Foreword Just what is the Grand Jury, who are its members, and what are their functions? William J. Shaw

Commendations 17

• CM1
  Management is very proactive in seeking to meet the needs of its customers and appears interested in the overall well being of the community. Responses Required for Findings F1 through F5 GDPUD Board of Directors GDPUD General Manager Responses Required for Recommendations R1 through R6 GDPUD Board of Directors GDPUD General Manager 3 AUDIT & FINANCE COMMITTEE Georgetown Divide Public Utility District Accounting Practices Citizen Complaint #C1-02/03 Reason for the Report A complaint was made against Georgetown Divide Public Utility District (GDPUD) for past accounting practices. Scope of the Investigation The members of the Grand Jury interviewed: · The Complainant; · GDPUD CPA (Consultant) for the period of 1976 to present; · Two GDPUD board members; · The prior GDPUD General Manager; · The Current Auditor; · The El Dorado County Auditor-Controller. The Grand Jury also reviewed: · The June 1, 1998, AICPA Code for independence as to audit services; · The accounting records of GDPUD; · The reports prepared by the in-house CPA; · The annual audits for the fiscal years 1995 through 1998.
• CM2
  It should be noted that the Sheriff’s Department recently took action to establish procedures to minimize the opportunity for future abuse. Responses Required for Findings F1 through F5 El Dorado County Sheriff Responses Required for Recommendations R1 and R2 El Dorado County Sheriff El Dorado County Department of Human Resources R3 and R4 El Dorado County Board of Supervisors 15 CRIMINAL JUSTICE COMMITTEE Sheriff’s Non Follow-Up Regarding Sick Leave Abuse Citizen Complaint #C20 – 02/03 Reason for the Report A citizen’s complaint was received alleging the Sheriff failed to investigate the 200 hours of sick leave a former Undersheriff was paid. This complaint relates to a follow-up of a previous Grand Jury complaint (#00/01 – C021). Scope of the Investigation The members of the Grand Jury interviewed: · The former County Sheriff (Sheriff); · The former Undersheriff (Undersheriff); · Employees of El Dorado County Sheriff’s Department; · Employees of El Dorado County Department of Human Resources; · Employees of El Dorado County Risk Management. The Grand Jury also reviewed: · Citizen complaint #00/01-C-021 alleging abuse of sick leave by the Undersheriff; · Grand Jury Report 2000/2001 regarding complaint #00/01-C-021; · The Sheriff’s response to the Grand Jury Report 2000/2001; · Appropriate payroll documents; · All sick leave records of Sheriff’s Department personnel who terminated service between January 1, 1999 and November 2002; · Correspondence between Sheriff and former Undersheriff regarding abuse of sick leave ; · Various memoranda regarding principals involved; · Policies for the County and Memoranda of Understandings (MOUs) relating to sick leave; · Medical records of the former Undersheriff.
