📋
Extracted from Consolidated Report

This investigation was originally published as part of a larger consolidated report containing multiple investigations. View the consolidated PDF for the complete document.

El Dorado County Grand Jury • 2010-2011

EL Dorado County Grand Jury 2010-2011 Mission Statement The Grand Jury acts as the citizen oversight for El Dorado

Published: June 30, 2011 63 pages
View PDF View Full Original

Findings 21 findings

F1 Page 13
According to sworn testimony given to the Grand Jury, EDCSO Internal Affairs audited the degrees of EIP recipients in 2002 and found one individual with a degree from Hamilton University. This individual did not appear to warrant EIP. Internal Affairs reports directly to the Under-sheriff and does not conduct investigations without direction from or approval by the Under-sheriff or Sheriff. Testimony indicated that when approached by Internal Affairs, the Under-sheriff ordered Internal Affairs to cease any further investigation. However, when Internal Affairs was interviewed by the District Attorney’s investigator, this audit was said to have been conducted in 2008.
F2 Page 13
A simple Web search provided information that Hamilton University was operated by a convicted felon. Hamilton University changed its name to Richardson University and relocated to the Bahamas after Hamilton University was shut down by authorities.
F3 Page 13
In 2010, the issue of questionable degrees resurfaced. An Internal Affairs investigation revealed three individuals with diplomas from Hamilton or Richardson University and two other individuals with degrees from other questionable institutions. Internal Affairs turned the matter over to the District Attorney’s office to determine if criminal charges should be brought against these five sworn personnel. Internal Affairs did not obtain statements from the accused officers before turning the matter over to the District Attorney. 7
F4 Page 14
The District Attorney’s Office spent eight months investigating the issue but has elected not to prosecute any of the individuals involved, due to a lack of sufficient evidence.  Four of the accused deputies declined to provide statements to the District Attorney’s Office.  The District Attorney’s investigation revealed that the five officers in question received a total of $166,459.72 in additional pay after the EDCSO Commanders approved their application for EIP.  The investigation revealed that the “four year degrees” were approved by EDCSO Commanders even though they were obtained in as little as four weeks of coursework.
F5 Page 14
EDCSO Internal Affairs delayed any administrative investigation while the District Attorney’s investigation was ongoing. During this time, two of the individuals in question retired and the other three have remained employed.
F6 Page 14
The Modified, Last, Best and Final offer for the EDCSO Deputy Sheriffs Association, Law Enforcement Unit and the El Dorado County Law Enforcement Manager’s Association are the two labor agreements currently in force between El Dorado County and the sworn personnel of the Sheriff’s Office. Both agreements are subject to renegotiation.
F7 Page 14
Both labor agreements provide incentives for longevity pay, POST Certificate Awards and Educational Incentive Pay. POST incentives are available as an alternative to longevity pay and these two incentives may not be combined. However, EIP may be combined with either POST incentives or longevity pay. A Captain, for example, receiving the maximum benefit for EIP and longevity pay could receive nearly $32,000 in additional pay.
F8 Page 14
In 2010, the County paid in excess of $300,000 in EIP to EDCSO personnel. At the current rate, this incentive program will cost the County in excess of $3,000,000 over the next ten years.
F9 Page 14
Neither labor agreement provides a standard for evaluating the legitimacy of college degrees and diplomas. The language of the agreements does not specify either “accredited colleges” or “State approved” colleges as a means of identifying legitimate institutions.
F10 Page 14
Two deputies, two sergeants and one lieutenant received degrees from unaccredited institutions that are being investigated by the U.S. Attorney General as “diploma mills.” All five of these individuals applied for and received EIP. Applications were approved by EDCSO Commanders. 8
F11 Page 15
There is no requirement for personnel applying for EIP to provide a duplicate diploma and/or sealed transcripts to the El Dorado County Human Resource Department for independent verification.
F12 Page 15
The District Attorney’s investigation confirmed that the five employees investigated were the only then current sworn personnel receiving EIP based upon degrees issued by questionable institutions.
F13 Page 15
Other local law enforcement agencies offer EIP and POST but the incentives cannot be combined, are currently limited to a maximum benefit of 10% of base salary, and are not available to command rank (Lieutenants and above).
F14 Page 15
The EDCSO reviewed the training files of 79 sworn personnel in 2010 to determine the legitimacy of college degrees. However, there were an additional 18 Correctional Officers receiving EIP who were not included in that review.
F15 Page 31
Sergeant openings in the West Slope area are typically filled by sergeants with higher seniority, leaving the South Lake Tahoe position vacant when they trans- fer. The vacant position is then filled by a newly promoted sergeant with less sen- iority. This practice can discourage potential candidates with families or other re- sponsibilities rooted in the West Slope to seek promotion.
F16 Page 31
Policy 1001 of the Sheriff’s Office Policy Manual defines the process that is used to select individuals for specialized job assignments. All employees are notified via e-mail of job openings, and applicants are ranked by a panel of supervisors within the Department. If the position has three or more candidates, is full time or involves skill pay, only the top three candidates ranked by the panel are invited to compete in an oral interview. After the interviews are concluded and final ranking is tabulated, the panel’s numerical ranking is forwarded to the Division Com- mander.
F17 Page 31
Personnel in the Sheriff’s Office provided the following information regarding detective positions:  There is no mandatory rotation of detective positions.  There are currently 20 male and zero female detectives in the EDCSO.  Over the last five years no women were added to the Detective Unit.  In 2008, one female detective left the Investigative Detective Unit because she was promoted to sergeant.  Detectives receive a 5% pay increase and a take home vehicle, making this a coveted position for deputies.
F18 Page 31
According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics website, data from a 2003 census (the latest available) showed that the national average for the percentage of sworn female officers in communities between 100,000 and 249,000 is 12.8%. The per- 2 5
F19 Page 32
In testimony, the Sheriff indicated there are no plans to recruit female deputy ap- plicants to bridge the Department’s existing gender gap in sworn positions.
F20 Page 32
Although there is a written policy that defines the process for selecting candi- dates for lateral assignments, the majority of the six deputies interviewed ex- pressed dissatisfaction with the methods used to select candidates for lateral, spe- cialized work assignments. Concerns include:  The selection process was too subjective since most assignments did not in- volve written testing, relying instead on the ranking of candidates by a se- lected panel.  Not having a chance to appear before the selection panel if they did not re- ceive one of the top rankings.  Not getting any feedback or coaching on how they can improve their chances for being selected in the future.  The low number of openings due to non-rotation of some assignments such as detective.
F21 Page 32
The Grand Jury finds that lateral assignments such as Detective, Field Training Officer, and River Patrol are a gateway for promotion into the ranks of sergeant or above. In addition, the El Dorado County Grand Jury concludes that the selection process for lateral assignments is subjective and somewhat arbitrary. Without experience gained from lateral assignments a candidate who applies for sergeant or above has a slim chance of succeeding when competing against a can- didate who has detective or other lateral assignment experience. It is not surpris- ing that only one woman achieved the rank of sergeant since female detectives have been almost nonexistent. Having female deputies on the force who have gained experience from lateral assignments also contributes to a more effective and culturally competent law enforcement organization for El Dorado County.

Recommendations 12

No Responses Found 1

Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.

El Dorado County County