Score: +4 (7/5/3)

El Dorado County Grand Jury • 2001-2002

Government & Administration Committee Communication of Board of Supervisors' Directives Reason for the Report

Published: June 27, 2001 3 pages

View Original PDF

⚠️ 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 10 findings

Members of the Grand Jury received written memoranda in June 2001 and April 2002 from the Registrar of Voters in El Dorado County (County) with instructions for filing "conflict of interest" disclosure forms. Reference was made in the memoranda to Board Resolution #25-98 as the County's "Conflict of Interest Code." The members assumed that the information which had been given to them was correct, that Resolution #25-98 was currently operative, and that they were required by that Conflict of Interest Code to file Form 700 -- Statement of Economic Interest. That information was not correct.

No recommendations for this finding

Board Resolution #25-98 was adopted in February 1998. It identified the position of Grand Juror as a "designated position," requiring the filing with the County by Grand Jurors of Conflict of Interest disclosure forms.

No recommendations for this finding

Board Resolution #25-98 was superseded in February 2001 by Board Resolution #036-2001. Board Resolution #036-2001 deleted all reference to the position of Grand Juror, and thus abolished the County's requirement that Grand Jurors file Conflict of Interest disclosure forms.

Related Recommendations (1)

The Board, the County Counsel and/or the County Registrar of Voters should formally advise the Court Executive Officer and/or the Presiding Judge of the El Dorado County Unified Superior and Municipal Courts that the County is no longer requiring Grand Jurors to file Conflict of Interest disclosure forms, and that the Court may wish to make inquiry into the question of whether it should impose such a requirement.

The Grand Jury is informed and believes that the reason for that deletion was the County's recognition of the transfer of jurisdiction over the Courts from County control to State control, pursuant to the Trial Court Funding Act of 1997, which became effective on January 1, 2001.

No recommendations for this finding

Nevertheless, for reasons unknown to this Grand Jury, the members of this Grand Jury were advised by the Registrar of Voters, in June 2001 and again in April 2002, that they were required to file Conflict of Interest disclosure forms with the County.

Related Recommendations (1)

After the transfer of authority over the Courts from County jurisdiction to State jurisdiction, there does not appear to have been any corresponding state legislation or regulation requiring the filing of Conflict of Interest disclosure forms or statements by members of Grand Juries.

Related Recommendations (1)

The El Dorado County Counsel and/or the County's Registrar of Voters should request, from the Attorney General of the State of California and/or Legal Counsel to the Fair Political Practices Commission of the State of California, a definitive opinion as to the disclosure obligations, if any, of members of Grand Juries.

This Grand Jury has not received any instruction from the Superior Court on the subject of whether Grand Jurors are or are not required to file Conflict of Interest disclosure statements, and if so, on what forms and with whom.

Related Recommendations (1)

Because of the shortness of time, this Grand Jury has not investigated the policy and practice of communicating Resolutions to the affected departments heads, recipients, and the public.

No recommendations for this finding

The County's Conflict of Interest Code is not published on the County's website, www.co.el-dorado.ca.gov. That website contains the County's Ordinance Codes, but does not contain the Resolutions adopted by the Board if they do not adopt or amend specific Ordinances, even though some and perhaps many of those Resolutions contain information that impose requirements and directives upon county employees and members of the public.

Related Recommendations (2)

The Board should establish a procedure by which all of its Resolutions which impose duties and obligations upon either the County's employees or members of the public are (i) disseminated to the County Department Heads responsible for compliance with those duties and obligations, and (ii) published on the County's website and (not or) otherwise disseminated to the public.

The County's Conflict of Interest Code should be published on the County's website.

F10

The County's Ordinance Code, as it appears on the County's website, is not updated on an ongoing basis. Frequently, it has not been updated for periods in excess of a year; it was last updated on January 23, 2001. This fact causes members of the public who rely upon the County's website for information to be misinformed with regard to any county rules, regulations and requirements which may have been adopted subsequent to the updating of the website.

Related Recommendations (1)

The County's Ordinance Code should be updated on the County's website not less frequently than every three months.

Commendations 1

CM1 Page 3

The Grand Jury commends the Registrar of Voters for her immediate reaction upon being informed of the foregoing matters. Within a period of less than 24 hours, she requested appropriate advice from County Counsel’s office, including, if necessary, a request for an opinion from the Fair Political Practices Commission. This type of immediate reaction speaks well for the administration of the County's Elections Department. Responses Required to Findings F1 through F10 Board of Supervisors Registrar of Voters County Counsel Responses Required to Recommendations R1 through R5 Board of Supervisors Registrar of Voters County Counsel

Agency Responses 1

Government agencies' official responses to this report's findings and recommendations. Click on a response to see the structured breakdown.

Report Replying to Responses of Board of Supervisors to Dated Final Reports(PDF, 418KB)

October 04, 2001 • 79 pages • 15 responses • Score: +4 (+7, 5, -3) View Details ▾

PDF

15 responses to findings and recommendations

Response: Agree Score: +1

Respondent agrees with the finding. F2. Section 933(c) of the Penal Code provides, in part, as follows: "No later than 90 days after the grand jury submits a final report on the operations of any public agency subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of the public agency shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body, and every elected county officer or agency head for which the grand jury has responsibility pursuant to Section 914.1 shall comment within 60 days to the pr...

