Shasta County Grand Jury
• 2001-2002
Shasta County Audit Report for the Year Ended June 30, 2001 Reason for Inquiry:
⚠️ 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 16 findings
F1
Page 1
The Shasta County Administrative Officer has the primary responsibility to distribute the contract auditor’s report to all county offices affected by
F2
Page 1
The contract auditor’s “tests” of the general-purpose Financial Statements “ for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2001…disclosed no instance of noncompliance that are (sic) required to be reported under Government Auditing Standards…”.
F3
Page 1
The contract auditor found no material weaknesses involving the internal controls regarding financial reporting
F4
Page 1
Federal funding for county programs was audited using the required federal guidelines, OMG Circular A-133, Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non- Profit Organizations. The contract auditor found Shasta County complied “…in all material respects…” with the requirements for each major federal program.
F5
Page 1
The contract auditor made five recommendations as a result of the audit. On February 6, 2002, the County Auditor/Controller told the Joint Audit Committee all recommendations had been implemented except one, (Inventory, Fleet Management), which is in the implementation process. The pending
F6
Page 1
There were four recommendations made by the contract auditor during the previous audit (fiscal year ended June 2000). The current year contract auditor’s Management Report shows all four recommendations have been implemented.
F7
Page 1
During the exit interview on February 6, 2002, the contract auditor stated the Shasta County Auditor-Controller’s Office provided all required information and has established “…excellent…” internal control systems.
F8
Page 1
There are no policies and procedures directing the activities of the Joint Audit Committee. The Shasta County Grand Jury identified the need for policies and procedures for the committee and related the need to the CAO.
F9
Page 1
The Audit and Finance Committee of the Shasta County Grand Jury drafted proposed Policies and Procedures for the Joint Audit Committee. The proposed policies and procedures have been provided to the County Administrative Officer for submission to the Joint Audit Committee for consideration and adoption.
F10
Page 1
The Joint Audit Committee has not, to date, adopted a policy regarding the longevity of a contract auditor’s contract.
F11
Page 1
Vavrink, Trine, Day and Company have been conducting contract audits of Shasta County for over five years.
F12
Page 1
The Office of Auditor-Controller has had a personnel turnover rate of over 60 percent during the past three years, which is twice the county average of 10% per year. In 1999, four new employees were hired and six left the office. In 2000, seven new employees were hired and six left the office. In 2001, four new employees were hired and three left the office. This does not include those who transferred to other county departments. Of the 26 staff members who were in this department in 1999, only nine remain.
F13
Page 1
The Auditor-Controller’s office has failed to process claims for payment for numerous departments and individuals in a timely manner. The Accounting Procedure Manual of the Shasta County Auditor-Controller, page CH-7, issued in 2002, states, “Orders for Payment forwarded to the Auditor-Controller will be processed for payment within three to four days of receipt”.
F14
Page 1
During the course of this investigation, the Grand Jury found that there has been a lack of communication and cooperation between the Auditor-Controller and at least six county departments and agencies. County departments/staff have indicated the Auditor-Controller does not sufficiently communicate in writing with departments regarding fiscal decisions and accounting procedures.
F15
Page 1
The Auditor-Controller has made decisions that unnecessarily conflict with departmental needs and has not resolved issues in a timely or efficient manner. These decisions have resulted in adverse financial consequences to the departments’ budgets. Some of the Auditor-Controller’s accounting policies have had an adverse effect on fiscal operations of county departments and agencies. In one example, the Auditor-Controller failed to resolve two accounting issues in the Fleet Management Division of the Department of Support Services. In 1994 and subsequent years, the California State Controller made a finding that the co- mingled funds for vehicle replacement and vehicle maintenance in Shasta County needed to be separated. As of March 30, 2002, neither the previous Auditor- Controller nor the current Auditor-Controller had separated the funds. The second issue has to do with how rates are established to charge the various departments for vehicle maintenance. Because of the lack of resolution of these issues, as of February 28, 2002, the Auditor-Controller had not processed any of the billings from the Fleet Management Division to the county departments for vehicle maintenance for the fiscal year which began July 1, 2001. The lack of resolution of these issues by the Auditor-Controller has been detrimental to the fiscal health of Shasta County because it resulted in unbilled expenses that were not being reimbursed by Federal and state agencies.
F16
Page 1
California Government Code 26883 provides that the board of supervisors “…shall have the power to require that the county auditor-controller shall audit the accounts and records of any department…” in the county. This option has not been exercised by the Shasta County Auditor’s Office during the current auditor’s term.
