Public Conservators Office*

with the Board of Supervisors dated August 28, 2001, concurred with last year's Grand Jury on nine (9) of the ten (10) findings. This concurrence assured the Board of Supervisors that all nine findings had merit and would be implemented. Additionally, the response of the Board of Supervisors assured the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court, County of San Joaquin, and last year's Grand Jury, that the Conservator's Office would not only implement said findings but would make additional recommendations, above and beyond those recommendations contained in last year's Grand Jury report. During our review, several times we requested documentation supporting the Public

Conservator's claim that nine (9) of the ten (10) findings, in last year's Grand Jury Report CASE #1800 had been implemented. We received no such documentation. The Public Conservator purchased, at taxpayer expense, new, sophisticated software to

track and inventory citizen assets under the Conservator's control. On numerous occasions the Grand Jury asked for, and failed to receive, a printout showing that this new software had been installed and is being used correctly. Failure to utilize this software to its capacity will continue to perpetrate an environment wherein employee theft and/or embezzlement has and will continue to occur. CONCLUSION: The 2001 - 2002 Civil Grand Jury conducted an extensive six (6) month review of the Office of the Conservator. During this review we met with, interviewed, and consulted all the main participants associated directly or indirectly with the Conservator's Office. It was the Grand Jury's expectation to report that the numerous and serious accounting irregularities reported in previous Grand Jury reports and external audits had been corrected. Regrettably, we are unable to do so. It is this Grand Jury's conclusion that many, if not all, accounting irregularities previously reported, and subsequently acknowledged by senior administration at the Conservator's Office, with the assurance to correct, remain.1 1 Letter of Response as required by Penal Code Section 933.05, dated 09/12/01, Chairman Marenco, Board of Supervisors. As such, the Grand Jury concludes that efforts to correct these problems have received only token attention from administration. The Grand Jury recognizes that Messrs. Speed and Hopperstad are extremely busy and the Conservator's Office is but a small department under their control; however they have appointed a department head in Public Conservator, Mr. Gessell. The Public Conservator should be held accountable for failing to implement recommendations from previous Grand Jury reports, when through communication with the Board of Supervisors, he indicated that said recommendations had merit and would be implemented. During the course of our review we received at least one more citizen complaint concerning similar irregularities as to the nature of the business practices at the Conservator's Office. The basis of this complaint, alleging inappropriate language, lack of candor, and aggressive physical behavior, although hearsay, does nevertheless parallel citizen complaints of the last several years. It is clear that if any corrective measures have been taken, they are not nearly enough, nor do they go far enough to clear the dark cloud hovering over the Conservator's Office.