• CM3
  County employees were cooperative with this Grand Jury’s investigation. It should be noted that the Sheriff’s Department has implemented procedures to ensure compliance to the sick leave policy. Responses Required for Findings F3 through F5 El Dorado County Sheriff F4 through F5, and F10 El Dorado County Board of Supervisors Responses Required for Recommendations R1 through R3 El Dorado County Sheriff R4 El Dorado County Board of Supervisors El Dorado County Counsel 19 CRIMINAL JUSTICE COMMITTEE Appearance of Inappropriate Actions by the El Dorado County District Attorney Citizen Complaint #C34-02/03 Reason for the Report A complaint alleges inappropriate behavior by the El Dorado County District Attorney. Scope of the Investigation The Grand Jury interviewed: · The Complainant; · The El Dorado County District Attorney; · The District Attorney’s “girlfriend;” · Attorneys currently and formerly associated with the District Attorney’s Office; · Several Judicial Officers; · A Deputy Sheriff of El Dorado County; · Current and former El Dorado County Employees; · Director of Human Resources for El Dorado County; · Auditor-Controller for El Dorado County; · A representative of one of the El Dorado County employee unions. The Grand Jury also reviewed: · The Complaint; · Numerous Court documents relating to Complainant and District Attorney’s girlfriend (hereinafter referred to as “Friend”); · Various Court Orders of the El Dorado Superior and Municipal Courts Transcripts of Superior Court proceedings; · Police and Sheriff’s reports pertaining to Complainant, “Friend,” and “Friend’s” son; · Various memoranda from the District Attorney; · El Dorado County timesheets, payroll and expense records of the “Friend;” · Criminal Court records of “Friend’s” son; · Letters to and from the California Judicial Council; · Letter to and from the California State Bar; · California Rules of Professional Conduct - State Bar Act; 20 · Applicable Penal Code Sections ; · Applicable Government Code Sections; · Applicable Business and Professions Codes Sections; · Professionalism a Sourcebook of Ethics and Civil Liability Principals for Prosecutors by The Ethics Committee of the California District Attorneys Association; · Recusal of District Attorneys – Attorney General Publications; · District Attorney Department Handbook; · Grand Jury Reports for years 1999/2000, 2000/2001 and 2001/2002; · Additional information supplied by the District Attorney to “clarify” his previous testimony; · Additional information supplied by the District Attorney’s “Friend” to “clarify” her previous testimony; · Reviewed transcripts of District Attorney and “Friend’s “ testimony.
• CM4
  The Chief Probation Officer and the staff of Juvenile Hall in Placerville provide outstanding service in an inadequate, old, facility, which is often over capacity. Special recognition is given teaching staff for the exceptional individual educational program. Responses Required for Findings F1 through F7 El Dorado County Board of Supervisors El Dorado County Probation Department Responses Required for Recommendations R1 through R7 El Dorado County Board of Supervisors El Dorado County Probation Department 44 CRIMINAL JUSTICE COMMITTEE Growlersberg Conservation Camp, Georgetown, CA Reason for the Report The California Penal Code requires Grand Juries to inspect and report annually on operations of all public prisons located within boundaries of each county. Scope of the Investigation Members of the Grand Jury inspected the Growlersberg Conservation Camp on March 7, 2003. The Jury members met with the Camp Commander of the Department of Corrections and the Assistant Chief of Administration for the Department of Forestry and Fire Protections. The Camp Commander escorted the Jury Members on a tour of the facility. The following documents were reviewed: · Inmate Orientation Handbook · Camp Reports · Inspection reports · Staff and Inmates written reviews of meals · Performance evaluations of inmates · Grand Jury Reports for 2000/2001 and 2001/2002
• CM5
  The Teaching Principal/Superintendent has obtained numerous grants to improve this unique school. He and his staff provide excellent opportunities for their students. 54 Responses to Findings F1 and F2 Indian Diggings School Teaching Principal/Superintendent Response to Recommendation R1 Indian Diggings School Teaching Principal/Superintendent 55 EDUCATION COMMITTEE Latrobe School & Miller Hill School Latrobe Reason for the Report Since the Latrobe School District had not been visited in at least 5 years the Grand Jury decided it should be visited this year. Scope of the Investigation The Grand Jury: · Visited Latrobe School; · Visited Miller Hill School; · Interviewed the Secretary and three teachers.
• CM6
  The schools are well run. We would like to commend the faculty and administration for their fine work. No Findings or Recommendations 56 EDUCATION COMMITTEE Edwin Markham Middle School Placerville Reason for the Report The Grand Jury selected Edwin Markham Middle School to review the status of the building repairs recommended in the 2001-2002 Grand Jury Report, and for a general review. Scope of the Investigation The members of the Grand Jury: · Interviewed the Superintendent and the Principal; · Toured the school grounds; · Visited the special science laboratory and several classes including an 8th grade math class; · Reviewed the Grand Jury report for 2001/2002.
