⚠️ 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.
Note: Missing finding numbers detected: F5
Findings 8 findings
F1
Page 6
BOS Policy #D-4 is not being followed. Paragraph B.2 titled “Vehicle Use” requires the CAO’s Office to review permanent assignment and overnight retention of County-owned vehicles on an annual basis and to continue or rescind authorization. Interviews with the CAO’s office revealed that this has not been done for several years.
F2
Page 6
Paragraph B.2.a of the policy specifies that an employee who is responsible for responding to emergency situations related to public health or safety and protection of property on a 24-hour basis may be assigned a vehicle for on-call duty. However, paragraph B.2.b is subject to interpretation and allows any County employee that can demonstrate to the Board of Supervisors that it is in the best interest of the County for that employee to be assigned permanent and overnight retention of a County-owned vehicle.
F3
Page 6
The purchase of County vehicle fuel is a budget item within various County departments, and is not a component of the Fleet Management process. This is a significant County expense and estimated to be over 1.6 million dollars next year and represents nearly 40% of total fleet costs.
F4
Page 6
Fuel purchases for County vehicles are not centrally managed or controlled. The County’s primary fuel vendor possesses very sophisticated reporting capabilities and would be able to provide excellent tools in an effort to better manage fuel purchases. 2 5. The 50 vehicles identified as “Department 99” or department owned are not managed by Fleet Management, so the efficiency of operating those vehicles (which represent nearly 10% of the County total) is difficult to determine.
F6
Page 7
County fleet costs for 2008-2009 are estimated to be 4.2 million dollars, with projected total miles at over 5.4 million. These costs represent a cost to the County of 77.2 cents for every mile driven. As a point of reference, the rate the County reimburses employees to drive their own vehicles on County business is 50.5 cents per mile, or 26.7 cents per mile less than the County spends on its own vehicles. We do recognize that the County per mile cost is an average of ALL vehicles, including some heavy duty vehicles.
F7
Page 7
In reviewing the take-home vehicle list many of the assignments are not for “health and safety” or on-call status use. Take-home vehicles are driven 21% more miles per year, per vehicle when compared to the balance of the Fleet managed vehicles. One reason is that take-home vehicles include “commute” miles.
F8
Page 7
Potential cost savings to the County exist in two areas: a. The conversion of miles driven in County-owned vehicles to private vehicle reimbursement would save 26.7 cents per mile. If a 10% reduction were achieved, the County would save an estimated $145,278 annually. b. A 10% reduction of total County vehicle miles driven would yield a 77.2 cent per mile savings, estimated to be $419,862 annually.
F9
Page 7
Our investigation indicated that Fleet Management is performing their function well.
Recommendations 1
-
R1Page 24The Grand Jury recommends that a task force be formed comprised of expert end users and outside vendors, charging them with the responsibility of streamlining the procurement process and improving the customer service level to all internal departments and external vendors. This end user task force should include members from all major County functions. The BOS should champion this process and assign one of the Supervisors to oversee the progress of this task force, with a monthly update from the leader of this task force to him/her and the CAO. We recommend that this task force start with a “blank page,” and identify an appropriate flow process, effective computer systems’ support and lead times that best serve the needs of the County and outside vendors. Significant progress has already been made in identifying the current process, but the challenge to the team is to identify what changes should be made to improve the procurement process. 2. The completed task force report should be written and submitted to the BOS with all recommended changes no later than the end of fiscal year 2008-2009. 3. No additions to personnel should occur until such time as a full review of the procurement process is completed. RESPONSES Response(s) to this report is required in accordance with California Penal Code §933.05 20 -003 REASON FOR REPORT The El Dorado County Grand Jury received several complaints from citizens of South Lake Tahoe. The complaints centered on the verbally abusive behavior and menacing actions of the South Lake Tahoe Chief of Police. Investigation of these complaints uncovered additional information which prompted the Grand Jury to look further into his managerial and behavioral issues. BACKGROUND The City of South Lake Tahoe was incorporated November 10, 1965. The formation of the South Lake Tahoe Police Department (SLTPD) occurred on July 1, 1967. SLTPD has to date had seven police chiefs. The current police chief was sworn in as the Chief of Police in 2006. The SLTPD has approximately 42 sworn positions and 12 civilian support personnel. The Police Department patrols approximately 13 square miles, of which five miles include the waters of Lake Tahoe. The City of South Lake Tahoe's permanent population is approximately 24,000 people, increasing to 150,000 during major holidays. The SLTPD in 1991-1992 was faced with a crisis of a divisive department, low morale and a feeling of helplessness on the part of many who wanted to make the situation better. The Department united under the realization that in order to “fix” what was broken, everyone of the SLTPD personnel from the civilian employees to the Chief of Police needed to "roll up their sleeves", put their egos on hold, and do what was right for the SLTPD and more importantly, what was right for the citizens of South Lake Tahoe. METHODOLOGY The Grand Jury utilized sworn testimony, information gathered from interviews and the review of documentation consisting of reports and written statements. The Grand Jury also received legal advice from the El Dorado County District Attorney’s Office and the El Dorado County Counsel’s Office. People Interviewed: • City of South Lake Tahoe Citizens • City of South Lake Tahoe Officials • Consultants • El Dorado County Counsel Officials • El Dorado County District Attorney’s Office Personnel Documents Reviewed: • SLTPD Web Page • Survey • Written documentation including newspaper articles, faxes, notes, manuals, emails, and correspondence
Conclusions 2
-
CL1 Page 59Sampling results indicate that failures to uphold Medi-Cal documentation standards for claims are consistent across all populations, although they were noticeably more prevalent in the Mallard site adult outpatient sample. Results also indicate that a significant portion of billable, documented services were not being claimed at the time the audit field work was conducted.
-
CL2 Page 80Many of the Department of Human Services Public Guardian program case records appear to be out of compliance with TCM program requirements, based on a review of a sample of client case records and documentation supporting Medi-Cal claims for reimbursement. Few of the case records reviewed make the required link between client Assessments, Individual Client Service Plans and Periodic Reviews to ensure that client Harvey M. Rose Associates, LLC 36 Section 4: DHS Targeted Case Management Medi-Cal Billing needs have been identified and addressed with specific activities and service strategies. Though a TCM requirement, follow-up checks on services to which clients are referred are routinely not taking place. Most cases are not meeting the six month Periodic Review requirement. The Department’s Linkages program, on the other hand, was found substantially in compliance with TCM program requirements in the ten sample sets of case records reviewed. Linkages program management appears to have designed their case file documentation and established policies and procedures with TCM program requirements, or intent, in mind. Periodic review documents are structured to ensure that service objectives and client needs identified in previous assessments and reviews continue to be addressed.
No Responses Found 1
Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.
El Dorado County Board of Supervisors
Elected County Office