JAN 1 0 2013 December 12, 2012 David H. YAMASChief Executive Officer/ Superior Court of CA County Honorable Richard J*

Conclusions 9

• CL1
  The Board is conducting meetings and taking unlawful actions without regard to the legal parameters that govern their conduct.
• CL2
  The District does not have a written mission statement or bylaws to guide it in defining and fulfilling the District's purpose, and communicating its function to veterans in the community or the District residents in general.
• CL3
  The District has no oversight that would ensure they are fulfilling their special district obligations. Response: The respondent partially agrees with the finding. LAFCO, through its service reviews and boundary change process provides a layer of oversight for special districts, but LAFCO does not have the legal authority to ensure that the South Santa Clara Valley Memorial District (SSCVMD) or any other special district is fulfilling their special district obligations. LAFCO, through its service review process, strives to increase the public's awareness of special districts and to encourage special districts to fulfill their obligations. Additionally, the County and the State of California can provide a layer of oversight as it relates to the District's finances, budget, governance and operations (e.g. collection of financial statements and annual budgets, and the ability to investigate alleged violations of the Brown Act or other laws). However, neither the County nor the State 70 West Hedding Street • 11th Floor, East Wing • San Jose, CA 95110 • (408) 299-5127 • (408) 295-1613 Fax • www.santaclara.lafco.ca.gov COMMISSIONERS: Pete Constant, Liz Kniss, Margaret Abe-Koga, Mike Wasserman, Susan Vicklund-Wilson ALTERNATE COMMISSIONERS: Sam Liccardo, George Shirakawa, Terry Trumbull, Cat Tucker EXECUTIVE OFFICER: Neelima Palacherla has the legal authority to ensure that SSCVMD is fulfilling their special district obligations. Ultimately only the voters in a special district's boundary have the power, through communications to the district board, election of district board members, initiatives and referenda to ensure that a district is meeting its obligations.
• CL4
  The District demonstrates no effort to communicate its mission and operations to all District veterans.
• CL5
  The Grand Jury found that the District and/or Board members have failed to follow the law in the following respects: Attempting to illegally remove one board member Conducting an unlawful closed-session meeting on October 16, 2011 誕 Violating requirements for approving contracts Failing to complete required biennial ethics training for all board members Failing to complete the Form 700 Statement of Economic Interest Form 700. 麵 Little outreach is performed to inform veterans in south county of the District's services. Board members told the Grand Jury that they do not fully understand their ethical responsibilities or grasp the legal requirements applicable to the District. The Grand Jury determined that the District is significantly lacking in good governance and good business practices. While the volunteer District board members give freely of their time and effort, they do so without benefit of meaningful guidance, training, accountability or written procedures. Training, including that required by state law, as well as basic business training, will help in overcoming the issues found. Findings and Recommendations Finding 1 The Board is conducting meetings and taking unlawful actions without regard to the legal parameters that govern their conduct. Recommendation 1 The Board should obtain the required training focused on their ethical, legal, and fiscal responsibilities for being a board member and, in particular, for running a veterans memorial district. Finding 2 The District does not have a written mission statement or bylaws to guide it in defining and fulfilling the District's purpose, and communicating its function to veterans in the community or the District residents in general. Recommendation 2 The District should adopt a written mission statement and set of bylaws. This activity could be coordinated with the local chapter of the California Association of Special Districts and modeled after other veterans memorial districts. Finding 3 The District has no oversight that would ensure they are fulfilling their special district obligations. Recommendation 3 LAFCO should include this district in its next service area review and should expand the review to a performance management review, examining the District's ability to deliver appropriate services and determine whether the District has the operations knowledge to perform their duties. Finding 4 The District demonstrates no effort to communicate its mission and operations to all District veterans. Recommendation 4 The District should communicate its mission and advertise their programs to all veterans in the District. For instance, it could establish a website to promote and welcome all military veterans. Appendix A: What is a Special District?4 A special district is a separate local government that delivers a single or, in some cases, a number of public services to a geographically limited area. Typically, they are created by the voters within a geographic area defined as the district, to fill a need they want and are willing to tax themselves to have the service delivered. Special districts have four distinguishing characteristics: They are a form of government created by local voters
• CL6
  They provide a focused service and/or the facilities to do so They have defined boundaries. They have the same basic powers as cities and counties. Special district have both corporate power and tax powers. Their corporate power is the ability to "do something"; their tax power is the authority to raise money to pay for what they do. They operate either under a principal act or a special act. Currently, there are about 50 principal statutes, which local voters can use to create and govern a local special district. Special districts in can be broken down further into the following categories:
• CL7
  Single Function vs. Multiple Function
• CL8
  An independent special district has a governing board; members are usually elected by the voters within the district and serve fixed terms. One quarter of California's special districts are enterprise districts, meaning that they operate like business enterprises charging fees for their services. 4 Excerpted from What's So Special About Special Districts; A Citizen's Guide to Special Districts in California, Fourth Edition, Senate Local Government Committee, October, 2010. Appendix B: List of Documents Reviewed California Special District Association, Guide to Special District Laws and Related Codes, 2007 Caligari, Gregory H., Santa Clara County LAFCO, RE: Response to 2010-2011 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report Entitled "LAFCO's Responsibility for Special Districts: Overseen or Overlooked?", Letter to Judge Richard J. Loftus, Jr., October 5, 2011 Chiang, John, California State Controller, Special Districts Annual Report, 60th Edition, December 13, 2011 Marquez, Miguel, Santa Clara County, County Counsel, RE: South Santa Clara Valley Memorial District, Letter to Supervisor Mike Wasserman, County Supervisor, District 1, November 2, 2011 Santa Clara County LAFCO, LAFCO Cost Apportionment: County, Cities, Special Districts - Estimated Costs to Agencies Based on the 2012 LAFCO Budget, PDF Document Santa Clara County LAFCO, Special Districts, Website, http:www.santaclara.lafco.ca.gov/specialdistricts.html State of California Little Hoover Commission, Special Districts: Relics of the Past or Resources for the Future?, Report, May 3, 2000 Senate Local Government Committee, What's So Special About Special Districts?, Fourth Edition, October, 2010 Santa Clara County 2004-2005 Civil Grand Jury, Special Districts and Joint Powers Agencies, Final Report Santa Clara County 2004-2005 Civil Grand Jury, Special District and LAFCO Overview, Final Report Santa Clara County 2005-2006 Civil Grand Jury, Independent Special Districts - Oversight Falls Far Short!, Final Report Santa Cruz County 2008-2009 Civil Grand Jury, Who is Watching Our Special Districts?, Final Report South Santa Clara Valley Memorial District, Minutes of December 21, 2011 Board of Directors Meeting South Santa Clara Valley Memorial District, Minutes of January 18, 2012 Board of Directors Meeting Appendix C: Local Agency Formation Commission The Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) is a state-mandated county agency responsible, in part, for establishing new districts and defining physical boundaries for both new and existing cities and special districts. Additionally, LAFCO has regulatory and planning responsibility for the 28 special districts in Santa Clara County. Santa Clara County's LAFCO is governed by five commissioners: two county supervisors, one city council member from San Jose, one city council member from another city in the county (selected by the cities), and one public citizen selected by the other four members. LAFCO is required to conduct service area reviews of the special districts under its purview every five years. This report was PASSED and ADOPTED with a concurrence of at least 12 grand jurors on this 31^{\rm st} day of May, 2012. Kathryn G. Janoff Foreperson
• CL9
  Alfred P. Bicho Foreperson pro tem James T. Messano Secretary

No Responses Found 1

Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.