• CM7
  The Grand Jury commends the Principal, faculty, and staff for their enthusiastic school spirit and continued dedication to the academic performance and well being of the students at Ponderosa High School. We further commend the school for becoming a California Distinguished High School. Responses Required for Findings F1 through F7 Superintendent, El Dorado County Office of Education Superintendent, El Dorado High School District F1 through F8 Principal, Ponderosa High School F3 through F7 El Dorado County Board of Supervisors El Dorado County Department of Transportation Responses Required for Recommendations R1 through R6 Superintendent, El Dorado County Office of Education Superintendent, El Dorado High School District R1 through R7 Principal, Ponderosa High School R2 through R6 El Dorado County Board of Supervisors El Dorado County Department of Transportation 62 EDUCATION COMMITTEE South Tahoe Middle School City of South Lake Tahoe Reason for the Report The South Tahoe Middle School was chosen as part of a general review. Scope of the Investigation The members of the Grand Jury: · Interviewed the Principal; · Toured the facility.
• CM8
  The library staff should be commended for a well-run and clean facility. Responses Required for Findings F1-F3 Supervisor, South Lake Tahoe Branch Library Responses Required for Recommendations R1 and R2 Supervisor, South Lake Tahoe Branch Library 65 GOVERNMENT & ADMINISTRATION 66 GOVERNMENT & ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE Purchase of a Doctor’s Services for a “Fitness for Duty” Evaluation Citizen Complaint #C5-02/03 Reason for the Report The complaint alleges that the process and procedures used to obtain the services of a consulting doctor contracted by the Department of Human Resources were inappropriate and improper. (The employee has a great disadvantage in this process of separation from service.) Scope of the Investigation The Grand Jury interviewed the following persons: · Complainant; · Director, Department of Human Resources, El Dorado County; · Manager, Procurement and Contracts, Department of General Services, El Dorado County. The Grand Jury also reviewed the following items: · A memo from the Director of Human Resources regarding fitness-for duty examinations; · Statistics of fitness for duty 2000/01 and 2001/02; · Purchase Order for doctor’s services; · County’s policies and procedures regarding purchases and contracts; · Total Purchase Order List for every Department from Fiscal Year 2001-02 through 2002-03; · General Services Department memos issued to all County Departments regarding confirming purchase orders, purchasing procedures, and new contracts.
• CM9
  The Grand Jury wishes to commend Bonnie Rich, Manager of Procurement and Contracts, and her assistant, Donna Cademartori, for their commendable efforts to reduce the County’s confirming purchase orders from 74 percent in 2000-01 to less than 3 percent during 2002-03. Responses Required for Findings F1 through F5 El Dorado County Board of Supervisors El Dorado Chief Administrative Officer Responses Required for Recommendations R1 through R5 El Dorado Board of Supervisors R1, R2 and R5 El Dorado Chief Administrative Officer R1, R2 and R3, R5 Director, Department of General Services, El Dorado County R1 El Dorado County Counsel 70 GOVERNMENT & ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE City of South Lake Tahoe Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) Citizen Complaint #C7-02/03 Reason for the Report The Grand Jury received a citizen’s complaint alleging that a City of South Lake Tahoe (SLT) vacation rental agency was not paying the full amount of the Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) as required by Law. The complainant also raised the possibility that other rental agencies were not paying the full tax as well. Scope of the Investigation The Grand Jury interviewed the following persons: · City Attorney, City of South Lake Tahoe; · Two current City Council members, City of South Lake Tahoe; · Senior Accounting Technician, City of South Lake Tahoe; · Former City Council member, City of South Lake Tahoe; · Complainant; · County Counsel, El Dorado County; · Chief Assistant District Attorney, El Dorado County; · Auditor-Controller, El Dorado County; · Former City Manager; · Former Accounting Manager, City of South Lake Tahoe; · Revenue Supervisor, City