📋
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
• 2008-2009
The responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following:
⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings 9 findings
F1
Page 6
BOS Policy #D-4 is not being followed. Paragraph B.2 titled “Vehicle Use” requires the CAO’s Office to review permanent assignment and overnight retention of County-owned vehicles on an annual basis and to continue or rescind authorization. Interviews with the CAO’s office revealed that this has not been done for several years.
F2
Page 6
Paragraph B.2.a of the policy specifies that an employee who is responsible for responding to emergency situations related to public health or safety and protection of property on a 24-hour basis may be assigned a vehicle for on-call duty. However, paragraph B.2.b is subject to interpretation and allows any County employee that can demonstrate to the Board of Supervisors that it is in the best interest of the County for that employee to be assigned permanent and overnight retention of a County-owned vehicle.
F3
Page 6
The purchase of County vehicle fuel is a budget item within various County departments, and is not a component of the Fleet Management process. This is a significant County expense and estimated to be over 1.6 million dollars next year and represents nearly 40% of total fleet costs.
F4
Page 6
Fuel purchases for County vehicles are not centrally managed or controlled. The County’s primary fuel vendor possesses very sophisticated reporting capabilities and would be able to provide excellent tools in an effort to better manage fuel purchases. 2
F5
Page 7
The 50 vehicles identified as “Department 99” or department owned are not managed by Fleet Management, so the efficiency of operating those vehicles (which represent nearly 10% of the County total) is difficult to determine.
F6
Page 7
County fleet costs for 2008-2009 are estimated to be 4.2 million dollars, with projected total miles at over 5.4 million. These costs represent a cost to the County of 77.2 cents for every mile driven. As a point of reference, the rate the County reimburses employees to drive their own vehicles on County business is 50.5 cents per mile, or 26.7 cents per mile less than the County spends on its own vehicles. We do recognize that the County per mile cost is an average of ALL vehicles, including some heavy duty vehicles.
F7
Page 7
In reviewing the take-home vehicle list many of the assignments are not for “health and safety” or on-call status use. Take-home vehicles are driven 21% more miles per year, per vehicle when compared to the balance of the Fleet managed vehicles. One reason is that take-home vehicles include “commute” miles.
F8
Page 7
Potential cost savings to the County exist in two areas: a. The conversion of miles driven in County-owned vehicles to private vehicle reimbursement would save 26.7 cents per mile. If a 10% reduction were achieved, the County would save an estimated $145,278 annually. b. A 10% reduction of total County vehicle miles driven would yield a 77.2 cent per mile savings, estimated to be $419,862 annually.
F9
Page 7
Our investigation indicated that Fleet Management is performing their function well.
Recommendations 9
-
R1Page 24The Grand Jury recommends that a task force be formed comprised of expert end users and outside vendors, charging them with the responsibility of streamlining the procurement process and improving the customer service level to all internal departments and external vendors. This end user task force should include members from all major County functions. The BOS should champion this process and assign one of the Supervisors to oversee the progress of this task force, with a monthly update from the leader of this task force to him/her and the CAO. We recommend that this task force start with a “blank page,” and identify an appropriate flow process, effective computer systems’ support and lead times that best serve the needs of the County and outside vendors. Significant progress has already been made in identifying the current process, but the challenge to the team is to identify what changes should be made to improve the procurement process. 2. The completed task force report should be written and submitted to the BOS with all recommended changes no later than the end of fiscal year 2008-2009. 3. No additions to personnel should occur until such time as a full review of the procurement process is completed. RESPONSES Response(s) to this report is required in accordance with California Penal Code §933.05 20 -003 REASON FOR REPORT The El Dorado County Grand Jury received several complaints from citizens of South Lake Tahoe. The complaints centered on the verbally abusive behavior and menacing actions of the South Lake Tahoe Chief of Police. Investigation of these complaints uncovered additional information which prompted the Grand Jury to look further into his managerial and behavioral issues.
-
R2Page 3The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation.*
-
R3Page 3The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of an agency of department being investigated or reviewed. This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report. **
-
R4Page 3The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore. * The time frame needs to be specific and reasonable. ** At the conclusion of this analysis, the recommendation must be responded to as required by items 1, 2, or 4. RESPONSE: TIME, WHERE AND TO WHOM The Penal Code identifies two different response times, depending upon the classification of the respondent (see below), and includes where and to whom the response is directed. Day one begins with the date of the Final Report.
-
R5Page 3The Grand Jury strongly recommends that the GVFPD seriously consider the recommendation of the 2007-2008 Grand Jury Final Report Part II concerning the consolidation of fire districts. RESPONSES Response(s) to this report is required in accordance with California Penal Code §933.05. 11 -020 REASON FOR REPORT The El Dorado County Grand Jury received a complaint from a citizen/resident of the Hillwood Community Services District (HCSD). The citizen requested the Grand Jury investigate the Board of Directors of the HCSD regarding various actions taken by the Board, including violation of California Government Codes and the collection of monies for the purpose of establishing a Road Improvement Group (RIG) within the HCSD. The Grand Jury has also had communication with the El Dorado County Auditor-Controller concerning Community Service Districts (CSD) in the county and the problems associated with managing and operating CSDs within the requirements of the Government Code.
-
R6Page 3The SLTPD’s Strategic Plan should address clearly defined performance measures that include at a minimum the following areas of concern: • Confidence in Senior Management • Cynicism • Morale • Visions and Values of the Department
-
R7Page 3The Chief of Police should present a written progress report to the City Council and City Manager annually for public review.
-
R8Page 4The City Manager and City Council should maintain an active presence in tracking the Strategic Plan progress.
-
R9Page 4The Chief's annual performance evaluation should include the progress of the goals set in the Strategic Plan. RESPONSES Response(s) to this report is required in accordance with California Penal Code §933.05. 24 -014 REASON FOR REPORT The Grand Jury elected to investigate the County’s Victim Restitution activity to determine if El Dorado County is effectively and efficiently managing victim restitution.
Conclusions 2
-
CL1Sampling results indicate that failures to uphold Medi-Cal documentation standards for claims are consistent across all populations, although they were noticeably more prevalent in the Mallard site adult outpatient sample. Results also indicate that a significant portion of billable, documented services were not being claimed at the time the audit field work was conducted.
-
CL2Many of the Department of Human Services Public Guardian program case records appear to be out of compliance with TCM program requirements, based on a review of a sample of client case records and documentation supporting Medi-Cal claims for reimbursement. Few of the case records reviewed make the required link between client Assessments, Individual Client Service Plans and Periodic Reviews to ensure that client Harvey M. Rose Associates, LLC 36 Section 4: DHS Targeted Case Management Medi-Cal Billing needs have been identified and addressed with specific activities and service strategies. Though a TCM requirement, follow-up checks on services to which clients are referred are routinely not taking place. Most cases are not meeting the six month Periodic Review requirement. The Department’s Linkages program, on the other hand, was found substantially in compliance with TCM program requirements in the ten sample sets of case records reviewed. Linkages program management appears to have designed their case file documentation and established policies and procedures with TCM program requirements, or intent, in mind. Periodic review documents are structured to ensure that service objectives and client needs identified in previous assessments and reviews continue to be addressed.
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