, the Grand Jury would make the following recommendations.

Actual sales completed to date.

Has your company increased the number of employees as a result of the trip? If so, by how many? 4. Are you still generating sales from the contacts you made through the trade delegation? If so, amount of sales from January 2007 through June 2007.

Do you consider the trade delegation a success? Please explain your answer.

Would you participate in future trade delegations? Please explain your answer. Please attach additional pages if necessary. This document is held in confidence. Thank you for your response. Attachment C Summary of Dr. Levitt’s Recommendations (cid:120) Purpose statements be developed and publicized from perspective of both the county and its delegates. ( ) (cid:120) Delegates be recruited explicitly for facilitating business growth for the county. Match making be done to expand exports and SBEDA should develop relationships with the municipal governments to insure their appropriate match. ( ) (cid:120) Clear and direct statements be translated to Chinese, and from Chinese to English for their partners. Statements written would become basis for selection for trip. ( ) (cid:120) Supervisors have a separate schedule to meet local Chinese government officials to promote long-term business growth in San Bernardino County. ( ) (cid:120) Use of consultants be focused and minimized. Any consultants, travel agents, etc., used should be located in the County of San Bernardino if possible. ( ) (cid:120) Pre-mission surveys focus on desired goals and be translated to Chinese. Post surveys may still cover travel questions, but should be expanded to obtain what was learned. These surveys serve as a base for future surveys conducted weeks/months later to determine actual goal accomplishments. ( ) NOTE: Permission has been granted by Dr. Levitt to include a copy of her 2007 China Trade Mission evaluation in this report. Attachment D COMMITTEE HUMAN SERVICES HUMAN SERVICES COMMITTEE Dawn Molumphy, Chairman Susan Brewster Cliff Burke Jim Cook Nanette Deffina Dory Hegdahl BJ Jones Adele Kyle Dave Van Buren HUMAN SERVICES COMMITTEE The Human Services Committee had the responsibility of reviewing and investigating the departments within the Human Services Group. The committee also was able to investigate two divisions and programs in the Administrative Support Division of the Human Services Group. The committee would like to thank each of these departments for their cooperation. All department heads and staff we encountered were professional, dedicated and cooperative. The following departments and divisions were visited: Aging and Adult Services Children’s Services First 5 Foster Care Program Independent Living Program Preschool Services Transitional Aged Youth Program Transitional Assistance Veteran’s Affairs The following Administrative Units were reviewed and investigated: Administrative Service Division Program Integrity Division The Human Services Committee submits the following findings and recommendations. HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT PROGRAM INTEGRITY DIVISION BACKGROUND The Program Integrity Division (PID) is devoted to providing quality service to the Human Services departments it serves, and is committed to ensuring that welfare programs are administered fairly, equally, and without system abuse. It provides supportive services to the three social service departments: Transitional Assistance Department (TAD), Department of Children’s Services (DCS), and the Department of Aging and Adult Services (DAAS). PID is comprised of four different units with unique functions that support Human Services departments. The Case Review Unit (CRU) conducts specialized case reviews at the direction of County Counsel. The Quality Review Unit (QRU) is responsible for the review and reconciliation of reports, cash aid overpayment calculations and collections, CalWORK work participation rate and Food Stamp quality control case reviews. The Appeals Unit represents the County in administrative hearings in which public assistance case decisions are disputed by the clients, and receives and resolves or refers elsewhere for resolution complaints about how cases are handled by workers. Also, the Fraud Investigation Unit (FIU) which is required to prevent, identify, investigate and prepare for prosecution cases involving abuse of the welfare system. FINDINGS San Bernardino County is rated second in the state for the number of welfare cases. Currently, San Bernardino County has 30,000 cash assistance cases and 55,000 Food Stamp cases. The interviews conducted by the Grand Jury concentrated on the issue of welfare fraud. There has been a steady decline in the number of fraud investigators within the Public Integrity Department. When asked by the Grand Jury what the fraud rate was currently, or the amount of money lost to the county by fraudulent claims, the department answered “The definition of “fraud” found in the California Manual of Policy and Procedures is that a person must receive benefits they were not entitled to receive. We do not currently collect data that meets this definition.” When asked what percent of referrals are referred to collections the departments answer was “The Special Investigations Unit (SIU) does not track the number of referrals submitted for collections.” The PID is