⚠️ 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 and Recommendations 14 findings
F1
– The JPA Board allowed an employment contract to be signed without compensation being identified for the promotion of Executive Director.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
By December 31, 2024, the JPA Board should create a policy and ensure compensation is properly listed on employment contracts.
F2
- Retroactive pay was approved for the former Executive Director during multiple Board meetings, which occurred after separation of the Executive Director from employment. The October 25th, 2023 meeting minutes show a 5% increase for January-June 2023, and a 10% increase from July-September 2023.
No recommendations for this finding
F3
The employee performance review cycle and compensation cycle are not aligned in the employment contract, resulting in repeated retroactive pay situations.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
By December 31, 2024, the JPA Board should revise all employment contracts to align the performance review and compensation timing to remove the retroactive pay cycle.
F4
The JPA Board delayed a compensation increase for an employee who was promoted from Deputy Director to Executive Director in January, 2023.
No recommendations for this finding
F5
Providing retroactive pay for separated employees raises a potential violation of the California State Constitution prohibiting retroactive increase in compensation for services already rendered.
No recommendations for this finding
F6
Transparency and alignment to the Brown Act has been lacking.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
By December 31, 2024, the JPA Board should ensure all Board documentation is reviewed, updated, and visible on their website for transparency purposes. This should include the Semiannual Actual Cost report after it is released to the County.
F7
General Counsel employed by the JPA lacked Brown Act knowledge.
Related Recommendations (2)
R4
By December 31, 2024, the JPA Board should obtain Brown Act and Ethics training, re- train every two years and track for compliance.
R5
By December 31, 2024, the JPA Board should proceed hiring new General Counsel with Brown Act and local government law experience.
F8
Budget oversight is minimal. The only oversight is review of the Semiannual Actual Cost reports received by the office of the CAO.
Related Recommendations (2)
R7
By December 31, 2024, the JPA Board should ensure that their Semiannual Actual Cost reports to the County are in alignment with Generally Acceptable Accounting Principles (GAAP).
R8
By December 31, 2024, the County CAO should provide a status update of JPA compliance with County Contract #2298 for Prehospital Advanced Life Support, Ambulance and Dispatch Services to the County Board of Supervisors.
F9
There is a JPA Monthly Appropriation Invoicing policy that is not followed. The three agencies contracted to provide emergency ambulance transport services to the JPA are not providing accurate or timely fiscal reports.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6
By December 31, 2024, the JPA Board should require their transporting agencies to follow the Monthly Appropriation Invoicing Policy and hold them accountable.
F10
The office of the CAO does not audit details due to fixed rate contracts and when pressing for details, does not receive them. FINDINGS
No recommendations for this finding
F11
There is an inherent conflict of interest within the current Board structure. Three Board members’ agencies may benefit from decisions made by the full Board.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9
By December 31, 2024, the JPA Board should task their new General Counsel to provide a restructuring model for this Board. Counsel should base this new structure on how best to remove any inherent conflict of interest with a clearly defined code of conduct policy for conflicts of interest.
F12
There is no code of conduct policy document regarding conflict of interest and recusal.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9
By December 31, 2024, the JPA Board should task their new General Counsel to provide a restructuring model for this Board. Counsel should base this new structure on how best to remove any inherent conflict of interest with a clearly defined code of conduct policy for conflicts of interest.
F13
The County BOS is not responsible for oversight, nor can they change the structure of the JPA Board. The JPA Board is its own governing body.
No recommendations for this finding
F14
There has been discussion about changing the JPA Board structure, but no efforts have received the super majority vote, making change unlikely with this Board.
No recommendations for this finding
No Responses Found 2
Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.
County of El Dorado
Agency
El Dorado County Board of Supervisors
Elected County Office