of South Lake Tahoe; · Private Investigator/Auditor, contracted by the 2002-03 Grand Jury. The Grand Jury also reviewed the following items: · South Lake Tahoe City Occupancy/Lodging Code Sections (Chapter 28A et seq.); · City of South Lake Tahoe Policy and Procedures regarding TOTs; · Transient Occupancy Tax Code, El Dorado County, California; · City of South Lake Tahoe & Lodging Association clarification of TOT; · Transient Occupancy Tax Ordinance, Douglas County, Nevada; · Videotapes of the City of South Lake Tahoe Council Meeting discussing TOTs; · Transient Occupancy Tax Report Form; · Audit report by the Private Investigator/Auditor; · City of SLT Ordinance Amending Vacation Home Rentals ; · A letter attempting to define SLT City Code 28A-3, which defines “rent,” written by an attorney who represents two of the rental agencies; · A legal opinion from County Counsel defining “rent” as it pertains to El Dorado County’s Code. 71
• CM10
  As a result of the Grand Jury investigation, the City Council of South Lake Tahoe now appears to be actively pursuing the Transient Occupancy Tax issue. The Grand Jury members wish to commend the Senior Accounting Technician hired in April 2003 for her outstanding work in auditing hotels and motels of the City of SLT. Responses Required for Findings F1 1-2, 6, 10-12, 14, 17, 19, 21-23 City Council of South Lake Tahoe F2 1-2, 6-7,14-17, 19, 23 City Manager of South Lake Tahoe F1 and F21 City Attorney of South Lake Tahoe F24 Auditor-Controller of El Dorado County Responses Required for Recommendations R1 though R8 City Council of South Lake Tahoe City Manager of South Lake Tahoe 81 Addenda to South Lake Tahoe Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) #C7-02/03 Applicable Law Chapter 28 A of the South Lake Tahoe City Code (SLTCC) regulates when TOT is to be collected. The applicable sub-sections relating to the collection of TOT when vacation rental homes are involved have been paraphrased below: 28 A-2 G . . . many owners of residential buildings and owners of units in condominiums of community apartment buildings are renting to transients . . . without accounting to the City for tax imposed by SLTCC 28A-13; Such rentals compete directly with the transient lodging facilities industry, which is a very substantial factor in the economy of the City; Transients renting such units should pay the same tax as transients renting commercial units; and, It is necessary to require rental agents to be accountable for the tax as an operator in order to achieve greater collection of the tax from transients renting such units. 28 A-3 “ Rent” means the consideration charged, whether or not received, for the occupancy of space in a transient lodging facility valued in money, whether to be received in money, goods, labor or otherwise, including all receipts, cash, credits and property and services of any kind or nature, without any deduction therefore whatsoever. “Transient ” means any person who exercises occupancy or possession or is entitled to occupancy or possession . . . for a period of 30 consecutive calendar days or less. “Transient lodging facility” means any dwelling, motel, hotel, inn, vacation home rental . . . or other building . . . maintained, advertised or otherwise held out to the public in any manner as a place where sleeping, rooming or any other type of visitor accommodations are furnished to transients. 28 A –13 – Effective December 1, 1988, the taxes to be collected from transients by all transient-lodging facilities within the City . . . shall be as follows: . . . the amount of 12 percent of rent charged on all newly constructed visitor accommodations within the redevelopment project area and those existing properties within the redevelopment project area which undergo substantial renovation . . . and 10 percent of the rent charged on all other transient lodging facilities within the City. 82 (Note: In November 2002, the voters passed Measure Z that added an additional TOT of $1.00 per lodging night on all transient-lodging units. The City Council voted to make collection of the additional dollar effective January 1, 2003.) Such tax constitutes a debt owed by the transient to the City, which is extinguished only by payment to the operator or the City. The transient shall pay the tax to the operator of the transient lodging facility at the time the rent is paid. The unpaid tax shall be due upon the transient’s ceasing to occupy space in the transient lodging facility. 