Sonoma County Grand Jury • 2011-2012 • Agency Response
Response to: The Marin/Sonoma Mosquito and Vector Control District- Under The Microscope

Marin/sono Approved: Superior Court Judge Moscolito of Lector Control Date: Aug 2 7 2012 Superior Court of California Y*

Published: August 15, 2012 8 pages
Ver PDF original

Note: Missing finding numbers detected: F4

Findings and Recommendations 2 findings

F3 Page 5
MSMVCD puts minimal emphasis on vectors other than mosquitoes and yellowjackets in its educational outreach. Response: The Board agrees that at the time of the Grand Jury's investigation, the main emphasis of the educational program was on mosquitoes and yellowjackets. Since the curriculum is science-based and time in the classroom is limited by various factors, there are sound educational reasons for teaching the mosquito life-cycle. It is relatively straightforward and illustrative of the principles of insect reproduction, development and metamorphosis while clearly demonstrating the potential for transmission of diseases to humans and animals. The educational program has been revised and now includes age-appropriate information on ticks and rodents as well as mosquitoes and yellowjackets. A tick education packet for use by parents and teachers is currently under development. The packet will help the organizers of field and camping trips protect children from tick-borne diseases. <b>F4.</b> Although MSMVCD appears financially sound, at times transparency is lacking. Response: The Board agrees that at the time of the Grand Jury's investigation, there were isolated instances where the transparency of financial information could have been improved. For Fiscal Year 2012/13, a new budget narrative presents an overview, explanation and analysis of the approved budget, including a review of the District's income, operational expenditures, capital projects, reserves and balances. The approved budget now depicts three years of income and expenditure for comparison purposes. To enhance the clarity and transparency of the annual budget, staff extensively revised the budget format and provided simpler and clearer nomenclature for many of the categories. This format will be continued and expanded upon in future budget years. <b>F5.</b> There is at times a lack of professionalism in dealing with the public. Response: The Board agrees that in the past, there were occasions where there could have been more professionalism in dealing with members of the public during Board meetings. See response to
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
Page 7
Change auditors this fiscal year and consider doing so every five years. Response: This Recommendation has not been implemented but will be implemented in the future. Prior to the issuance of the Grand Jury Report, the Board had directed the Manager to prepare a Request for Proposals (RFP) for Auditing Services. The draft RFP has now been completed and following its approval by the Board and subsequent issuance, the responses received will be reviewed and a recommendation concerning the selection of new auditor will be made by the Board’s Audit Committee and forwarded to the Board. Staff plans to present the RFP to the Board for consideration at or before the regular meeting planned for September 12, 2012. In keeping with the Grand Jury’s recommendation, the Budget Committee and the Board will consider the merits of changing Auditors every five years.
F5 Page 5
There is at times a lack of professionalism in dealing with the public. Response: The Board agrees that in the past, there were occasions where there could have been more professionalism in dealing with members of the public during Board meetings. See response to
No recommendations for this finding

* This report's PDF did not contain easily extractable text and required Optical Character Recognition (OCR) for analysis. There may be minor errors in the extracted findings and recommendations due to OCR limitations with scanned documents.