Score: +2
(2/0/0)
San Mateo County Grand Jury
• 2012-2013
San Mateo County Special Districts:
⚠️ 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 14 findings
F1
Page 9
The Board and the Manager share in responsibility for the lack of oversight that was instrumental in allowing the embezzlement to occur.
F2
Page 9
The Manager and the Board’s finance committee did not recognize red flags in the financial reports that could have revealed the embezzlement far sooner.
F3
Page 9
The insurance company’s denial of the District’s embezzlement loss claim reinforces the conclusion that there were inadequate management practices, insufficient accountability, and inadequate oversight of the District. San Mateo County Grand Jury Special Districts Survey 2013. 9
F4
Page 10
The District’s Manager did not follow policies and procedures in the hiring of one of the employees subsequently charged with embezzlement.
F5
Page 10
The District did not have adequate internal financial controls in place to prevent the embezzlement or lead to its early discovery.
F6
Page 10
Trustees and senior District staff should receive monthly financial reports.
F7
Page 10
The Board in general and its finance committee in particular did an inadequate job of overseeing the District’s operations.
F8
Page 10
The Board’s evaluation of the Manager revealed significant differences in the levels of confidence in the Manager’s ability to manage the District.
F9
Page 10
The District would benefit from a redesigned Manager evaluation process.
F10
Page 10
Trustees are confused about their responsibilities, some feeling their only role is to make district policy, while others feel they have more oversight responsibility.
F11
Page 10
Even though LAFCo Commissioners rejected the recommendation to dissolve the District and transfer its functions to the CEHD, this issue needs further evaluation.
F12
Page 10
Cost savings could possibly be achieved with a transfer of the District’s functions to the CEHD.
F13
Page 10
LAFCo would benefit from additional resources to ensure Service Reviews, as mandated by state law, are performed in a timely fashion.
F14
Page 10
Not all cities appoint a representative to the Board in a timely fashion or select a qualified individual as stipulated in the Health Code.
Recommendations 11
-
R1Page 10Instruct the Manager to follow the Policies and Procedures manual at all times.
-
R2Page 10Instruct the Manager to provide complete financial reports to the Board on a monthly basis.
-
R3Page 10Improve its oversight of the District through an improved governance structure and hold the Manager accountable for its operations.
-
R4Page 10Evaluate its Policies and Procedures manual on an annual basis and make the manual available to employees and the public.
-
R5Page 10Emphasize the importance of the finance committee’s role in ensuring that internal controls and policies are in place and are being followed.
-
R6Page 10Hire a human resources consultant to redesign the Manager’s evaluation process in order to better assess the Manager’s job performance.
-
R7Page 10Clarify Trustees’ roles and reinforce and discuss expectations of the position at an annual meeting. The Grand Jury recommends that the County Board of Supervisors do the following: 10
-
R8Page 11Provide increased resources to LAFCo so it can meet state mandates with regard to Service Reviews. The Grand Jury recommends that LAFCo do the following:
-
R9Page 11Further study the dissolution of the District and evaluate the cost savings that might result from transferring the function to the County Environmental Health Department. The Grand Jury recommends that the City/Town Councils do the following:
-
R10Page 11Appoint a council member to the District Board if a representative cannot be found after vetting applicants.
-
R11Page 11Require regular reporting about the District’s operations by their representative at a scheduled council meeting.
Agency Responses 1
Government agencies' official responses to this report's findings and recommendations. Click on a response to see the structured breakdown.
No Responses Found 1
Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.
Canada County Water District
Special District