Score: +7
(10/11/3)
El Dorado County Grand Jury
• 2007-2008
Preface(PDF, 882kb)
Published: June 17, 2008
8 pages
⚠️ 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.
Conclusions 1
-
CL1The Grand Jury of 2007-2008 was honored to work for the citizens of El Dorado County. We believe that constructively addressing controversial issues is necessary to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of governmental operations. The Grand Jury strongly encourages the implementation of the recommendations found in this report.
Agency Responses 4
Government agencies' official responses to this report's findings and recommendations. Click on a response to see the structured breakdown.
▶
Agency Responses to Part 1(PDF, 1MB)
June 17, 2008
•
6 pages
• 4 responses
•
Score: +1
(+1, 2, 0)
View Details ▾
4 responses to findings and recommendations
F1
EDC does not have a written policy or procedure to direct the handling of a Consent Calendar. Past practice has been for the CAO to review all agenda items and indicate by writing on the item the letter “C” for consent, or “D” for discussion. The contract matter under review had neither letter designation. According to one prominent official the CAO knew that at least one member of the BOS was very interested in having the contract move forward, and allowed this item to “slip by.”
Response: Agree
Score: +1
The Clean Tahoe Board of Directors, hereinafter "the Respondent", agrees with the finding. South Tahoe Refuse is capable and willing to assume the operations of the Clean Tahoe Program if asked by the City and County to do so. However, it has been reluctant to initiate this change because it does not wish to appear hostile to the Clean Tahoe Program.
F2
The EDC Fiscal Review Process (Policy B-12) was adopted March 1, 2005. The policy was not followed in this case.
Response: Disagree Partially
Score: 0
The Respondent disagrees partially with the finding. South Tahoe Refuse does not currently perform the same services as the Clean Tahoe Program. Clean Tahoe Services include, but are not limited to, walking the highways and neighborhoods performing litter abatement, issuing ten-day courtesy notices, re-inspection of properties in violation of trash ordinances, and assisting the disabled and seniors with pick and haul issues at a reduced or no cost. In addition, Clean Tahoe mandates the pick up of overflowing dumpsters, performs bulk item pick ups, cleans Conservancy lots, maintains the bus sto...
F3
The items under review substantially exceeded the dollar amount specified in BOS Policy B-12. In addition, the contract had been reviewed by Human Resources on 4/25/08, Risk Management and County Counsel on 5/14/08, none of whom detected the problems later discovered by the Auditor/Controller Office.
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
The Respondent has no comment. 4. During 2003, STR was provided a copy of the FY 2002/03 Clean Tahoe Budget and asked to review the budget for opportunities for cost savings if STR were operating the Clean Tahoe Program. After doing a line-by-line assessment of each cost item, STR estimated that it could reduce the annual cost by $49,720. Details of this assessment are shown in a spreadsheet that is Exhibit A. South Tahoe Refuse management expressed to the Grand Jury that it believes this estimate is still reasonable. Elimination of the Clean Tahoe Program's management and overhead costs is an...
F4
EDC does not have a written policy delineating guidelines covering what items are appropriate for inclusion in a Consent Calendar and the mechanics of inclusion (or removal) of such items. Development and implementation of, and adherence to such a policy, are seen as key components for the efficient function of EDC Government, and a positive step forward building confidence in the BOS.
Response: Disagree Partially
Score: 0
The Respondent disagrees partially with the finding. In 2003, South Tahoe Refuse Company was provided with Clean Tahoe's operating budget and was asked to compare costs if they were to operate the Program. At that time, the Clean Tahoe Board was neither informed of this movement nor given the privilege of a response. The Grand Jury used this comparison done in 2003 to formulate their recommendation that the Clean Tahoe Program could be operated in a more cost effective manner by STR. A current detailed cost or service analysis was not prepared, the current Chief Financial Officer of the Clean ...
▶
Response to Part 1(PDF, 96KB)
April 22, 2008
•
18 pages
• 7 responses
•
Score: +3
(+3, 3, 0)
View Details ▾
7 responses to findings and recommendations
F1
EDC does not have a written policy or procedure to direct the handling of a Consent Calendar. Past practice has been for the CAO to review all agenda items and indicate by writing on the item the letter “C” for consent, or “D” for discussion. The contract matter under review had neither letter designation. According to one prominent official the CAO knew that at least one member of the BOS was very interested in having the contract move forward, and allowed this item to “slip by.”
