Responses to Grand Jury Reports Summary of PC 933.05 Penal Code § 933.05 provides for only two (2) acceptable responses*

MCRPD lost the opportunity to receive more than $2.5 million in grant funds because it operated in violation of State Codes and guidelines pertaining to the administration of the CAOHVPD Grants and award of the fence contract per PCC section 20682.5 (b). MCRPD Response. The Board had mixed responses to this finding. Mr. Bushansky expressed his concern with the Grand Jury not interviewing the Board members who served on the Board during this time. Mr. Bushansky firmly believes that if the Grand Jury had done a more in-depth investigation on this finding, the results of the Grand Jury investigation may have been different. Mr. Huff disagrees with this finding, because sixteen (16) requests for proposal bid packets were sent out with only two (2) responses received back by MCRPD. Of the two (2) bids received, one (1) was found to be unresponsive. The remainder of the Board, including the newest members of the MCRPD Board of Directors, are in agreement that all future bids need to be handled differently. Kevin Evans, Foreperson Mendocino County Civil Grand Jury August 26, 2021 MCRPD incurred debt which it has been unable to repay and led to bankruptcy

because of purchasing the Highway 20 property prior to the completion of the feasibility study for the intended purpose of a golf course and the possible mismanagement of public funds. MCRPD Response. The present Board does not have enough knowledge of relevant past events to either fully agree or disagree with this finding. All Board members agree that MCRPD has incurred debt as a result of purchasing the Highway 20 property. Again, the majority of the current Board does not have enough knowledge of past events to either agree or disagree that alleged mismanagement of public funds lead to the District's bankruptcy petition nor can the current Board speculate as to the hypothetical impact of the timing of the feasibility study on the District's bankruptcy petition.

and F 5 I (we) disagree wholly or partially with the Findings numbered: ◩

Executive staff do not receive initial and annual training in Brown Act, Ethics and Harassment in compliance with AB1234. MCRPD Response. Disagree: This training might have not occurred consistently in the past, but currently Brown Act, Ethics, and Harassment training are provided to each Board member at the beginning of each year and compliance records will be retained by MCRPD. To further ensure that these trainings take place as required going forward, an MCRPD policy has been developed, which all Board members will be required to sign in acknowledgment that this training is required. MCRPD risks potential conflicts of interest and potential litigation as Bylaws do

not require attendance of Counsel at its BOD meetings. MCRPD Response. Agree: Possibilities of reducing this risk are currently being explored by Kevin Evans, Foreperson Mendocino County Civil Grand Jury August 26, 2021 MCRPD. The District is evaluating the financial feasibility of retaining legal counsel to be present at each Board meeting along with other possible solutions. MCRPD fails to provide financial transparency to the public as monthly financial

statements are not routinely published for public viewing. Monthly financial statements would identify revenue sources such as rental fees, expenditures, and capital commitment. MCRPD Response. Disagree: All District financials are readily available to the public. Financial reports are included as part of every Board packet, which the public has access to at any time either online or by request to District staff. Moving forward, all Finance Committee Packets will also be listed separately online to allow for easier accessibility to the public. Grand Jury Recommendations: MCRPD's BOD should amend its Bylaws within 60 days following release of this