Response: Requires Analysis

Score: 0

The recommendation requires further analysis. Respondent agrees that Board Policy A-11 needs to be reviewed and revised in various respects. The Board of Supervisors also agrees with the goal implicit in the recommendation and does not necessarily disagree with the specific recommendation. However, the Board believes that a comprehensive review of Policy A-11 should be undertaken and that specific modifications should be reviewed and undertaken only in the context of such a comprehensive review. This will ensure that the goals are achieved and Policy A-11 is revised in the most effective and i...

Response: Agree Score: +1

Respondent agrees with the finding. F3. Penal Code §933(d) provides that, as used in Section 933, the term "agency" includes a department.

The County's Conflict of Interest Code should be published on the County's website.

Response: Requires Analysis

Score: 0

The recommendation requires further analysis . Respondent agrees that Board Policy A-11 needs to be reviewed and revised in various respects. The Board of Supervisors also agrees with the goal implicit in the recommendation and does not necessarily disagree with the specific recommendation. However, the Board believes that a comprehensive review of Policy A-11 should be undertaken and that specific modifications should be reviewed and undertaken only in the context of such a comprehensive review. This will ensure that the goals are achieved and Policy A-11 is revised in the most effective and ...

Response: Agree Score: +1

Respondent agrees with the finding. F4. For the reasons stated in Findings F5 through F8, it was the view of the Previous Grand Jury, and is the view of this Grand Jury, that the word "elected" as used in Section 933(c) of the Penal Code applies only to the term "county officer," and does not apply to the term "agency head."

The County's Ordinance Code should be updated on the County's website not less frequently than every three months.

Response: Will Not Implement

Score: -1

The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted. The time within which the final responses of elected department heads are to be filed is established by statute. The statute presumably reflects a legislative determination that the deadline selected satisfies both the needs of the Grand Jury and the responding officers. Reports of the Grand Jury are of varying lengths and complexity. The amount of time 31 (cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9) needed to respond varies based on the nature of the report. The responses referenced in R3 are final responses being filed with the Presiding Judg...

Response: Agree Score: +1

_Respondent agrees with the finding . The Respondent has no contrary information and therefore agrees that the view of the previous and current Grand Juries is as stated. F5. Section 933.05(b)(3) of the Penal Code provides that, if a response to a grand jury's recommendation is that the recommendation requires further analysis, the response shall include a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This requirement of agency or depart...

Response: Requires Analysis

Score: 0

Response: Disagree Partially Score: 0

Respondent disagrees partially with the fin~. Respondent agrees with the first sentence of the finding. (cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9) To the extent the remainder of the finding is intended to indicate that the Grand Jury can impose a requirement that non-elected department heads provide a response separate from that of the response provided by the Board of Supervisors, Respondent disagrees with the finding. It is the understanding of the Respondent that responses are required only from the legislative body of the governmental agency and from other elected officers. This is based on a reading o...

Response: Requires Analysis

Score: 0

The recommendation requires further analysis . Respondent agrees that Board Policy A-11 needs to be reviewed and revised in various respects. The Board of Supervisors also agrees with the goal implicit in the recommendation and does not necessarily disagree with the specific recommendation. However, the Board believes that a comprehensive review of Policy A-11 should be undertaken and that specific modifications should be reviewed and undertaken only in the context of such a comprehensive review. This will ensure that the goals are achieved and Policy A-11 is revised in the most effective and ...

Response: Agree Score: +1

Respondent agrees with the finding. F7. The difference in language between Section 933.05(b)(3) and Section 933.05(c) of the Penal Code, by referring to elected officers in the latter but not to elected agency or department heads in the former, implies that non-elected department heads may be required to respond, directly to the Presiding Judge, at least to some portions of some grand jury final reports.

Response: Disagree Score: -1

Respondent disagrees with the finding. Based upon its reading of all applicable code sections, responses in addition to those issued by the Board of Supervisors may only be (cid:9)(cid:9) required from elected officers. The response by the Board of Supervisors is to include all information relevant to departments that have appointed department heads. In fact, a careful reading of Section 933.05(c) leads to a conclusion contrary to that reached by the Grand Jury. By expressly authorizing dual responses by both an elected officer and the governing body, but limiting the scope of the response by...

Because of the shortness of time, this Grand Jury has not investigated the policy and practice of communicating Resolutions to the affected departments heads, recipients, and the public.

Response: Disagree Score: -1

Respondent disagrees with the finding. Respondent does not believe that the grammatical interpretation made by the Grand Jury is correct. Particularly in light of the absence of any punctuation setting the term "ag ency head" apart from "c ounty officer," it is our interpretation that the term "elec ted" applies to both. This conclusion is further supported by the language of Section 933(c) that states that the governing body shall comment on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters "un der the control of the governing body." Typically, the Board of Supervisors maintains ultimate...

Response: Agree Score: +1

Respondent agrees with the finding . Respondent agrees that it is the view of the Board of Supervisors that the term "elec ted" applies to both the terms "c ounty officer" and "ag ency head." Respondent also agrees that the Grand Jury believes that the County's v iew is incorrect. F10. Section 703 of the El Dorado County Charter provides that "[t]he Board of Supervisors shall establish the format for county responses to the Grand Jury report."

F10

Response: Agree Score: +1

Respondent agrees with the finding. F11. Board Policy No. A-11, "Responding to Grand Jury Reports," has been adopted "to specify a uniform procedure and a standard format for all departments to follow when responding to the annual Grand Jury Report." Among the stated benefits anticipated from Board Policy No. A-11 are (i) provision to the Board of a structurally consistent document, (ii) assistance to appointed department heads and the CAO in providing appropriate draft responses, (iii) assistance to the Board in evaluating the proposed responses, (iv) ensuring continuity in the grand jury pro...