28 A-13.1 – Allocation of monies collected under the rates set forth in SLTCC 28A-13 shall be set forth by resolution of the City council. 28 A-14– All lodging operators and/or agents arranging for such lodging shall collect, at the time payment for the accommodations is made, the applicable transient occupancy tax. 28 A-15 – Each transient shall receive a receipt for payment from the operator indicating the room rate and the amount of transient occupancy tax assessed. No operator of a transient lodging facility shall advertise or state in any manner . . . that the tax or any part thereof will be assumed or absorbed by the operator or that it will not be added to the rent. 28 A-17– Within 30 days after first acting as a rental agent with respect to a unit of a transient lodging facility within the City, each rental agent shall register with the tax collector. 28 A-19– Each rental agent shall, on or before the tenth day of each month, or at the close of any different reporting period which may be established by the finance director, make a return to the finance department on forms provided by that office showing the total rent charged and received, the amount of tax collected, and the number of rooms occupied during the month or any other reporting period immediately proceeding. At the time the return is filed the full amount of the tax collected shall be remitted to the City. 28 A-20 A– Any operator who fails to remit any tax imposed by this article within the time required shall pay a penalty of 10 percent of the amount of the tax, in addition to the amount of the tax. 83 GOVERNMENT & ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE Mobile Homes/Senior Abuse Citizen Complaint #C12-02/03 Reason for the Report A citizen’s complaint alleged that the El Dorado County District Attorney did not respond in a timely manner to complaints regarding senior abuse in mobile home parks. Scope of the Investigation The Grand Jury interviewed the following persons: · President of the Homeowners Coalition for Mobile Home Parks in El Dorado County and other witnesses; · District Attorney; · Chief Assistant District Attorney; · Deputy District Attorney; · Investigator with the District Attorney’s Office; · Senior Administrative Analyst, District Attorney’s Office. The Grand Jury also reviewed the following items: · The citizen’s complaint; · The files of the Homeowners Coalition for Mobile Home Parks, which set forth 26 complaints against El Dorado County mobile home park owners; · A criminal complaint against a mobile home park owner; · The District Attorney’s office procedures; · The case management system used by the District Attorney (DAMION); · All of the minutes of the Mobile Home Task Force meetings; · Mobile Home Task Force Report to the Board of Supervisors, dated February 2003; · Relevant California Code sections relating to mobile homes and senior abuse.
• CM11
  The Grand Jury commends the efforts of John Litwinovich, Director of Community Services, for his leadership of the 2002 Mobile Home Task Force. The Task Force work led to a series of thorough investigations and responses to each mobile home park complaint. Responses Required for Findings F1 through F4 El Dorado County District Attorney Responses Required for Recommendations R1 through R4 El Dorado County District Attorney R1 through R5 El Dorado County Board of Supervisors 86 GOVERNMENT & ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE Conflict of Interest/Employee Evaluations Citizen Complaint #C21 & #C22-02/03 Reason for the Report A citizen’s complaint alleges a conflict of interest exists because of the relationship between the Interim Chief Administrator Officer and the Director of Human Resources. The complaint also alleges a conflict of interest carried over into evaluations. Scope of the Investigation The Grand Jury interviewed the following persons: · The Director of the Department of Human Resources; · The Interim Chief Administrative Officer (CAO); · Members of the Board of Supervisors individually; · Various El Dorado County employees regarding performance evaluations. The Grand Jury reviewed the following items: · El Dorado County Charter (Charter); · County Policies and Procedures; · Various Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs).
