San Joaquin County Grand Jury
• 2012-2013
San Joaquin County Grand Jury District Board Ignores the Peoples’ Right to be Informed 2012-2013 Case No. 1112
⚠️ 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 and Recommendations 16 findings
F1
1 The Board of Trustees failed to comply with the Government Code Section 54954.2(a) (1) by providing an inadequate description of agenda items proposed for discussion and action at a public meeting. Specifically, it violated the Brown Act at its January 15, 2013 District Board meeting by having an inadequate description of Item No. Review of Current Trustee Health Insurance Plan, under consideration and the proposed action to be taken by the Board.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1
1.1 As a result of its violation of the Government Code 54954.2(a) (1), the Board of Trustee immediately rescind its action on Item No. 6, Review of Current Trustee Health Insurance Plan of the January 15, 2013 Board meeting.
R2
1.1 The District Board immediately rescind its action of January 15, 2013, pertaining to providing health insurance benefits to Trustees. If the topic is reconsidered, a resolution is to be prepared clearly indicating details of the health insurance coverage being provided, for whom coverage is available and the total cost to the District. 3.0 Trustees’ Knowledge of District Finance As the legislative body for the District, the Trustees must have a working knowledge of the District’s finances to fulfill their fiduciary responsibilities to the public they serve. The District currently has an operating budget of $7.7 million and reserve funds in excess of $9 million. None of the Trustees interviewed could provide the Grand Jury (with any certainty), an explanation regarding the intended use/s of the reserve funds. Only one Trustee interviewed could provide even an approximate estimate of the amount of the District’s budget. Some testified that knowledge of the District budget and finance was left to the Board’s budget committee and they only looked at fiscal issues when the budget was being adopted. The public cannot easily become informed about the District’s finances because its website does not provide information on the District budget or its annual independent audit.
F2
1.1 A majority of the District’s Trustees, under sworn testimony, did not know the details of the health insurance program they were voting to grant themselves.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
1.1 The District Board immediately rescind its action of January 15, 2013, pertaining to providing health insurance benefits to Trustees. If the topic is reconsidered, a resolution is to be prepared clearly indicating details of the health insurance coverage being provided, for whom coverage is available and the total cost to the District. 3.0 Trustees’ Knowledge of District Finance As the legislative body for the District, the Trustees must have a working knowledge of the District’s finances to fulfill their fiduciary responsibilities to the public they serve. The District currently has an operating budget of $7.7 million and reserve funds in excess of $9 million. None of the Trustees interviewed could provide the Grand Jury (with any certainty), an explanation regarding the intended use/s of the reserve funds. Only one Trustee interviewed could provide even an approximate estimate of the amount of the District’s budget. Some testified that knowledge of the District budget and finance was left to the Board’s budget committee and they only looked at fiscal issues when the budget was being adopted. The public cannot easily become informed about the District’s finances because its website does not provide information on the District budget or its annual independent audit.
F3
1 A majority of the Trustees lack a working knowledge of District finances.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
1.1 Beginning September 30, 2013, and quarterly thereafter, the District General Manager include an item on the District Board’s agenda to provide information on the District’s budget, expenditures and reserves.
F4
1 Membership on the District Board is seen as a family right and obligation passed through generations, or as a pathway for political advancement.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4
1 No later than November 1, 2013, the County Board of Supervisors and the City Council of each city in the County petition the appropriate agencies and/or the State legislature to establish term limits of two consecutive four-year terms for District Board Trustees. 5.0 The Best Governance Structure of the District Board to Serve the Public Mosquito abatement districts have been in existence in California since the late 1880s when it became known that mosquitos carried disease. The early districts were created when the State was more rural and had fewer incorporated cities. In San Joaquin County, the first mosquito abatement district was formed in 1945 and was comprised of the City of Lodi and the northern portion of the County. In 1955, the County and the City of Stockton created a mosquito abatement district encompassing the southern part of the County. In 1980, the two districts consolidated to form the current District. In every case, the district was an independent special district. In light of its investigation and those of prior grand juries, the 2012-2013 Grand Jury questioned whether the currently constituted District is the most effective means of providing vector control services to the citizens of the County. The Grand Jury reiterates that it has the respect for the employees of the District in keeping the County safe from mosquito and vector-carried diseases. It does have concerns about whether having a separate district with a separate board as the legislative body is the most effective structure for the present and future needs of the County.