supposed to be the main checks and balances between the County and the taxpayer. When an application for assistance is received, a Quality Review Specialist (QRS) is sent to the home within ten days to verify the information given. There are 12 QRSs who make approximately 900 home visits a month. Some of these visits reveal suspicions of fraud before any benefits are distributed. This information is then referred to the Fraud Investigation Unit. Examples of fraud would be a child or children reported to be in the home but in actuality are not, unreported income, altered or phony pay stubs, living in another county or state and filing here in San Bernardino County, “lost” Electronic Benefit Transaction (EBT) cards (an indication of possible fraud), using more than one social security number, and not reporting a wage earner living in the home. EBT cards are automatically loaded with income for both cash and Food Stamps. Photographs on the cards are not required. When asked why not, it was stated that “retailers are not the police; they wouldn’t ask to see the picture anyway; all they want is to make the sale.” Subsequently, as it was stated to the Grand Jury, EBT card fraud is very active. Note: Photographs would have to be approved by the State and implemented State wide. The state requires assistance applicants to be fingerprinted within one year. The PID tries to fingerprint them within a month, before benefits are given. Applicants used to sign the application form yearly in front of the case worker; now it can be mailed in, therefore not signed before a witness. The D.A.’s office no longer prosecutes clients for perjury. Nor does it prosecute any referral below $2500. Within the Public Integrity Department the number of Quality Review Specialists (Home Callers) has been increased, while the numbers of Fraud Investigators have been decreased. Many of the investigative duties have been given to the Home Callers even though they are not allowed to do some of the duties of the fraud investigators because of confidentiality issues. Home Call workers have taken over the job of background investigations but cannot make collateral contacts to detect fraud; for example, talking to neighbors of the applicant, friends, and schools. It is felt within the department that it is cheaper to have the Home Callers do more work than keep fraud investigators on the payroll. A new tier of investigators, below Law Enforcement Investigators but above Home Callers who have limited authority, that are not part of law enforcement, could be implemented to handle these duties and other collateral checks to detect fraud. This new position would give the investigators the latitude to do a thorough review of applicants. When fraud is detected, the case would then be transferred to the Fraud Unit for final review prior to going to the D.A. A client report used to be generated on a monthly basis, whereby each voucher for assistance was looked at for changes in circumstances. The state has now made that a quarterly report. The client is no longer required to notify the office of any financial changes, or changes in family dynamics, until the new quarter starts. If the client’s income changes on January 2 that increase does not have to be reported until April 1. What ordinarily would be an overpayment of benefits to the client in a monthly report is no longer considered an “overpayment” in the quarterly report. The Grand Jury asked about the effects of the quarterly reporting system. Would this not lead to more fraud that would go undetected? This is taxpayer money. It was agreed that it might, but its intent was to ease the workload. It is the system that the state mandates. It was expressed to the grand jury that it is the desire of the PID to change the quarterly reporting system 27 to a semi-annual system. It would be “easier and more beneficial”. However, for the taxpayer it means any overpayment, because of unreported changes, would not be discovered until 6 months have gone by. This “overpayment” would not be considered fraud, or a loss to the county. One of the goals of PID for this fiscal year is to expand the Case Review Unit database and reporting capabilities and enhance reporting to customers by providing quarterly and annual reports. The goal for the Fraud Investigation Unit is to develop proactive internal and external detection systems to curb fraud in public assistance programs and increase by 33% the number of referrals to the D.A. for prosecution. But the number of attorneys assigned to prosecute fraud cases has decreased. PID was asked about the number of fraud investigators employed in the last five years: June of 2002 - 49 investigators June of 2003 - 45 investigators June of 2004 - 33.5 investigators June of 2005 - 30.5 investigators June of 2006 - 28.4 investigators June of 2007 - 26 investigators As of the date of this interview there were 23 investigators, with the unit to lose three more in January 2008. In 2007, there were a total of 68,789 applications for assistance. From that, there were 20,179 fraud referrals to the FIU. But there were only 160 convictions by the D.A.’s office. In 2005 there were a total of 63,990 applications for assistance with 12,206 fraud referrals. At that time they had 30.5 investigators. There has been a steady decline in fraud investigators. The state standards are one investigator