• CM12
  The Grand Jury commends the Board of Supervisors’ staff, the assistants, and the clerks for their fine cooperation and competence. 92 Responses Required for Findings F1 through F8 El Dorado County Board of Supervisors El Dorado County Chief Administrative Officer F1 through F7 El Dorado County Auditor/Controller F2 Director, Department of Social Services Responses Required for Recommendations R1 through R5 El Dorado County Board of Supervisors El Dorado County Chief Administrative Officer R2 through R4 El Dorado County Auditor/Controller R3 El Dorado County Counsel R4 Director, Department of Human Resources 93 Addendum to County Fiscal Issues #C3-02/03 Furnished by Auditor/Controller “Fund #41-550-305. Homemaker Chore $241,937 Negative Unlocated Difference In the County’s last two independent audits, our outside auditor has recommended that General Fund Cash be transferred to this Trust Fund to eliminate this negative unlocated difference. As has been reported in the past to the Board of Supervisors, this unlocated difference dates back to before June 30, 1992. Although, a complete set of source documents are not available to support transactions recorded prior to July 1, 1993, we were able to determine that for the quarter ending March 31, 1988, $47,623 of IHSS expenditures were incurred in excess of the allocation established by the State. A $47, 623 transfer from the General Fund to this Trust Fund should have been recorded during the year ended June 30, 1988, but was not. Further, $27,008 of advances in total that were due from the State were not recorded in this Trust Fund during the fiscal years ending June 30, 1985, and 1982. During the year ending June 30, 1992, the State reduced advances to this fund by $47,055 or County’s portion of provider costs. A $47,055 transfer from the General fund to this Trust Fund should have been recorded during the year ended June 30, 1992, but was not. These three accounting errors bring the unlocated difference down to $120,251. It appears that the remaining unlocated difference of $120,251 is the result of State adjustments to advances made prior to July 1, 1987, but, regardless, a $241,937 cash infusion is needed to make this Trust Fund whole. Fund 41-550-302. Welfare Assistance $758,767 Negative Unlocated Difference In the County’s latest independent audit, our outside auditor recommended that General Fund Cash be transferred to this Trust Fund to eliminate this negative unlocated difference. This $758,767 unlocated difference dates back prior to July 1, 1992. Because a complete set of source documents are not available to support transactions recorded prior to July 1, 1993, it is extremely unlikely that this unlocated difference can be identified by either a county employee or an outside accounting firm. Fund 41-550-308. Food Stamp Advancement $156,092 Positive Unlocated Difference In the County’s latest independent audit, our outside auditor recommended that the balance in this Trust Fund, along with a transfer from the General fund be combined to eliminate other negative unlocated differences discussed in this letter. This $156,092 unlocated difference dates back prior to July 1, 1998. Because a complete set of source documents are not available to support transactions recorded prior to July 1, 1993,it is extremely unlikely that this unlocated difference can be identified by either a county employee or an outside accounting firm. Fund 41-550-304. MediCal and CMA, $87, 527 Positive Unlocated Difference In the County’s latest independent audit, our outside auditor recommended that the balance in this Trust Fund, along with a transfer from the General Fund be combined to eliminate other negative unlocated differences discussed in this letter. This $87,527 unlocated difference dates back prior to June 30, 1994. Because a complete set of source documents are not available to support transactions recorded prior to June 30, 1994, it is extremely unlikely that this unlocated difference can be identified by either a county employee or an outside accounting firm. 94 Fund 41-550-303. Welfare Administration, $200.989 Negative Unlocated Difference In the County’s latest independent audit, our outside auditor recommended that General Fund Cash be transferred to this Trust Fund to eliminate this negative unlocated difference. The vast majority of this $200,989 unlocated difference dates back prior to July 1, 1998, all of it prior to July 1, 1993. Because a complete set of source documents are not available to support transactions recorded prior to July 1, 1993, it is extremely unlikely that this unlocated difference can be identified by either a county employee or an outside accounting firm.” 95 GOVERNMENT & ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE Measure Z Citizen Complaint #C35-02/03 Reason for the Report The complaint stated that Measure Z was added to generate additional revenue from the Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) for the City of South Lake Tahoe. It was voted on by the public on November 5, 2002 to go into effect no later than December 5, 2002. The City Council did not implement this measure until January 1, 2003 thereby losing revenue that the City needed. Scope of the Investigation The Grand Jury interviewed the following persons: · The Complainant; · County Counsel, El Dorado County; · City Attorney, City of South Lake Tahoe; · Supervisor Board Member, District 5, El Dorado County; · Two current City Council members, City of South Lake Tahoe; · A former City Council member, City of South Lake Tahoe. The Grand Jury also reviewed the following items: · City of South Lake Tahoe Ordinance No. 924 and No. 925; · November 22, 2002, Measure Z Notice was sent to all motel, hotel and vacation home owners; · December 3, 2002 Press Release “Measure Z Takes Effect December 5”; · December 10, 2002 Staff Report to City Council members from the City Attorney re. Implementation of Measure Z; · December 11, 2002 Measure Z Amended Notice sent to all motel, hotels and vacation home owners ; · Tapes of City of South Lake Tahoe Council Meetings from the Office of the City Clerk regarding the estimated TOT revenue loss for Measure Z.