Recommendations 16
-
R1Shasta County Ordinance No. 477, enacted May 12, 1969, and still in effect, made California Government Code Section 26945 apply to Shasta County, but that ordinance has not been amended to reflect any of the subsequent changes to Government Code 26945.
-
R2The Shasta County Board of Supervisors shall ensure that the County Administrative Officer submits proposed policies and procedures to the Joint Audit Committee at its first meeting during Fiscal Year 2002/2003.
-
R3The Joint Audit Committee should initiate a Request for Proposal to establish a contract with a new auditing firm.
-
R4The Joint Audit Committee shall annually review the performance of the contract auditor to determine if the contract should be continued for another year.
-
R5California Government Code Section 25303 provides that the board of supervisors shall supervise the official conduct of all county officers and see that all county officers faithfully perform their duties. However, the Board of Supervisors cannot direct the specific manner in which these duties are performed.
-
R6For the past 20 years, incumbents running for re-election to the office of Auditor- Controller have run unopposed.
-
R7A board of supervisors has more control over an appointed department head than an elected one. Under state law, a board of supervisors may establish an office of Director of Finance (which would consolidate the offices of Auditor-Controller and Treasurer-Tax Collector) if approved by a majority vote of the electorate. The voters could designate that the Director of Finance would be appointed rather than elected. State law also allows the elective position of Auditor to be made appointive, without the consolidation with another office, again by majority vote.
-
R8California Penal Code Section 927 provides that the grand jury may, and when requested by the board of supervisors shall, investigate and report upon the needs for increase or decrease in salaries of county-elected officials.
-
R9The Board of Supervisors is the sole authority to approve budget reviews and salary adjustments for the office of Auditor-Controller. Since the 1998 election of the current Auditor-Controller, the Board of Supervisors has approved eight salary increases for Shasta County’s elected officials in four separate packages, with the raises for the Auditor-Controller through January 12, 2003, reflected in the following chart: Approved by Effective Date Annual Salary Percentage Board of Supervisors Auditor-Controller Increase November 10, 1998 January 3, 1999 $75,348 3.50% November 10, 1998 July 4, 1999 77,580 2.50% November 10, 1998 September 26, 1999 79,580 2.50% January 11, 2000 January 16, 2000 81,864 3.00% December 19, 2000 January 14, 2001 84,300 3.00% December 19, 2000 January 13, 2002 88,524 5.00% January 15, 2002 January 13, 2002 91,152 3.00% December 19, 2000 January 12, 2003 94,800 4.00%
-
R10While investigating this department, it was reported to the Grand Jury during numerous interviews that the Auditor-Controller spends an insufficient amount of time in his office. This makes him unavailable to supervise his staff or respond immediately to needs of departments or districts.
-
R11The current Auditor-Controller has reported on his Statement of Economic Interests (California Form 700) that he holds outside employment.
-
R12The Office of Auditor-Controller has had a personnel turnover rate of over 60 percent during the past three years, which is twice the county average of 10% per year. In 1999, four new employees were hired and six left the office. In 2000, seven new employees were hired and six left the office. In 2001, four new employees were hired and three left the office. This does not include those who transferred to other county departments. Of the 26 staff members who were in this department in 1999, only nine remain.
-
R13The Auditor-Controller’s office has failed to process claims for payment for numerous departments and individuals in a timely manner. The Accounting Procedure Manual of the Shasta County Auditor-Controller, page CH-7, issued in 2002, states, “Orders for Payment forwarded to the Auditor-Controller will be processed for payment within three to four days of receipt”.
-
R14During the course of this investigation, the Grand Jury found that there has been a lack of communication and cooperation between the Auditor-Controller and at least six county departments and agencies. County departments/staff have indicated the Auditor-Controller does not sufficiently communicate in writing with departments regarding fiscal decisions and accounting procedures.
-
R15The Auditor-Controller has made decisions that unnecessarily conflict with departmental needs and has not resolved issues in a timely or efficient manner. These decisions have resulted in adverse financial consequences to the departments’ budgets. Some of the Auditor-Controller’s accounting policies have had an adverse effect on fiscal operations of county departments and agencies. In one example, the Auditor-Controller failed to resolve two accounting issues in the Fleet Management Division of the Department of Support Services. In 1994 and subsequent years, the California State Controller made a finding that the co- mingled funds for vehicle replacement and vehicle maintenance in Shasta County needed to be separated. As of March 30, 2002, neither the previous Auditor- Controller nor the current Auditor-Controller had separated the funds. The second issue has to do with how rates are established to charge the various departments for vehicle maintenance. Because of the lack of resolution of these issues, as of February 28, 2002, the Auditor-Controller had not processed any of the billings from the Fleet Management Division to the county departments for vehicle maintenance for the fiscal year which began July 1, 2001. The lack of resolution of these issues by the Auditor-Controller has been detrimental to the fiscal health of Shasta County because it resulted in unbilled expenses that were not being reimbursed by Federal and state agencies.
