San Joaquin County Grand Jury
• 2021-2022
2021−2022 San Joaquin County Grand Jury Lathrop-Manteca Fire District: a Work in Progress: From Turmoil to Healing
⚠️ Aviso de traducción: Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings and Recommendations 15 findings
F1
2.1 Board members’ AB1234 Ethics Training Certificates posted are expired or missing, indicating that some Board members may not be in full compliance with AB1234 regulations.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
1 By November 1, 2022, the Board of Directors replace Ordinance 1 in its entirety by developing, adopting and implementing policies and procedures that clearly define the authority, and limitations thereon, of the Fire Chief and provide greater Board oversight of the operations of the District.
F2
1 The Board of Directors was not aware of issues that District employees had with the Chief. Ordinance 1 general conduct rule blocked employee accessibility to the Board. This situation contributed to a hostile work environment.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
1 By December 1, 2022, the Board of Directors develop, adopt and implement a formal employee complaint policy with procedures for filing complaints, reporting back to complainants, filing appeals and providing accessibility to the Board while adhering to all laws and rules regarding confidentiality.
F1.1
Ordinance 1 and District rules and regulations enable the Fire Chief to control most financial operations of the District with limited or no Board oversight, thus providing an opportunity for financial malfeasance.
No recommendations for this finding
F1.2
Ordinance 1 and current policies allow the Fire Chief, as Chief Executive Officer, to alter or disregard District policies without approval by the Board, causing confusion and discord within the District.
No recommendations for this finding
F1.3
The Board of Directors failed to enforce the District’s Credit Card Policy providing an opportunity for financial malfeasance.
No recommendations for this finding
F1.4
Requiring non-exempt administrative employees to attend a retreat that created overtime hours without compensation was in violation of the current Memorandum of Understanding and the Fair Labor Standards Act, opening the District to potential liability.
No recommendations for this finding
F1.5
Funds generated for the use of the District through the Cal-JAC program were allocated to purchases, services and events, uses that were not in compliance with District’s purchasing and credit card policies. These expenditures could be construed as misuse of funds.
No recommendations for this finding
F1.6
Beginning in 2019 the District’s fireworks booth was operated by the 501(c)(3) nonprofit Behind the Fire LMFD, overseen by a member of the Chief’s family. This occurred with no oversight by the Board, who held the license for the booth, a situation that could expose the District and its Board to allegations of misconduct and malfeasance.
No recommendations for this finding
F2.1
The Board of Directors was not aware of issues that District employees had with the Chief. Ordinance 1 general conduct rule blocked employee accessibility to the Board. This situation contributed to a hostile work environment.
No recommendations for this finding
F2.2
The District does not have a formal employee satisfaction survey or engagement process to allow employees to share work environment concerns with the Board and Management. The District is unable to implement warranted improvements for issues and concerns if they are not brought to light by employees.
No recommendations for this finding
F2.3
Requiring non-exempt administrative employees to attend a retreat that created overtime hours without compensation was in violation of the current Memorandum of Understanding and the Fair Labor Standards Act. This action could expose the District to potential liability including financial penalties.
No recommendations for this finding
F2.4
Allegations were made that merit or step pay increases were withheld pending the signing of a non-disclosure agreement which violates the District’s Memorandum of Understanding for Executive Staff. If proven to be true, and not corrected, the District could be subject to legal action brought by affected employees.
No recommendations for this finding
F2.5
Pending litigation filed against the Fire District by employees for harassment and intimidation could expose the District to expenses for financial settlements and legal fees.
No recommendations for this finding
F2.6
The District does not have a nepotism and cronyism policy that prohibits the direct supervision of family members and/or individuals with whom the supervising manager has a romantic or other close personal, financial, business or political relationship. Not having a clear policy for nepotism and cronyism has created discord within the District.
No recommendations for this finding
F1.2.1
Board members’ AB1234 Ethics Training Certificates posted are expired or missing, indicating that some Board members may not be in full compliance with AB1234 regulations.
No recommendations for this finding
Conclusions 1
-
CL1The Lathrop-Manteca Fire District Board of Directors is taking steps toward creating an improved culture by updating policies and by defining LMFD’s mission, vision and values. The District improvement process is a work in progress. The Board acknowledges that the District will need more time to heal and restore trust following the turmoil and upheaval created under previous management. The Board employed a third party to conduct the search and screening process for hiring the permanent Fire Chief. The Board believes that the selection of a new Chief is a critical decision that must be done correctly if the Lathrop-Manteca Fire District is to move in a positive and effective direction. Disclaimers Grand Jury reports are based on documentary evidence and the testimony of sworn or admonished witnesses, not on conjecture or opinion. However, the Grand Jury is precluded by law from disclosing such evidence except upon the specific approval of the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court, or another judge appointed by the Presiding Judge (Penal Code Sections 911, 924.1 (a) and 929). Similarly, the Grand Jury is precluded by law from disclosing the identity of witnesses except upon an order of the court for narrowly defined purposes (Penal Code Sections 924.2 and 929). Response Requirements California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05 require that specific responses to all findings and recommendations contained in this report be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the San Joaquin County Superior Court within 90 days of receipt of the report. The Lathrop-Manteca Fire District Board of Directors shall respond to all findings and recommendations. Mail or hand deliver a hard copy of the response to: Honorable Michael D. Coughlan, Presiding Judge San Joaquin County Superior Court 180 E Weber Ave, Suite 1306J Stockton, California 95202 Also, please email a copy of the response to Ms. Trisa Martinez, Staff Secretary to the Grand Jury, at [email protected]