• CM13
  The Grand Jury wishes to commend the homeowners in Fallen Leaf Lake for their concern, at this time, to resolve a community issue that has caused unnecessary divisiveness. Responses Required for Findings F1 through F5 Fallen Leaf Lake Community Services District Board of Directors Responses Required for Recommendations R1 through R8 Fallen Leaf Lake Community Services District Board of Directors 100 Note: In response to a widely disseminated e-mail critical of this Grand Jury from a FFL Board member to fellow Board members. This Grand Jury has never publicly impugned the integrity of any witness in any case. We have done and will continue to do our very best in fact gathering from relevant sources from either side on a public issue presented to us. We are not a criminal Grand Jury. Our mission is to assist the public in improving the performance of the several levels of government. To those who feel otherwise, we can only pledge our consistent dedication to our mission. 101 GOVERNMENT & ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE Chief Administrative Officer’s Contract Citizen Complaint #C44-02/03 Reason for the Report The complainant believes that the County Charter was violated because the Chief Administrative Officers (CAO) contract did not identify a contract administrator, nor were useable fingerprints submitted or a background check performed prior to the starting date of the contract. Scope of the Investigation The Grand Jury interviewed the following: · Complainant; · County Counsel, El Dorado County ; · Chief Administrative Officer (CAO); · Sheriff, El Dorado County; · All five members of the Board of Supervisors, individually. The Grand Jury also reviewed the following items: · Complaint; · Contract between the Board of Supervisors and the CAO; · El Dorado County Charter; · Interoffice memo regarding policies and procedures. Background: The complainant alleged that the CAO contract violated the County Charter since the contract did not specify the contract administrator. The allegation is of questionable merit since much as this issue could have been easily resolved with a short addendum to the contract specifying the Board of Supervisors as the contract administrator. The complainant further has a difference of opinion with the contract concerning severance pay and hours of leave that were negotiated. The complainant was not a party to the contract and these conditions were agreed upon unanimously by the Board of Supervisors prior to the approval of the contract. The complainant also specifies several differences of a financial nature concerning salary, leave compensation, and the deferred compensation plan provided in the contract. In addition the 102 contract makes mention of the PERS contributions which the County agreed to pay. The Board of Supervisors in negotiating the contract had the benefit of an outside firm with general knowledge of emoluments, benefits, and remuneration granted to other public officials in similar positions within the State of California. In interviews with Board members, the Committee accepts that both parties negotiated this contract in good faith. While the committee may differ with the details of any contract, there appears to be no basis to the charge that the Board of Supervisors acted inappropriately. Finally the complainant alleges that fingerprints of the CAO were not received in a timely matter. As a matter of fact, the fingerprints had to be taken four different times, through no fault of the applicant, and the requirement has been satisfied.
• CM14
  The Information Technology Standard Sub-Committee (ITSSC) was well attended by departmental IT personnel and provided a useful format in the sharing of problems or information relevant to other County departments. Responses Required for Findings F1 through F11 El Dorado County Chief Administrative Officer El Dorado County Board of Supervisors El Dorado County Director of Information Services F6, F7, F8 El Dorado County Director of General Services F8 through F11 El Dorado County District Attorney Responses Required for Recommendations R1 through R7 El Dorado County Chief Administrative Officer El Dorado County Board of Supervisors El Dorado County Director of Information Services R2, R3 through R7 El Dorado County Director of General Services R6 El Dorado County District Attorney 115 PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT 116 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE El Dorado County Fleet Maintenance Facility Reason for the Report The Grand Jury selected the County Fleet Maintenance facility for one of its sites to review. Scope of the Investigation The members of the Grand Jury: · Visited the facility on February 25, 2003; · Was briefed on the operations of the fuel dispensers, computerized fueling system (Gas Boy) and the vehicle repair facilities by the Fleet Maintenance Supervisor; · Interviewed the Special Services Department Head Fleet Maintenance Manager; · Interviewed the Fleet Maintenance Superintendent; · Interviewed the Fleet Maintenance Accountant.
