📋
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.

Calaveras County Grand Jury • 2007-2008

Investigation of the Community Development Agency

4 pages
View PDF View Full Original

Findings 3 findings

F1 Page 8
– THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS (BOS) 1. Background Check - The BOS, when hiring the CDA Director (Director), failed to follow standard hiring procedures by neglecting to insist that the candidate’s qualifications and past work experience be verified and thoroughly checked. 2. Reporting Relationship - The BOS failed to clearly define the reporting relationship of the position and allowed the Director to circumvent the established line of supervision. The Director reported directly to the BOS with disregard for the published County organization chart. 3. Accountability - After establishing the Director’s direct reporting relationship to the Board, the BOS failed to hold the Director accountable and neglected to prepare any performance evaluations. 4. Job Qualifications - The Director, when hired by the County, lacked the technical skills and sufficient related experience to successfully perform the job. The BOS based their hiring decision on the applicant’s self-reported strong management experience. However, the Grand Jury, in the course of the investigation, could not substantiate many of the claims made on the Director’s resume and application. 5
F2 Page 9
– FUNDS 1. Mismanagement of County Funds – Numerous outside consultants have been hired for work that could be done by CDA employees. The position of Chief Building Official is still filled by a Vali Cooper consultant and a large portion of the plan checking service is still performed by outside contractors. Due to the Director’s decisions, the CDA has spent nearly $2 million (almost half of its 2007/2008 budget) on consulting fees. 2. Budget Deficit - The County is currently faced with a CDA projected deficit of nearly $900,000 for fiscal year 2007-2008, the largest Planning and Building Department deficit in many years. This deficit is not entirely due to the national decline of the housing market. 3. Internal Audit - When the CDA’s second quarter actual budget deficit was discovered; the Director initiated an internal audit. The Director reassigned the qualified Account Technician to other duties and instructed a newly hired Permit Technician to conduct the audit and to perform the regular duties of the Account Technician. 4. Disregard for County Accounting Practices – The Director fails to follow the County’s accounting practices and procedures and has shown little interest in coordinating these practices with the County Auditor/Controller. This has resulted in costly accounting errors and confusion in recording various services such as Environmental Impact Report expenses and revenues within the Trust Account. 5. Lack of Consistency in Collecting Fees and Fines - The Director has exempted certain cases subject to code compliance fees and fines without justification, thus potentially violating Calaveras County Code, Title 8, Article IX Violations Fines and Procedures. 6 6. Hiring Incentives - The Director is the only Department Head in the County who has relied on costly hiring incentives when recruiting new Planners. 7. CDA Hiring Practices - The Director disregarded County hiring practices, bypassed Human Resources, and developed the CDA’s own recruiting, screening and interviewing procedures for potential hires.
F3 Page 10
– DIRECTOR 1. Management Style – The Director’s management style contributes to a chaotic workplace. The Director at times exhibits confrontational behavior towards County employees and Department Heads, and at times magnifies the severity of issues, presenting the BOS with multiple emergencies. 2. Work Environment – CDA employees have filed numerous harassment/hostile work environment complaints. Some of the earlier complaints prompted a thorough investigation, which resulted in a directive from the BOS to have all CDA management and employees participate in a team building exercise. The team building exercise was not completed (as of this writing) and failed because the Director walked out with the executive staff in mid-session and refused to continue. 7 3. Trust –The Director frequently scrutinizes the work of employees by secretly checking files in the absence of employees. This perceived lack of trust comes at the expense of the performance of the Director’s managerial responsibilities. 4. Communication – The Director’s accessibility to CDA employees is inadequate, partly due to the remote location of Director’s office from the Building and Planning Departments. In addition, the Director’s mode of communication is usually verbal and often unofficial, which leads to confusion, misinterpretations and misunderstandings. 5. Compliance with Administrative Requirements – For the past two years the Director has not prepared or mandated the preparation of annual performance evaluations of the CDA staff. 6. General Plan – The complete overhaul of the General Plan, as opposed to using a step-by-step process, was influenced by the Director’s sense of urgency. However, the Director’s lack of technical planning expertise has prevented consideration of alternate ways of moving the project forward.

Recommendations 8