Response: Agree
Score: +1
The respondent agrees with the finding. 2. Road repair CSD's could opt to become Zones of Benefit under CSA #9, but this would necessitate paying fees for County DOT services. Department of Transportation charges hourly rates for time spent assisting ZOB's, and the Auditor- Controller charges one percent of the annual budget for providing financial services. While these fees may be reasonable, road repair CSD budgets on average are considerably smaller than ZOB budgets.
R1
The urgent need for bylaws demands the immediate attention of the District. LAFCO should be consulted for assistance. The bylaws should include a process for the removal of a Board Member from office.
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
, El Dorado County is facing a significant budget shortfall. The Board of Supervisors is unable at this time to exclusively dedicate a General Services worker to the South Lake Tahoe Jail. However, the Board will consider increasing maintenance staff at the Jail and other county facilities as resources permit. RESPONSES Response(s) to this report is required in accordance with California Penal Code §933.05. COMMENDATION Despite needing increased personnel and repairs in certain areas of the facility, many programs leading to rehabilitation of inmates were noted, most specifically in the areas ...
F2
The EDC Fiscal Review Process (Policy B-12) was adopted March 1, 2005. The policy was not followed in this case.
Response: Agree
Score: +1
The respondent agrees with the finding. COMMENDATION The leadership and staff of the Placerville Jail are commended for their rigorous adherence to its mission statement and dedication to the rehabilitation of incarcerated adults. 9 Final Draft Response to the 2007-08 Grand Jury Final Report Part 1 El Dorado County Jail South Lake Tahoe REASON FOR REPORT Section 919(a) and 919(b) of the California Penal Code requires the grand jury to annually inspect any jail or prison within the county. This includes juvenile correctional facilities. BACKGROUND The South Lake Tahoe Jail was built in 1970 and...
R2
A grievance procedure and grievance form should be developed without delay and be made available to all employees. RESPONSES Responses to both numbered findings and recommendations in this report are required in accordance with California Penal Code §933 and §933.05. Address responses to: The Honorable Suzanne N. Kingsbury, Presiding Judge of the El Dorado County Superior Court, 1354 Johnson Blvd., South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150. Report provided to PFPD BOD Chairperson for response. Elected official...
Response: Implemented
Score: 0
The recommendation has been implemented. Since the Juvenile Treatment Center was constructed and open for service, staffing the facility at the mandated staff to minor ratio has been very much a challenge. During the first two (2) years, the facility attempted to 17 Final Draft Response to the 2007-08 Grand Jury Final Report Part 1 hire staff at a level of 21 staff. Unfortunately, thirteen (13) detention staff left after being hired each year. During the following year, eleven (11) detention staff and five (5) support staff left after being hired, and thirteen (13) detention staff and another ...
F3
The items under review substantially exceeded the dollar amount specified in BOS Policy B-12. In addition, the contract had been reviewed by Human Resources on 4/25/08, Risk Management and County Counsel on 5/14/08, none of whom detected the problems later discovered by the Auditor/Controller Office.
Response: Disagree Partially
Score: 0
The respondent disagrees partially with the finding. The City and County each have existing Franchise Agreements with South Tahoe Refuse Co., Inc. The City Council and the Board of Supervisors set the rates to be charged by STR. The County would have to negotiate with STR to incorporate services not currently included in the existing franchise agreements. No competitive bid process would be required. 4. During 2003, STR was provided a copy of the FY 2002/03 Clean Tahoe Budget and asked to review the budget for opportunities for cost savings if STR were operating the Clean Tahoe Program. After ...
F4
EDC does not have a written policy delineating guidelines covering what items are appropriate for inclusion in a Consent Calendar and the mechanics of inclusion (or removal) of such items. Development and implementation of, and adherence to such a policy, are seen as key components for the efficient function of EDC Government, and a positive step forward building confidence in the BOS.