for every 1,000 cases. By this standard there should be 34 fraud investigators. Forty percent of the referrals made by eligibility workers contain fraud of some kind. It was stated that the greatest amount of fraud is in childcare cases. State eligibility standards are too lax. This program is easily defrauded and takes longer to work. Most investigators do not have the time or experience, and the cost to the county of a thorough investigation is significant. If the department cracks down on ongoing fraud, and payments to applicants decrease, the state budget process cuts the monies. If all the money in the budget is not used, less money will be budgeted in the future. This initiative to minimize leads to a fraud problem. It was suggested that the FIU do random, cold call, childcare inspections. According to the FIU, even though the development of proactive programs is a goal for the current year, the proactive enforcement programs that were being done have been stopped. There are no fraud “sweeps”, no “dinner with daddy” an after-hours home inspection for an unlisted wage earner in the home; there is no longer any collaboration with local law enforcement. Nothing is in place to allow the Fraud Unit to seize assets. The Fraud Unit used to be well respected in the law enforcement community; now their poor reputation has lead to a morale problem, which seems to equal less productivity, leading to more fraud. There is a need for more of a law enforcement oriented type approach to dealing with welfare fraud. There appears to be a tug of war going on between the benefits side of the PID and the fraud investigation side. These are very different, competing interests under one umbrella. The benefits side wants the applicants to receive what they need. The fraud side is looking to make sure that no benefits are received that are not warranted. This dysfunction was obvious to the grand jury through our many interviews. The cause of this dissention may be related to work relations, low pay, staffing, and/or the work environment. The Sheriff’s Association, the Performance, Education, & Resource Center (PERC), and Human Resources have been asked to come into the Division and do an assessment as to what is creating the low morale problem. They will speak with both supervisory and staff personnel and when the facts are gathered all will believe they got due process. Human Services management will be proactive and there is the belief that it will lead to a positive change in the management style; if not a change in management personnel. If the PID is motivated and correctly led, welfare fraud will decrease.

It has 373 beds and with the remodel of the sixth floor it will gain an additional 84 beds. On an average day the facility is 97% occupied. The Emergency Room at the Medical Center is the busiest in the state. It is 100% full 100% of the time and is considered the ultimate safety net for the area. ARMC is self-sustaining and receives no General Funds from the County but it does have $30 million in reserve. In San Bernardino County, 270,000 people have no medical insurance. ARMC’s current patient mix as a whole is: 25% have no insurance of any kind; 13% are covered under the Medically Indigent Adult program (MIA); 11% have Medicare; 10% have commercial insurance; 38% have Medi-Cal and 3% are county prisoners. The Emergency Department uninsured numbers are a little higher at 51%. Though the hospital is not paid for all its services provided to patients who cannot pay, it does receive some “Disproportionate Share Hospital Funds” from the federal government and safety net care pool dollars from the state government to help off-set some of the uncompensated care. ARMC also receives financial assistance from the federal government for certain emergency health services provided to undocumented immigrants. FINDINGS California has the largest number of uninsured patients in the nation. As a result, hospitals ERs are often utilized as the medical office of first resort. In 2007, the Emergency Department at ARMC saw 110,000 patients. In February 2008, the Governor of California signed into law a total of $1.2 billion in cuts to the Medi-Cal program. Traditionally, the Medi-Cal program has been under-funded. As it stands now, Medi-Cal covers 78% of the costs that hospitals incur in caring for these patients. Many doctors no longer treat Medi-Cal patients because of the programs low payment rates. When Medi- Cal and other patients cannot find doctors to care for them, they rely on their local ERs for basic health care services. This is adding to the consistent overcrowding in the ERs. Seventy-eight percent of patients admitted to ARMC come in through the Emergency Room doors. Patients experience long wait times in order to be seen by a physician. It was the issue of already overcrowded ERs that the Grand Jury was concerned about. With the new budget cuts, the overcrowding will become a more critical issue. Several Grand Jury members met with the hospital CEO and voiced their concerns. We learned of their new Emergency Department Access and Triage Re-design program called Rapid Medical Emergency Treatment (RMET). This program funnels the 2 non-acute patients to an area where they can be treated quickly. They still go through triage, but by a nurse in the waiting room; not behind a window. There is no huge work- up done. The