Response to the 2006-2007 Grand Jury's Final Rep(

The Grand Jury found claims for reimbursement in the following areas: Cell phones; Telephone and long distance charges; Internet service; Newspapers; Travel (in-county only). Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board of Supervisors neither agrees nor disagrees with this finding as the Board does not have knowledge for individual evidence. Response (Chief Executive Office): The County Executive Office agrees with this Finding.

As many as three BOS members said they te to Ukiah two to three times a week. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board of Supervisors neither agrees nor disagrees with this Finding as the Board does not have knowledge of individual testimony. Response (Chief Executive Office): The County Executive Office neither agrees nor disagrees with this Finding as the CEO does not possess direct knowledge of the testimony.

All BOS members are allocated County reimbursed commute mileage charges range from $100-$1,000+ per month per supervisor. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board of Supervisors agrees that they are allocated $144.96 monthly stipend for use of their personal vehicle in addition to 48.5$ per mile for driving to work and approved County functions, the Bo ard do es not agree or disagree with th e remain der as it does not havc 3 ARE YOU GETTING WHAT YOU PAY FOP" A Report on the Board of Supervi ~vePl oli~ June 7,2007 knowledge of individual evidence. Response (Chief Executive Office): The bounry Executive Office agrees with this Finding with respect to the prior Board Travel Policy.

Supervisors also receive a stipend of $25.00 per month for "County road inspection". Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board of Supervisors agrees with this Finding. Response (Chief Executive Office): The County Executive Office agrees with this Finding.

The Grand Jury heard testimony from two Supervisors that "driving to all meetings", regardless of the meeting's purpose, qualifies for a valid mileage claim. Response (Board of Supervlsors): The Board of Supervisors neither agrees nor disagrees with this Finding as the Board does not have knowledge of individual testimony. Response (Chief Executive Office): The County ~xecutiveO fFice neither agrees nor disagrees with this Finding as the CEO does not possess direct knowledge of the testimony. The cc as writt ~t consistent with County policy.

Testimony revealed that some Supervisors have a casual and loosely defined understanding of what is considered to be "official County business", resulting in substantive travel policy abuse. Response (Board of Supewisors): The Board of Supervisors neither agrees nor disagrees with this Finding as the Board does not have knowledge of individual testimony. Response (Chief Executive Office): The County Executive Office neither agrees nor disagrees with this Finding as the CEO does not possess direct knowledge of the testimonv. Countv policy defines "official Countv business" in writing.

Two Supervisors believe that any special ev ent, wlh ich could include social ARE YOU GETTING WHAT YOU PAY FOR? A Report on the Board of Supervisors Travel Policy June 7,2007 functions, is considered to be County business and therefore billable to the ..Cd""ty; . . . .. . . . .. . . .., ... . . .. . . .. . . .. . . . . Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board of Supervisors neither agrees nor disagrees with this Finding as the Board does not have knowledge of individual testimony. Response (Chief Executive Office): The County Executive Office neither agrees nor disagrees with this Finding as the CEO does not possess direct knowledge of the testimony. The comment as written is not consistent with County policy.

Three Supervisors stated they do not charge mileage when attending special events andlor social occasions. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board of Supervisors neither agrees nor disagrees with this Finding as the Board does not have knowledge of individual testimony. Response (Chief Executive Office): The County Executive Office neither agrees nor disagrees with this Finding as the CEO does not possess direct knowledge of the testimony.

Three Supervisors said official weekend meetings are rare. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board of Supervisors neither agrees nor disagrees with this Finding as the Board does not have knowledge of individual testimony. Response (Chief Executive Office): The County Executive Office neither agrees nor disagrees with this Finding as the CEO does not possess direct knowledge of the testimony.

A sample of in-County travel reports for a period of 26 weeks, 1/1/2006 to 6/30/2006, showed the following: Two Supervisors had 0 weekend travel days. One Supervisor had 1 weekend travel day. One Supervisor had 5 weekend travel days. One Supervisor had 20 weekend travel days. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board of Supervisors neither agrees nor disagrees with this Finding as the Board does not have knowledge ARE YOU GElTlNG WHAT YOU PAY FOR? A Report on the Board of Supervisors Travel Policy June 7,2007 of individual evidence. . .. . .. .. . . , . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. Response (Chief Executive Office): The County Executive Office neither agrees nor disagrees with this Finding as the CEO does not possess direct knowledge of the evidence.