Response: Disagree Partially
Score: 0
The respondent disagrees partially with the finding. The training provided to the Zone of Benefit Advisory Committees by the Department of Transportation is specifically tailored to address Zones of Benefit and is not necessarily applicable to Community Services Districts. Including CSD members in the ZOB training most likely would be confusing for attendees who are typically looking for specific answers related to Zones of Benefit. In addition, although Department of Transportation staff are knowledgeable concerning Zones of Benefit, they are not trained or knowledgeable about Community Servi...
F5
The EDC Grand Jury was informed that in addition to any member of the BOS, any member of the public may request an item be pulled for further discussion or correction.
Response: Agree
Score: +1
The respondent agrees with the finding. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. The County Department of Transportation should invite road repair district directors to its annual training sessions held for Zones of Benefit advisory committee members, and do so on a continuing basis.
▶
Response to Part 2(PDF, 292KB)
August 21, 2008
•
18 pages
• 8 responses
•
Score: +3
(+4, 3, -1)
View Details ▾
8 responses to findings and recommendations
F1
EDC does not have a written policy or procedure to direct the handling of a Consent Calendar. Past practice has been for the CAO to review all agenda items and indicate by writing on the item the letter “C” for consent, or “D” for discussion. The contract matter under review had neither letter designation. According to one prominent official the CAO knew that at least one member of the BOS was very interested in having the contract move forward, and allowed this item to “slip by.”
Response: Disagree Partially
Score: 0
The respondent disagrees partially with the finding. The Board of Supervisors agrees that either a fire protection district or LAFCO can initiate a consolidation study including a cost/benefit analysis. Without additional information, the Board of Supervisors is unable to express agreement or disagreement with the statement regarding LAFCO’s reluctance to initiate a study. In addition, although the Board of Supervisors appoints some LAFCO representatives, LAFCO is an independent agency. Consequently, whether or not to initiate a consolidation study is a policy question more appropriately addre...
R1
The urgent need for bylaws demands the immediate attention of the District. LAFCO should be consulted for assistance. The bylaws should include a process for the removal of a Board Member from office.
Response: Will Implement
Score: +1
The recommendation has not yet been implemented but will be implemented in the future. The administration section of the Sheriff’s Office has been moved to a leased facility on Broadway in Placerville. Revenue from the Accumulated Capital Outlay fund will be used to remodel the Sheriff’s Administration Building. The remodel plan is consistent with the substation design if and when a new primary administration building is constructed. Current plans call for a remodel of the locker-room/showers, briefing room, sergeants’ office, report writing room and records rooms. Plans are presently in plan ...
F2
The EDC Fiscal Review Process (Policy B-12) was adopted March 1, 2005. The policy was not followed in this case.
Response: Disagree Partially
Score: 0
The respondent disagrees partially with the finding. While it is reasonable to assume that any organization change will face some level of resistance, the Board of Supervisors does not have sufficient information to evaluate the amelioration strategies suggested by the Grand Jury. 4 Final Draft Response to the 2007-08 Grand Jury Final Report Part 2 3. The County Board of Supervisors supplements revenues for six FPDs on the County west slope and two small districts providing fire protection in the Tahoe Basin, Fallen Leaf Lake CSD and the Meeks Bay FPD. This is a subsidy by the County at large ...
R2
A grievance procedure and grievance form should be developed without delay and be made available to all employees. RESPONSES Responses to both numbered findings and recommendations in this report are required in accordance with California Penal Code §933 and §933.05. Address responses to: The Honorable Suzanne N. Kingsbury, Presiding Judge of the El Dorado County Superior Court, 1354 Johnson Blvd., South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150. Report provided to PFPD BOD Chairperson for response. Elected official...
Response: Will Not Implement
Score: -1
The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted. It is not the role of the Board of Supervisors to advocate for the consolidation or merger of outside agencies with independently elected boards of directors. The Board of Supervisors will work with the fire districts and clearly communicate its intent with respect to Aid to Fire. Fire districts will have to draw their own conclusions based off of future Board action with respect to Aid to Fire, and determine whether consolidation is reasonable. 3. The boards of directors of the following nine fire protection districts sho...