staffing for this area is still 1 nurse for every 4 patients (as required in the ER area). This RMET plan has moved the process in the ER along to the point where the average wait is now 31 minutes. The ambulance diversion hours (that time when the ER was filled and could not take any patients) have also dropped tremendously while the visits to the ER have increased. In 2002, the annual visits to the ER were 58,000; in 2007, the annual visits were 110,000. In April 2007 the monthly ambulance diversion hours were 183; in April of 2008 the hours were 96. In 2002, the wait time in the ER was approximately 240 minutes; in 2007 it was 50-60 minutes. With this re-designed flow plan the wait time is 31 minutes. In 2002, 20% of those patients in the ER left without being seen. In 2008, so far only 1% of patients have left without being seen. The overcrowding issue, thought to be critical, is being resolved with a well thought out and implemented plan. COMMENDATION Members of the Grand Jury visited the facility twice, once in November of 2007 and once in May of 2008. The changes made in the Emergency Department were overwhelming. The use of metal detectors and highly visible security personnel added a sense of well-being and seriousness of purpose. The remodeling of the sixthfloor and the re-design of the patient flow in the Emergency Room are excellent examples of forward thinking by the executive staff and the efforts of the physicians and nursing staff are beyond reproach. They are dedicated and devoted to their responsibilities. The Grand Jury would like to commend the administrators, and the physician and nursing staff at Arrowhead Regional Medical Center, for their progressive thinking and complete dedication to their patients’ well being. San Bernardino County can be very proud of this facility. AUDIT/FISCAL COMMITTEE Kraig Westra, Chairman Ed Brittain Nanette Deffina Dick Abraham Susan Brewster Cliff Burke Skip Burt Jim Cook Kent Fogleman David Gunther Dory Hegdahl BJ Jones Wayne King Bill Sommers Dave Van Buren AUDIT/FISCAL COMMITTEE AUDIT/FISCAL COMMITTEE The Audit/Fiscal Committee is responsible for the following county departments: Assessor Auditor/Controller-Recorder/County Clerk Treasurer-Tax Collector/Public Administrator The Assessor Subcommittee performed a thorough review of the Assessor function. As part of this process, 25 subpoenas were issued and 29 interviews were conducted. Thousands of documents were reviewed. The Audit/Expense Subcommittee did extensive work in reviewing expenses and credit cards. Many interviews were conducted and thousands of expense records were reviewed. The committee wishes to thank the many dedicated county employees who aided in our investigations. Their many hours of extra work are sincerely appreciated. The following reports give a summary of our findings. ASSESSOR SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY TAX ASSESSOR FUNCTION BACKGROUND The current Assessor took office in January 2007. Before assuming the Assessors position, while he was still Chairman of the Board of Supervisors, that body approved several new positions for the Assessors Office and additional budget amounts to fund them. The new positions included Communications Officer, Intergovernmental Relations Officer, Two Special Assistants, Facilities/Safety Manager, Project Administrator, Executive Secretary and Office Specialist. According to the 2006-2007 San Bernardino County Final Budgets, The Board approved an appropriation increase of $1,803,900 for 28.0 positions and their corresponding services and support costs. The final approved 2006-2007 San Bernardino County Budget and the 2007-2008 San Bernardino County Budget for the Assessors Office show the increases in salaries and personnel for the Assessors Office: 2005-2006 2006-2007 $ Change % Change Salaries and Benefits Actual $11,971,812 $13,267,033 $1,295,221 10.82% Staff County Budget 175.6 204.5 +28.9 16% Under the current Assessor, the Assessors office was reorganized to absorb a portion of the newly created positions in a new administrative level called the “Executive Support Staff”. These positions were not found in the previous Assessors organization charts. The resulting structure is a two-tiered bureaucracy: The Operations staff, managed by a newly appointed Assistant Assessor with 200+ employees, that does the property valuation function, and the Executive Support staff, managed by a second newly appointed Assistant Assessor with 8+ employees that reports directly to the Assessor. INVESTIGATION The function of the Executive Support staff was the main focus of our investigation. The Grand Jury interviewed 17 current employees and former employees of the Assessors Office, an Assessors Office consultant, and the current Assessor. The Grand Jury reviewed several thousand emails from the Assessors Office; Executive Support staff expense records; Executive Support staff weekly meeting minutes; Executive Support staff payroll records; educational reimbursement records for university attendance; a separation agreement between the former Assistant Assessor in charge of 5 Operations and the Assessors Office; and Purchase order # Z3073, dated July 13, 2007 for consulting services. The Grand Jury also reviewed San Bernardino County policies for Purchase Order agreements; use of County email systems; separation agreements