Four Supervisors believe they should only be paid for mileage they have driven on County business. he Response (Board of Supervisors): Board of Supervisors neither agrees nor disagrees with this Finding as the Board does not have knowledge of individual testimony. Response (Chief Executive Office): The County Executive Office neither agrees nor disagrees with this Finding as the CEO does not possess direct knowledge of the testimony.

According to testimony relative to travel policy §A(2)(d), four Supervisors ' believe that if no actual miles are driven and no expense is incurred for lodging then no reimbursement is due. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board of Supervisors neither agrees nor disagrees with this Finding as the Board does not have knowledge of individual testimony. Response (Chief Executive Office): The County Executive Office neither agrees nor disagrees with this Finding as the CEO does not possess direct knowledge of the testimony. The comment as written is consistent with County policy.

Current mileage reimbursement is 48.5$ per mile and is also the maximum rate the IRS currently allows. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board of Supervisors agrees with this Finding. Response (Chief Executive Office): The Couhty Executive Office agrees with this Finding.

Three Supe~isorss tated that the current mileage 'reimbursement rate is adequate and two supervisors felt the current mileage rate was not adequate. ARE YOU GElTlNG WHAT YOU PAY FOR? A Report on the Board of Supervisors Travel Policy June 7,2007 Response (Board'.'o.f.S upc?wisars"). ....The Board..' of Supervisors .'neither .... . . . agrees nor disagrees with this Finding as the Board does not have knowledge of individual testimony. Response (Chief Executive office): The County Executive Office neither agrees nor disagrees with this Finding as the CEO does not possess direct knowledge of the testimony.