• CM15
  The Grand Jury commends the Senior Center for apparent outstanding job performance under challenging circumstances. The staff was competent, courteous and very open. 128 Responses Required for Findings F1 through F19 El Dorado County Board of Supervisors El Dorado County Department of General Services El Dorado County Department of Community Services Responses Required for Recommendations R1 through R18 El Dorado County Board of Supervisors El Dorado County Department of General Services El Dorado County Department of Community Services 129 PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND PROPERTY COMMITTEE District Attorney - Building 221 515 Main Street District Attorney Annex - Building 226 525 Main Street Victim/Witness Assistance Program - Building 520 Main Street Placerville Reason for the Report The Grand Jury selected the offices of the District Attorney, Placerville, as one of its general reviews for 2002/2003. Scope of the Investigation The members of the Grand Jury: · Made an unannounced visit to the offices of the District Attorney, Placerville, including the District Attorney Annex and Victim/Witness Assistance Program on December 5, 2002; · Were given an extensive tour of the facilities and grounds by the Chief Assistant District Attorney; · Were briefed on the District Attorney operations; · Inspected the buildings and grounds; · Reviewed previous Grand Jury reports for year’s 1999/2000, 2000/2001 and 2001/2002.
• CM16
  The Administrator-Director is doing an excellent job taking responsibility for maintaining and organizing diverse county records. Responses Required for Findings F1 through F4 El Dorado County Museum Administrator El Dorado County Department of General Services El Dorado County Board of Supervisors Responses Required for Recommendations R1 through R4 El Dorado County Museum Administrator El Dorado County Department of General Services El Dorado County Board of Supervisors 140 PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND PROPERTY COMMITTEE Library (General Services) Building 160 Placerville Reason for the Report The Grand Jury selected the Library (General Services) Building 160 as one of its general reviews for 2002/2003. Scope of the Investigation The members of the Grand Jury: · Made an unannounced visit to the Library and General Services Complex on January 16, 2003; · Were guided on an extensive tour of the facilities by the Administrative Technician, Store Keeper II, Assistant Coordinator, and Library Director; · Inspected the facilities for cleanliness, neatness, and compliance to safety regulations; · Reviewed previous Grand Jury reports for year’s 1999/2000, 2000/2001 and 2001/2002 and found no findings or recommendations pertaining to this building.
• CM17
  The Grand Jury commends the Senior Day-Care Staff for apparent outstanding job performance. The staff appears to be competent, courteous and caring to the seniors. Responses Required for Findings F1 through F4 El Dorado County Board of Supervisors El Dorado County Department of General Services El Dorado County Department of Community Services Responses Required for Recommendations R1 through R3 El Dorado County Board of Supervisors El Dorado County Department of General Services El Dorado County Department of Community Services 147 PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND PROPERTY COMMITTEE Superior Court – Building 321 3221 Cameron Park Dr. Cameron Park Reason for the Report The Grand Jury selected the Superior Court - Cameron Park as a general review for 2002/2003. Scope of the Investigation The members of the Grand Jury: · Made unannounced visits to the Superior Court – Cameron Park on December 12, 2002 and March 24, 2003; · Toured the facilities and grounds with the Clerk and the Bailiff ; · Was briefed on the various judicial operations of the facility; · Inspected the building and grounds; · Spoke informally with various staff members; · Reviewed previous Grand Jury reports and found no findings or recommendations for year’s 1999/2000, 2000/2001 and 2001/2002.