and tuition reimbursement. Any references to “Assistant Assessor” within the report refers to individuals originally appointed to those positions when the current Assessor was elected and does not refer to individuals who were subsequently appointed to the position of Assistant Assessor as the result of changes in office personnel. FINDINGS The reorganization of the Assessors Office created two distinct management groups within the Assessors office. The Grand Jury found striking contrast in the level of management expertise, technical knowledge, and productive contributions to the duties and responsibilities between the two management groups. The Grand Jury found that these two management groups had very little interaction. The Operations managers oversee the day-to-day operations of the Assessors Office. These managers are currently career employees who provide departmental competency and expertise. They have high levels of experience, training and education and are indispensable to the everyday operations of the Assessors Office. These managers report directly to the Assistant Assessor for Operations. As part of the reorganization, the current Assessor reclassified key operational management positions from “civil service protected” to “at-will.” Testimony from Assessor’s employees indicated career employees may be reluctant to give up their civil service status for an “at will” political appointment. The reclassification of these top positions from “civil service protected” to “at will” threatens the professionalism and competency of those positions. These reclassifications could make these positions vulnerable to political cronyism or undue influence from administrative political appointees. The Executive Support staff was created when the current Assessor took office in January 2007. In contrast to the Operations managers, the individuals appointed to the positions in the Executive Support staff lacked experience or training directly associated with assessor work. The lack of management and assessor function experience of the two Assistant Assessors originally appointed by the Assessor caused the Grand Jury great concern. According to the Revenue & Taxation Code, within 30 days of appointment, the Assistant Assessor must hold a valid temporary appraiser’s certificate issued by the Board of Equalization. A four-year college degree or a high school degree and relevant work experience is a requirement for receiving a temporary appraiser’s certificate. The Assistant Assessor for Executive Support did not meet these requirements, but a waiver was obtained from the Board of Equalization. Most of the Executive Support staff is made up of individuals with previous associations with the Assessor when he was on the Board of Supervisors and/or was Republican Central Committee Chairman. In order to determine the purpose and work activities of the Executive Support Staff, the Grand Jury elicited testimony from employees of the Assessors Office regarding their own projects and their knowledge of tasks assigned to other employees. The Grand Jury also reviewed the minutes from the weekly meetings held by the Executive Support Staff. Based on this information, the Grand Jury determined that staff members used considerable time on planning and implementing such projects as completing and publishing the annual Assessors Office report, creating website links, and planning outreach meetings. Such projects are at best “public image” work and determined to be generally peripheral to the core activities of the Assessors Office. This assessment was confirmed by the testimony of individuals from the Assessors Office that the Executive Support Staff had little impact on the everyday operations of the office. The increase in personnel and funding to staff the new bureaucracy group appears unjustified based on the contribution of this group to the office in terms of expertise, education, training and work product. It is important to note the former Assessor did not have a two-tiered management staff. Under the previous assessor, the operations staff and two executive secretaries performed many of functions listed for the current Executive Support Staff. During the investigation, the Grand Jury reviewed thousands of emails sent and received in the County email system by the Executive Support staff members. There is evidence from emails and testimony that the Executive Support Staff members have been engaged in political activities for various national, state, and local political candidates during normal working hours. Numerous emails were political in content. Examples of such content were arranging of political meetings, solicitations for campaign contributions, instructions to move monies from one campaign fund to another, solicitation of political proxies, and activity on and discussions of a Republican Party website called redcounty.com. A sampling of email received by the Assistant Assessor for the Executive Support Staff over a two-week period in the year 2008, on the county email system, revealed 91 emails sent by campaign organizations for national political candidates. The use of the county email system to send or receive messages with political content violates County Policy #14-01 on email use by county employees. In July of 2007, the Assessors Office entered into an agreement, in the form of a purchase order, for