19.25.26..2 7.31 , a-g ree 01 . A- a -- [XI e wholly ally with the Finc mbered: (attach a statement specifying any portions of the Fincl ings that are disp~~t ed;in clu explanation of the reasons therefore. ) Rec Recorn mendat ions num bered: 5 have tI een iml3 lement1ed . ( attach a sumr :riblng the ns. ) [XI Recommendations numbered: 3 have not yet been implemented, but v, m plemenl: ed in thc e future. f attach a time frame for im~lementation) Recor tions nu (attach art c~~~anataionbn ole *up a,," pasaltstats ul all arldryass ur study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer andlor director of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed; including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six (6) months from the date of oublication of the Grand Jury Report) Recorn mendations nu will nr) t be implementea oecause rney are nor warranrea analor are not iable. (ia ttach aan expLlanation .) - /jzdGL, Data. am./ a~ur~t?d: ARE YOU GETTING WHAT YOU PAY FO. -. A Report on the Board of Superviso rs Tria vel Poli cy June 7,2007 SUMMARY 0v er thf: l ast year ana nalf, conslaera~led iscussion has ta~enp lace a ,.., Board of Supervisors (BOS) regarding various areas of their expLSmVY compensation budget. The most obvious, and receiving the most attention, is the BOS "Travel & Meal Policy". Mendocino County also has a standardized "Travel & Meal Policy" for all County employees. County employees are not allowed reimbursement for commute-to-work mileage; Supervisors receive milea! payment for driving from home-to-work at the County Administration Center ( Low Gap Road, or other locations involving official County businn-- cino County Grand Jury founc j that $i uperviso rs trav La, yllly ulaLallbca ru vvuik. Claims for unreimbursable ~ r G rn G t:n L n I r ~ h lu ~ , l n lb~ rt r ; t~ n vl ,. , l , a r t / - a v , - , l n ll n 4 and miles not actually driven, have occurred lue to t least tv ( Supervisors to adhere to the BOS travel policy. In the case of one Supervisor, an incorrect application of the BOS "Travel & Meal Policy" §A(2)(d), resulted in fictitious commute miles being claimed and paid by the County. The amount of money wrongly aid is estimated to be in ti-- thousands. This Supervisor has acknowledgec ayment. The Gr and Ju expects these funds will be recovered. BA CKG' ROUNL . .. . .. , ,, vvntle conaucrlng orner ~nvesrtgationstn e wand Jury became aware of certa Faulty interpretations and alleged misuses of the BOS Travel Policy. It is important to point out that the allocation for 200512006 BOS operarlons (Budget Unit 1010) was $43,502; the actual amount spent was $49,205. For 200612007 the allocation was increased by approximately $1 00,000 in two steps: the first for $30,000; and the second for $70,000, shown as Special Departmenl ' Expenses. It was this substantial increase in the BOS budget that prompted tt Grand Jury to pursue an investigation of the Supervisors' expense records. The Tra' :y sectio n.s. whiclh the Grand Jur ?s have dated a , as follows (rravel policy anacned): ection A(2Md): "Supervisors with meetings "back-to-back" may elect tay over night rather than drive back and forth and will be reimbursed n exceed the mileage rate that would have been charged for travel." ARE YOU GElTlNG WHAT YOU PAY FOR? A Report on the Board of Supervisors Travel Policy June 7,2007 Section A(3): "Attendance at social and other meetings, which the member would attend regardless of hislher Supervisory position, are not reimbursable. Attendance at retirement or similar functions will not be reimbursed unless the Board has requested a member to attend as their representative." Section B(5): "Board members will be reimbursed for official travel to functions or organizations of which the County or an individual Supervisor is an official member. If a Board member wishes reimbursement for meetings for which he or the County is not a member, said reimbursement would have to be determined by a majority vote of the Board of Supervisors." METHOD. The Grand Jury interviewed County elected officials, management, and staff. It obtained, reviewed, and compared proposed and actual budgets, expense reports, and travel claim forms for all Supervisors serving between July 2005 and lanuary 2007. The BOS is paid commute mileage to and from their principal residences. Response (Board of Supervisors) The Board of Supervisors neither agrees nor disagrees with this finding. The Board of Supervisors is reimbursed mileage for official business as outlined in existing and past travel or expenditure policies. Response (Chief Executive Office): The County Executive Office agrees with this Finding. All Supervisors defined the term "reimbursement" as being repaid money previously spent. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board of Supervisors neither agrees nor disagrees with this Finding as the Board does not have knowledge of individual testimony. Response (Chief Executive Office): The County Executive Office neither agrees nor disagrees with this Finding as the CEO does not possess direct knowledge of the testimony. All Supervisors indicated that they clearly understood the meaning of Travel ARE YOU GETTING WHAT YOU PAY FOR? A Report on the Bo ard of Supervisors Travel Polic I June 7,2007 Policy §A(2)(d). Response (~oirdo f Supervisors): The Board of Supervisors neither agrees nor disagrees with this Finding as the Board does not have knowledge of individual testimony. Response (Chief Executive Office): The County Executive Office neither agrees nor disagrees with this Finding as the CEO does not possess direct knowledge of the testimony.

The Clerk of the Board is directly 'subordinate to the BOS and is an at-will employee. This is the only case in the County where a subordinate is vested with the power to authorize personal expenses submitted by a superior. Response (Board of Supervisors: The Board of Supervisors agrees with this Finding to the extent that the Clerk is directly subordinate to the BOS and is an at-will employee. However, the Clerk does not have the vested authority to authorize personal expenses of individual board members. The authority to authorize expenses is the responsibility of the Auditor. Response (Chief Executive Office): The County Executive Office agrees with this Finding.

The Auditor's Office requires a lodging receipt to determine the lesser cost to the County, when making a claim under §A(2)(d). Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board of Supervisors disagrees with this Finding as there is no evidence of this requirement. Historic practice, from 1992-2007, reflects that Supervisors received payment for mileage they would have traveled in lieu of lodging. Response (Chief Executive Office): 'The County Executive Office agrees ARE YOU GETTING WHAT YOU PAY FOR? A Report on the Board of Supervisors Travel Policy June 7,2007 with this Finding. . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . .. . . .. .. . .. . . . .. . .. . .. ., . ., . .,

The Grand Jury found that in filling out in-County travel forms, most Supervisors did not consistently indicate destination, agency involved, and purpose of meeting. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board of Supervisors neither agrees nor disagrees with this Finding as the Board does not have knowledge of individual evidence. Response (Chief Executive Office): The County Executive Office neither agrees nor disagrees with this Finding as the CEO does not possess direct knowledge of the evidence.

