⚠️ 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 19 findings
F1
YCPD is supportive of “Evidence Based Practice” through the use of ADC’s assessment tools.
F2
ADC is the sole provider of assessment tools used by YCPD.
F3
The YCPD manager was the sole contract administrator for ADC.
F4
The YCPD manager had a dual relationship with the CEO of ADC.
F5
ADC invoices were received and approved solely by the YCPD manager.
F6
YCPD management exhibited questionable ethical conduct.
F7
The YCPD manager did not disclose a personal relationship with the CEO of ADC in a timely manner.
F8
The YCPD manager traveled from Sacramento to other states to intervene in the CEO’s substance abuse.
F9
The YCPD manager used airline credits earned as a Yolo County employee to travel from Sacramento to Utah and Arizona on non-county business.
F10
The YCPD manager did not disclose the CEO’s substance abuse to Yolo County administrators in a timely manner.
F11
The YCPD manager guided ADC in completing invoices for payment despite having a dual relationship with the CEO.
F12
The YCPD manager authorized a strategically complex pay package for MIT trainers.
F13
The method of compensation for MIT trainers was not approved by Yolo County Human Resources (YCHR).
F14
Some trainers were directed to falsify timesheets.
F15
Timecards were submitted improperly.
F16
There are no agreements for other counties to reimburse Yolo County for MIT training conducted by the Yolo County staff.
F17
No invoices have been submitted by YCPD to other counties for training reimbursement and no reimbursements have been received by Yolo County.
F18
Yolo County has no code of conduct or professional code of ethics for high level management employees to follow.
F19
At the time of this investigation, ADC was in receivership. 18 2012–2013 Yolo CountY GRAnd JuRY FinAl RepoRt: inveStiGAtionS & RevieWS Yolo CountY pRoBAtion depARtMent: A tRouBlinG ContRACt, QueStionABle etHiCS
Recommendations 14
-
R1The ADC contract should be reviewed by Yolo County Counsel and the County Administrative Officer to determine by December 28, 2012 the operational fitness and financial viability of ADC.
-
R2Yolo County should develop and implement a code of conduct, clarifying professional protocol for high level management employees to avoid dual relationships, conflicts of interest, improprieties or the appearance of impropriety
-
R3The MIT compensation package should be reviewed by December 28, 2012 to determine if YCPD management has the authority to authorize a compensation package.
-
R4The scheduling of MIT training on days not at work should be reviewed by December 28, 2012 to determine if this is a violation of the MOU.
-
R5No single Yolo County manager should have sole authority over the development and implementation of a contract or vendor.
-
R6The timesheets for MIT trainers should be audited and overpayments should be recovered
-
R7Yolo County should closely monitor YCPD to ensure no dual relationships exist between employees and outside contractors.
-
R8Yolo County should perform an audit of payments to ADC and determine if any payment irregularities occurred and recoup funds as necessary
-
R9Any agreements and/or payments for reimbursement for MIT training from other counties should be reviewed for compliance with Yolo County’s financial policies and procedures.
-
R10The Board Audit Committee should request internal audits when financial problems are brought forward.
-
R11The Board Audit Committee should recruit an independent private financial expert to serve on that committee, which should meet at least quarterly. 25 2012–2013 Yolo CountY GRAnd JuRY FinAl RepoRt: inveStiGAtionS & RevieWS Yolo CountY FinAnCe: tRACKinG CHAnGeS
-
R12Department supervisors should be trained to be sensitive to employee issues created by staff reductions and changes to organization and operating systems to avoid creating hostile work environments.
-
R13Employees should be allowed to voice complaints and should receive timely responses, addressed in an open and professional manner.
-
R14All HR recommendations for remedial action should be addressed with transparency and due diligence.
No Responses Found 2
Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.
Yolo County
County
Yolo County Board of Supervisors
Elected County Office