Placer County Grand Jury • 2014-2015

Responses Report

Published: November 30, 2015 209 pages Consolidated Report
View Original PDF

Findings 21 findings

F1
The 2x2 meetings were held to disseminate information regarding the RJUHSD conditions of approval of the lunch contract in advance of the EUSD Board meeting.
F2
EUSD understood that there would be no contract if there were any dissenting Board votes or any negative comments made at the EUSD public board meeting at which the EUSD-RJUHSD school lunch contract was considered.
F3
The presence of a common Board member at all 2x2 briefing meetings between EUSD staff and one other Board member is a violation of the serial meeting provisions of the Brown Act.
F4
There is disagreement among some fire and water districts as to who actually owns the fire hydrants in some jurisdictions. Some water district personnel interviewed indicated that the hydrants are owned by the fire department, while some fire department personnel indicated that hydrants are owned by the water agencies.
F5
Improperly functioning fire hydrants are a threat to public health and safety.
F6
Despite the lack of standardization, the Grand Jury did not identify any area in which hydrants are not kept operational.
F7
The local water and fire districts seem to work well together to see that hydrants are maintained.
F8
Some water and fire districts serving a given geographic area have entered into formal written agreements.
F9
In some areas, there are less formal agreements between the fire and water agencies’ respective management teams.
F10
Generally, the fire district does inspection and light maintenance and the water districts do the heavier maintenance and repairs. Staff seemed to think that that arrangement makes sense in that it takes advantage of the skills of each agency’s employees.
F11
The Grand Jury did not find any specific inadequacies in the operation of fire hydrants. __________________________________________________ ________________________________________________ - 10 - Findings and Recommendations -2015 Final Report
F12
All entities have adequate policies on contracting and bidding.
F13
Policies are not being updated in a timely fashion.
F14
Some, but not all, policies identified the original date of issue or date of review.
F15
Issuance dates, recurring reviews and approvals of operational policies were only completed by Placer County, Colfax and Roseville. Other entities revised policies on an “as necessary” basis.
F16
Complete standardized numbered policies were only available from Placer County and Roseville. __________________________________________________ ________________________________________________ - 17 - Findings and Recommendations -2015 Final Report
F17
Initial training on operational policies is completed for newly elected officials and new employees in a variety of ways.
F18
Recurring training policies can be improved.
F19
Management of technology innovations requires an inter-disciplinary approach.
F20
On-going internal auditing serves to monitor internal controls and minimize non- compliance and abuse. The addition of internal auditors would be valuable for the larger cities.
F21
Providing forms for employees to submit whistleblower reports in writing would be of value.

Recommendations 14