consulting services. According to San Bernardino County policy, a purchase order of $50,000 or more must receive Board of Supervisors approval. The valuation of the purchase order just below the amount requiring Board of Supervisors review raised concerns that the Assessors Office intended to circumvent policy and avoid board review. The purchase order was originally valued at $49,992. This was later reduced to $49,200. By valuing the purchase order $800 below the value requiring 7 Board of Supervisors review, the Assessors Office circumvented county policy in the hiring of the consultant. When interviewed, the current Assessor could not explain how the original amount of $49,992 was determined or why the amount was later reduced to $49,200. The consultant was never asked to make a proposal specifying fees, hourly rates or projects. The Assessors Office did not solicit for consulting services through the Request for Proposal (RFP) process, which would have allowed for competitive bidding by qualified consultants. The consultant was not required to provide detailed invoices to show work done but was instructed to submit monthly invoices for $4100. Under the purchase order, the consultant was to provide the Assessors Office bi-weekly reports. The Grand Jury found no evidence that written reports were ever generated. The consultant was not on the distribution list for the “executive” staff’s weekly meetings, and did not regularly attend them. While in the Assessors employ, the consultant continued to perform political work for a number of Republican candidates in California. The most significant work produced by the consultant was assisting others in producing the annual Assessors Report, created a program to hand out certificates when the Assessor and taxpayer advocates attended events, and tracking all legislation that affected the Assessors Office. The Grand Jury found very little results from this contract that benefited the Assessor’s function and that the work product failed to justify the cost of the contract. Article 7 of the County Employee Exempt Compensation plan provides for two educational benefits for exempt employees regarding tuition reimbursement. The first benefit allows employees to be compensated up to $1,000 per fiscal year for tuition expenses incurred for job-related education or career development. The second benefit allows for department heads, within their discretion, to reimburse employees for expenses related to obtaining advance degrees which will advance the employee’s career in service to the county. Such advance degrees must be obtained outside regular work hours. Pursuant to Article 7, the current Assessor used his discretion to reimburse the tuition expense of the Assistant Assessor for Executive Support in the amount of $8,280. The reimbursement covered tuition for classes the employee attended while pursuing an undergraduate degree. The term “advance degree” is generally defined as degrees conferred upon the completion of a master’s or doctorate program, not a degree conferred upon completion of an undergraduate program. Furthermore, the total amount of tuition reimbursement far exceeded the amounts provided to other county employees. The Assessors Office’s use of discretion to reimburse an employee in the amount of $8,280 for undergraduate classes violated the spirit and intent of Article 7. Such expenses related to classes taken for an undergraduate degree may only be reimbursed up to $1,000 per fiscal year and must be incurred for job-related education or career development. The Assessors Office also approved tuition reimbursement for another employee for undergraduate classes. The reimbursement for this employee was limited to $1,000 per fiscal year. However, the reimbursed expenses were for history classes unrelated to 8 the employee’s county job. The approval of reimbursement for classes not job related violated Article 7. Review of this employee’s payroll and school records indicated that he was allowed to use absence without pay and other leave time to facilitate his attendance at scheduled classes. The use of such leave time regularly reduced the employee’s work attendance to almost half a forty-hour work week. A review of the class schedule indicated that these classes were scheduled during county work hours. Although Article 7 only addresses the attendance of classes outside regular work hours for advanced degrees, the intent of the policy is plain on its face and should have been applied to undergraduate degrees. The Assessors Office approval of extensive employee leave of absence for the purpose of class attendance during work hours was an abuse of managerial discretion. The former Assistant Assessor for Operations resigned his position after a disagreement with the Assessor. Soon after, the current assessor entered into a separation agreement that allowed the employee to be placed on a six-month paid administrative leave. This separation agreement, amounting to more than $63,000 plus benefits was agreed to by the Assessors Office for the employee after only 10 months of employment. The interested parties of the separation agreement were unable to justify the contractual terms. The Grand Jury was unable find an instance in the County of a separation agreement longer than 4 months. The separation agreement was excessive for the time served in the position.