Individual Supervisors defined "official County business" as ranging from casual conversations with a constituent to scheduled business meetings with government agencies. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board of Supervisors neither agrees nor disagrees with this Finding as the Board does not have knowledge of individual testimony. Response (Chief Executive Office): The County Executive Office neither agrees nor disagrees with this Finding as the CEO does not possess direct knowledge of the testimony.

Discussion of the BOS travel policylbudget has been described as controversial and difficult for the Supervisors. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board of Supervisors neither agrees nor disagrees with this Finding as the Board does not have knowledge of individual testimony. ' Response (Chief Executive Office): The County Executive Office neither agrees nor disagrees with this in ding as the CEO does not possess direct knowledge of the testimony.

The Grand Jury heard testimony that two Supervisors would prefer a stipend in lieu of in-County mileage; an acceptable stipend policy would also be difficult to formulate. ARE YOU GETTING WHAT YOU PAY FOR? A Report on the Board of Supervisors Travel Policy June 7,2007 Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board of Supervisors neither agrees nbr disagrees with this Finding as the Board does not have knowledge of individual testimony. . - - Response (Chief Executive Office): The County Executive Office neither agrees nor disagrees with this Finding as the CEO does not possess direct knowledge of the testimony.

A stipend is fully taxable and will bring increased payroll taxes and retirement (8%) costs to both the County and Supervisors. In return, each Supervisor would receive a larger retirement and Social Security benefit. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board of Supervisors agrees with this Finding. Response (Chief Executive Office): The County Executive Office agrees with this Finding.

All BOS members have access to County-issued credit cards. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board of Supervisors agrees with this Finding. Response (Chief Executive Office): The County Executive Office agrees with this Finding. -

BOS travel claim form (Form No. A/C 06) is required to be signed, certifying that "under penalty of perjury that the within claim and the items as therein set out are true and correct." Response (Board of Supervisors): The ~oardof Supervisors agrees with this Finding. Response (Chief Executive Office): The County Executive Office agrees with this Finding. .

Some Supervisors incorrectly applied the BOS "Travel & ~ e a Pi o licy". Examples include: Staying at a private residence in Ukiah while charging for round trips from home to Ukiah; Signing the travel claim form when such nonexistent trips were listed; .. RE YOU GETTING WHAT YOU PAY FOR? A Report on the Board of Supervisors Travel Policy June 7.2007 Using travel claims for non-existent trips to offset other expenses incurred as a Supervisor; Callactingtravei money for attendingpolitical and -social functions; - Claiming non-supported travel on weekends. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board of Supervisors neither agrees nor disagrees with this Finding as the Board does not have knowledge of individual evidence. Response (Chief Executive Office): The County Executive Office neither agrees nor disagrees with this Finding as the CEO does not possess direct knowledge of the evidence. 29.There is an average of 22 working days in each month of the year. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board of Supervisors agrees with this finding to the extent that the average referenced commonly refers to a standard full time job. Elf ~sitionsh ave been deemed to require evening and weekend work h ~te xceed the average number of working days. Response (Chief Executive Office): The County Executive Office agrees with this Finding with regard to a standard full-time job.

In the month of June 2006, a Supervisor claimed 22 round trips between their residence and Ukiah. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board of Supervisors neither agrees nor disagrees with this Finding as the Board does not have knowledge of individual evidence. Response (Chief Executive Office): The County Executive Office neither agrees nor disagrees with this Finding as the CEO does not possess direct knowledge of the evidence. 31.The State Statute used by Grand Juries for recovering monies due the County is California Penal Code s932. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board of Supervisors agrees with this Finding. Response (Chief Executive Office): The County Executive Office agrees ARE YOU GETTING WHAT YOU PAY FOR? A Report on the t3 oard of Supervii sors Tr: avel Policy June 7,2007 with this Finding. - . - ... -. . . - .. .. .. .. .. .. . - . .. . .. - . - -. . . .. . - . - . . . .. . . .. . , -