Tuolumne County Grand Jury • 2013-2014

2014 Complete Grand Jury Report

Published: June 15, 2014 76 pages
View Original PDF

Findings 44 findings

F1
The CFPD was diligent in its efforts to accommodate the Jury in its investigation.
F2
The responses from CFPD were not legally adequate as defined by the Penal Code. 21
F3
The public land that comprises a large portion of CFPD’s district pays no taxes, therefore generating no revenue for CFPD.
F4
The size of the CFPD’s district limits the pool of potential board members.
F5
The DMV pull notice program at CFPD was not implemented in a timely manner. This has since been resolved.
F6
Due to low staffing at the Building Code division, building inspections take precedence over collection of penalty fees.
F7
All the staff at CUSD are qualified for the positions they hold.
F8
The paperwork for the custodian of records for CUSD has been filed with DOJ.
F9
There is no official understanding of the position or responsibilities of an Ethics Official or designee for CSUD.
F10
Extensive training is being provided to the staff at CUSD by JPA and a counselor.
F11
The Probation Department continues to be unable to accept credit card payments.
F12
A new County wide integrated case management system, excluding Child Welfare Services and the Courts, has been adopted.
F13
All employees at BHD receive comprehensive training before they are eligible for 5150 evaluations.
F14
The Director of BHD was very knowledgeable and showed great concern for the mental health community.
F15
There is no secured room currently available for patients awaiting medical clearance and/or mental health evaluations.
F16
The Public Health Van provides a valuable service to the community.
F17
There is an updated MOU for the evaluation and response protocol regarding 5150s.
F18
Government Code 66013(d) requires TUD to give an annual detailed accounting of capacity charges that informs the public about the current financial state of TUD. 71
F19
Records of staff trainings, including the Brown Act, Ethics Training for Public Officials (AB 1234), and other trainings are not in sequential order and are, therefore, hard to find.
F20
TUD could save money on insurance premiums by having the Directors attend more training, which is already available to them.
F21
The 2008 Strategic Plan has expired and a new Strategic Plan is not in place.
F22
The Treated Water System Optimization Plan (TWSOP) is a necessary component of the Strategic Plan. A strategic plan is needed for TUD to anticipate what its infrastructure and financial needs are projected to be in the long term.
F23
The search for a new General Manager in 2006 took eight months and cost $22,000 to complete.
F24
TUD was presented with ten applicants for General Manager in 2006 that were more experienced and qualified than the one hired.
F25
The Performance Evaluation for the General Manager has been a convoluted process, which does not always have continuity from one year to the next.
F26
There are no checks and balances to assure that the annual Performance Evaluation of the General Manager is performed.
F27
The BHI Performance Evaluation details how to perform an evaluation in conjunction with existing Brown Act laws.
F28
The Board of Directors in March 2012 followed the Brown Act and BHI Guide. The Board reconvened a public session and reported out after the action taken during its closed session Performance Evaluation of the General Manager.
F29
The Performance Evaluation Guide that BHI Consulting developed for TUD was not followed in the last two General Manager’s performance evaluations.
F30
Two General Manager Performance Evaluations took place in 2013. Following the May 28 closed session, the Board reconvened and reported out with no reportable action taken.
F31
During the closed session on October 22, 2013, the Board terminated the General Manager “without cause.” The Board of Directors did not reconvene and report out after the closed session.
F32
The General Manager’s termination “without cause,” resulted in a severance package of $150,000 with benefits to be paid per his contract. He also receives Unemployment Insurance that is paid by TUD.
F33
Retired employees have returned to train their replacements or perform their old duties on a part time basis, at an additional cost to TUD. 72
F34
There was no advance planning in place for an interim General Manager after the General Manager’s termination on October 22, 2013.
F35
Due to the cost of the General Manager’s severance package, there is no money allocated in TUD’s budget to fill the District Engineer’s position.
F36
The District Engineer was promoted to General Manager. The Board authorized the General Manager to also function as the District Engineer in a limited capacity.
F37
An Engineer was recently promoted to Senior Engineer to take over the day-to-day operations of the Engineering Department. The General Manager signs documents as the District Engineer.
F38
There is little to no succession planning within TUD.
F39
TUD does not own any significant water rights. It is dependent upon other sources for its water supply and subject to an array of time consuming administrative proceedings when attempting to increase the amount of water available.
F40
The Control Board’s current environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) will decide the new required water level for Pinecrest Lake.
F41
Recently, the Board established a Public Advisory Committee (PAC). The PAC is a method of outreach that is essential to educating the public and the Board of Directors.
F42
The Water Code Section 31007 mandates the rates and charges collected by TUD. The Section 31007 report appears to not have been met in prior years.
F43
Inter-fund transfers between sewer and water districts occur regularly to meet expenses and balance the budget.
F44
A new rate study was proposed to start in the first quarter of Fiscal Year 2014 – 2015. The Jury has since learned that the rate study has now been postponed until Fiscal Year 2015-2016.

Recommendations 34