F3
The items under review substantially exceeded the dollar amount specified in BOS Policy B-12. In addition, the contract had been reviewed by Human Resources on 4/25/08, Risk Management and County Counsel on 5/14/08, none of whom detected the problems later discovered by the Auditor/Controller Office.
Response: Disagree Partially
Score: 0
The respondent disagrees partially with the finding. The county does supplement revenue for fire districts as described in the finding. The county funding is generally referred to as “Aid to Fire” and is included in the budget each year. For the current and next fiscal year the Board of Supervisors has specifically discussed Aid to Fire through the annual budget process or mid-year budget discussions. Most recently, on May 20, 2008 the Board of Supervisors requested that the Auditor-Controller engage fire district representatives to evaluate the formula for distribution of Aid to Fire. While f...
F4
EDC does not have a written policy delineating guidelines covering what items are appropriate for inclusion in a Consent Calendar and the mechanics of inclusion (or removal) of such items. Development and implementation of, and adherence to such a policy, are seen as key components for the efficient function of EDC Government, and a positive step forward building confidence in the BOS.
Response: Agree
Score: +1
The respondent agrees with the finding. 5. The tax revenues for FY 2006/07 for the West Slope FPDs are summarized in Exhibit B. The tax revenues for each district, including special taxes and special assessments, are combined in one column. Note that all but Pioneer FPD and Latrobe FPD receive tax revenues exceeding 13 percent of their tax base, and all but Pioneer FPD have total funding including the County Supplemental Contribution that exceeds 13 percent of their tax base. With the exception of Pioneer FPD and Latrobe FPD, the County supplemental is much smaller than the other tax revenue r...
F5
The EDC Grand Jury was informed that in addition to any member of the BOS, any member of the public may request an item be pulled for further discussion or correction.
Response: Agree
Score: +1
The respondent agrees with the finding. 6. With advance notification, the Board of Supervisors can discontinue these subsidies. The County has a fiduciary responsibility to minimize them, preferably without degrading fire protection capabilities. Elimination of the subsidies would require these fire protection districts to either find other sources of revenue in a similar amount, or find equivalent budget savings that would not degrade fire protection capability.
F6
Printed copies of EDC BOS meeting agendas contain no information informing the public how to have an item pulled from the Consent Calendar for discussion.
Response: Agree
Score: +1
The respondent agrees with the finding. 7. Consolidation of the six West Slope subsidized fire districts, and especially mergers into the three financially stronger fire districts on the West Slope, should allow elimination of the fire chiefs and other administrative positions in the subsidized districts. The potential personnel savings that could result are shown in Exhibit C, where the administrative personnel costs for each fire district are shown in column L, with a total amount of $944,084. The County supplemental contributions for these fire districts are shown in column M, and the total...
▶
Response to Part 3(PDF, 461KB)
September 16, 2008
•
56 pages
• 8 responses
•
Score: 0
(+2, 3, -2)
View Details ▾
8 responses to findings and recommendations
F1
EDC does not have a written policy or procedure to direct the handling of a Consent Calendar. Past practice has been for the CAO to review all agenda items and indicate by writing on the item the letter “C” for consent, or “D” for discussion. The contract matter under review had neither letter designation. According to one prominent official the CAO knew that at least one member of the BOS was very interested in having the contract move forward, and allowed this item to “slip by.”
Response: Disagree
Score: -1
The respondent disagrees with the finding. The Board of Supervisors does not concur with the conclusion that the county is at risk of losing up to $541,420 because the faulty sampling methodology used in this audit produced inaccurate findings from which no valid extrapolations can be concluded. In general, in order to ensure that the characteristics of a sample are representative of an entire population, certain statistical standards must be met. The sample sizes in this audit do not meet reasonably acceptable thresholds and their random selection is highly doubtful. With respect to Mental He...
R1
The urgent need for bylaws demands the immediate attention of the District. LAFCO should be consulted for assistance. The bylaws should include a process for the removal of a Board Member from office.
Response: Implemented
Score: 0
The recommendation has been implemented. Within existing resources, the Board of Supervisors will support the District Attorney’s approach as outlined in his response to this report. 2. Increase victim services under the District’s Attorney’s Victim Witness Program, utilizing the assistance of the STAR Program (volunteers). Increased services should include: • Early contact with all victims of crime to provide comprehensive county– wide information on the restitution program • Obtain and confirm current victim losses and addresses and a process for victims to keep address information current a...