F5
1 Issues regarding non-transparent functioning and actions of the District Trustees bring into question the need for the District Board as presently appointed by the Cities and the County Board of Supervisors. Conclusion When enacting the Ralph M. Brown Act, the State Legislature clearly articulated its intent by stating “In enacting this chapter, the Legislature finds and declares that the public commissions, boards, and councils and the other public agencies in this State exist to aid in the conduct of the people’s business." It further stated “The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created.” It is through this Grand Jury’s review of the San Joaquin County Mosquito and Vector Control District Board of Trustees actions, that it determined the current Board of Trustees and their senior management lack the proper awareness of this legislative intent and the associated legal requirements. The lack of awareness by the District Board indicates they have not properly implemented the intent of the legislature by ensuring all of their business activities are open to public review and debate. The Grand Jury believes that through adoption and implementation of the recommendations contained within this report that the public’s right to be informed of the activities of their public servants will be better fulfilled. Further, a new look at the Board’s composition or even a new organizational structure may better serve the San Joaquin County community. Disclaimer Grand Jury reports are based on documentary evidence and the testimony of sworn or admonished witnesses, not on conjecture or opinion. However, the Grand Jury is precluded by law from disclosing such evidence except upon specific approval of the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court, or another judge appointed by the Presiding Judge (Penal Code Sections 911, 924.1(a) and 929). Similarly, the Grand Jury is precluded by law from disclosing the identity of witnesses except upon an order of the court for narrowly defined purposes (Penal Code Sections 924.2 and 929). Response Requirements California Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05 require that specific responses to all findings and
No recommendations for this finding
F1.1
The Board of Trustees failed to comply with the Government Code Section 54954.2(a) (1) by providing an inadequate description of agenda items proposed for discussion and action at a public meeting. Specifically, it violated the Brown Act at its January 15, 2013 District Board meeting by having an inadequate description of Item No. Review of Current Trustee Health Insurance Plan, under consideration and the proposed action to be taken by the Board.
No recommendations for this finding
F1.2
The District Board violated the requirements of California Government Code Section 54953.3 by failing to have clearly indicated on its sign-in sheet that such a requirement was a voluntary action for the public and that no adverse impact would result from failing to sign.
No recommendations for this finding
F1.3
The District Board violated Government Code Section 54957.5 by failing to have the agenda materials provided to Trustees available to the public at the same time as delivered to the Trustees. It also placed restrictions on the public’s access to the materials before and during Trustee meetings.
No recommendations for this finding
F1.4
At the time this investigation started, the only information on the District’s website was the current meeting agenda. Information about prior meeting agendas, agenda background materials and meeting minutes was not accessible on the website. This information has subsequently been added to the District’s website.
No recommendations for this finding
F3.1
A majority of the Trustees lack a working knowledge of District finances.
No recommendations for this finding
F3.2
The District website does not include basic financial documents for public review.
No recommendations for this finding
F4.1
Membership on the District Board is seen as a family right and obligation passed through generations, or as a pathway for political advancement.
No recommendations for this finding
F4.2
Long terms on the District Board may lead to complacency in reviewing District financial conditions and a clear understanding of issues brought before the Board for consideration.