-
R16California Government Code 26883 provides that the board of supervisors “…shall have the power to require that the county auditor-controller shall audit the accounts and records of any department…” in the county. This option has not been exercised by the Shasta County Auditor’s Office during the current auditor’s term. RECOMMENDATIONS:
Commendations 21
-
CM1Federal regulations {49 C.F.R. 213.9(a)} adopted under the Federal Railroad Safety Act of 1970 establish the maximum allowable operating speeds for all freight and passenger trains for each class of track on which they travel. The maximum allowable operating speed increases with each class of track, with ranges from Class l to Class 9.
-
CM2Union Pacific railroad tracks traveling through Shasta County, including Redding, are Class 4 tracks. The maximum allowable speed for Class 4 tracks is 60 mph for freight trains and 80 mph for passenger trains.
-
CM3Federal law regarding train speed limits preempts any local ordinance.
-
CM4The 1965 City of Redding ordinance limiting train speeds to 45 mph through the city limits has been preempted by federal law and, therefore, is not binding on the railroad.
-
CM5The above notwithstanding, the Union Pacific Railroad has established, by internal policy, a maximum speed limit of 45 mph for all trains traveling through the downtown Redding area.
-
CM6The RPD Commendation or Complaint brochure provides information on other means of recourse if a complainant is dissatisfied with the results of an investigation. The other means referenced include contacting the City Council, City Manager, District Attorney’s Office, the California Department of Justice or the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The brochure does not reference the Grand Jury as an alternate means of recourse.
-
CM7Statistical data on the number of commendations received is not maintained by RPD. However, during the calendar year 2001, the Redding Police Department replied to over 100 letters of appreciation or commendation on behalf of its employees.
-
CM8It is Department policy, when recruiting new officers, to have a member of the public participate on the interview selection panel. In addition to the police academy, successful applicants are required to complete a 10 to 17 week in-house orientation and training program before being allowed to patrol unaccompanied.
-
CM9Police officer recruitment has become more challenging with fewer candidates applying for RPD openings than in previous years. However, some officers are opting to transfer from urban areas at a substantial cut in pay in exchange for the rural life style of the north state.
-
CM10RPD has adopted a “Ride-Along” program that provides the general public an opportunity to ride with a patrol officer for several hours during the normal course of duties. This program enables the participant a first-hand look at local law enforcement in action. Participants must complete a Release of Liability Agreement prior to the ride along.
-
CM11Sugar Pine and other conservation camps are unique within the state’s criminal justice system in their structure and intent. These camps provide a valuable public service, while at the same time allowing substantial cost efficiencies for state and local governments.
-
CM12The District strives to respond to calls from the public within 24 hours.
-
CM13SMVCD operates independently of Shasta County, except for the following: a. The County assesses, bills, and collects property taxes for the District b. The District deposits its funds with the Shasta County Treasurer c. The Auditor-Controller processes the District’s board-approved claims for payment and mailing
-
CM14The District is funded from a share of property taxes and a special assessment.
-
CM15A five-member board of trustees governs the District. Two members are appointed by the Shasta County Board of Supervisors, and one each by the city councils of Anderson, Redding and City of Shasta Lake. Board members serve four-year terms with reappointment at the discretion of the appointing agency. The combined service of the current board is over 50 years.
-
CM16The District staff totals 13 full time and 2 to 4 seasonal employees. All personnel with the exception of the office secretary are licensed vector control technicians. In addition to on-the-job training, application technicians are required to attend continuing education classes.
-
CM17If the District were required to obtain a NPDES permit and because water would have to be tested before and after each application, the laboratory testing could cost from $800 to $1000 per application of chemicals. The District performs approximately 1000 applications per year; testing costs could potentially double the District’s annual budget.
-
CM18The District effectively treats identified water areas and continuously monitors for signs of encephalitis, malaria, Dengue fever, and West Nile Virus.
-
CM19At the time of this review, the District did have a personnel manual but did not have an operational manual. The District refers to the California Health and Safety Code for operational guidance.
-
CM20Public services provided by the District include the distribution of public informational brochures and the availability of staff to conduct educational seminars. SMVCD participates in community activities and presentations.
-
CM21Shasta Mosquito and Vector Control District is recognized for their thorough and diligent response toward vector control needs.
No Responses Found 3
Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.