F2
The EDC Fiscal Review Process (Policy B-12) was adopted March 1, 2005. The policy was not followed in this case.
Response: Agree
Score: +1
The respondent agrees with the finding. County staff is proud of these programs and is always looking for opportunities to improve services. 3. The Grand Jury and the Auditor encountered multiple impediments in obtaining the necessary legally authorized and court-ordered records from DHS. Even with repeated County Counsel intervention, the Auditor, with the court-order, did not receive requested client case record information, including requested assessments in effect during the review period, pertinent to the performance of a comprehensive compliance audit. Only during the June 9, 2008 exit c...
R2
A grievance procedure and grievance form should be developed without delay and be made available to all employees. RESPONSES Responses to both numbered findings and recommendations in this report are required in accordance with California Penal Code §933 and §933.05. Address responses to: The Honorable Suzanne N. Kingsbury, Presiding Judge of the El Dorado County Superior Court, 1354 Johnson Blvd., South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150. Report provided to PFPD BOD Chairperson for response. Elected official...
Response: Implemented
Score: 0
The recommendation has been implemented. The Department’s internal audit tool routinely identifies delivered services and cross-checks the billing system to insure that a claim is submitted to Medi-Cal for each billable service delivered. As the conversion to the new software billing application transpired between February and August 2007 (coincidentally, the time frame of the Grand Jury’s audit), the Department was aware that not all billable Medi-Cal services were captured and claimed. As acknowledged in the auditor’s report, this conversion-related omission has been fully rectified. 43 Fina...
F3
The items under review substantially exceeded the dollar amount specified in BOS Policy B-12. In addition, the contract had been reviewed by Human Resources on 4/25/08, Risk Management and County Counsel on 5/14/08, none of whom detected the problems later discovered by the Auditor/Controller Office.
Response: Disagree Partially
Score: 0
The respondent disagrees partially with the finding. Client privacy is of the utmost importance, and it is difficult to connect case management and reporting information for individual clients without compromising protected information. The Department of Human Services welcomed the court order issued for this audit, which was actually a recommendation by the State of California to provide an outside auditor with access to case files that may contain clients’ personal information. The Board of Supervisors understands that the auditor may have been frustrated by the redactions in the documentati...
F4
EDC does not have a written policy delineating guidelines covering what items are appropriate for inclusion in a Consent Calendar and the mechanics of inclusion (or removal) of such items. Development and implementation of, and adherence to such a policy, are seen as key components for the efficient function of EDC Government, and a positive step forward building confidence in the BOS.
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
, the Acting Director has already established this policy and, since January, has been meeting with people expressing a wide range of concerns. This activity is something that the Board will look to continue when a new permanent Director is selected. 13 Final Draft Response to the 2007-08 Grand Jury Final Report Part 3 RESPONSE Responses to this report are required in accordance with the California Penal Code §933.05 14 Final Draft Response to the 2007-08 Grand Jury Final Report Part 3 EL DORADO COUNTY GRAND JURY 2007-2008 Audit of Human Services and Mental Health Medi-Cal Revenues Case No. GJ...
F5
The EDC Grand Jury was informed that in addition to any member of the BOS, any member of the public may request an item be pulled for further discussion or correction.
Response: Agree
Score: +1
The respondent agrees with the finding. 6. 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.
F6
Printed copies of EDC BOS meeting agendas contain no information informing the public how to have an item pulled from the Consent Calendar for discussion.
Response: Disagree
Score: -1
The respondent disagrees with the finding. As indicated in Appendix A, the auditor did not present a copy of this document to Department of Human Services staff, but rather briefly displayed his copy of what he said were regulations. No statement by Department of Human Services staff was made to the effect that they did not know of the regulation, had never received proper training by the State, and therefore, did not comply with the regulation. The perception that staff failed to comply with “state regulations” suggests an insufficient understanding of the complexities of the state and federa...
No Responses Found 1
Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.
South Lake Tahoe
City