No recommendations for this finding
F5.1
Issues regarding non-transparent functioning and actions of the District Trustees bring into question the need for the District Board as presently appointed by the Cities and the County Board of Supervisors. Conclusion When enacting the Ralph M. Brown Act, the State Legislature clearly articulated its intent by stating “In enacting this chapter, the Legislature finds and declares that the public commissions, boards, and councils and the other public agencies in this State exist to aid in the conduct of the people’s business." It further stated “The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created.” It is through this Grand Jury’s review of the San Joaquin County Mosquito and Vector Control District Board of Trustees actions, that it determined the current Board of Trustees and their senior management lack the proper awareness of this legislative intent and the associated legal requirements. The lack of awareness by the District Board indicates they have not properly implemented the intent of the legislature by ensuring all of their business activities are open to public review and debate. The Grand Jury believes that through adoption and implementation of the recommendations contained within this report that the public’s right to be informed of the activities of their public servants will be better fulfilled. Further, a new look at the Board’s composition or even a new organizational structure may better serve the San Joaquin County community. Disclaimer Grand Jury reports are based on documentary evidence and the testimony of sworn or admonished witnesses, not on conjecture or opinion. However, the Grand Jury is precluded by law from disclosing such evidence except upon specific approval of the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court, or another judge appointed by the Presiding Judge (Penal Code Sections 911, 924.1(a) and 929). Similarly, the Grand Jury is precluded by law from disclosing the identity of witnesses except upon an order of the court for narrowly defined purposes (Penal Code Sections 924.2 and 929). Response Requirements California Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05 require that specific responses to all findings and
No recommendations for this finding
F2.1.1
A majority of the District’s Trustees, under sworn testimony, did not know the details of the health insurance program they were voting to grant themselves.
No recommendations for this finding
F2.1.2
A number of Trustees, under sworn testimony, indicated that they thought they were voting for health insurance coverage for the Trustee only, and not for family members.
No recommendations for this finding
Conclusions 1
-
CL1When enacting the Ralph M. Brown Act, the State Legislature clearly articulated its intent by stating “In enacting this chapter, the Legislature finds and declares that the public commissions, boards, and councils and the other public agencies in this State exist to aid in the conduct of the people’s business." It further stated “The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created.” It is through this Grand Jury’s review of the San Joaquin County Mosquito and Vector Control District Board of Trustees actions, that it determined the current Board of Trustees and their senior management lack the proper awareness of this legislative intent and the associated legal requirements. The lack of awareness by the District Board indicates they have not properly implemented the intent of the legislature by ensuring all of their business activities are open to public review and debate. The Grand Jury believes that through adoption and implementation of the recommendations contained within this report that the public’s right to be informed of the activities of their public servants will be better fulfilled. Further, a new look at the Board’s composition or even a new organizational structure may better serve the San Joaquin County community. Disclaimer Grand Jury reports are based on documentary evidence and the testimony of sworn or admonished witnesses, not on conjecture or opinion. However, the Grand Jury is precluded by law from disclosing such evidence except upon specific approval of the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court, or another judge appointed by the Presiding Judge (Penal Code Sections 911, 924.1(a) and 929). Similarly, the Grand Jury is precluded by law from disclosing the identity of witnesses except upon an order of the court for narrowly defined purposes (Penal Code Sections 924.2 and 929). Response Requirements California Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05 require that specific responses to all findings and recommendations contained in this report be submitted to the Presiding Judge of San Joaquin County Superior Court within 90 days. The San Joaquin County Mosquito and Vector Control Board of Trustees is to respond to the following findings and recommendations: Findings: F1.1, F1.2, F1.3, F1.4, F2.1.1, F2.1.2, F3.1, F3.2, and F5.1. Recommendations: R1.1.1, R1.1.2, R1.2, R1.3, R1.4, R2.1.1, R3.1.1, R3.1.2, and R3.2. The San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors is to respond to the following findings and recommendations: Findings: F4.1, F4.2, and F5.1 Recommendations: R4.1 The Cities of Escalon, Lathrop, Lodi, Manteca, Ripon, Stockton, and Tracy are to respond to the following findings and recommendations: Findings: F4.1, F4.2, and F5.1 Recommendations: R4.1 Mail or hand-deliver a hard copy of the response to: Honorable David P. Warner, Presiding Judge San Joaquin County Superior Court P. O. Box 201022 Stockton, CA 95201 Also, please email the response to Trisa Martinez, Staff Secretary to the Grand Jury at [email protected].
No Responses Found 9
Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.
Escalon
City
Lathrop
City
Lodi
City
Manteca
City
Ripon
City
San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors
Elected County Office
San Joaquin County Mosquito and Vector Control
Special District
Stockton
City
Tracy
City