Amador County Grand Jury • 2025-2026

2025-2026 Consolidated Grand Jury Report🗄️

Published: June 23, 2026 231 pages Consolidated Report
View Original PDF

Findings 66 findings

F1
The Council failed to hold public hearings in May 2025 and ensure a timely fiscal year 2025-2026 budget was adopted in June 2025 (per adopted financial policy), highlighting a significant failure in governance, financial oversight, and attention to fiduciary responsibilities.
F2
The city manager and finance manager failed to present the draft preliminary fiscal year 2025-2026 budget to the Finance Committee for its review and recommendations, violating Financial Policies.
F3
The Council authorized expenditures and approved contracts without following adopted Financial Policies.
F4
After nine months of employment, Council approved a significant city manager pay increase and augmented benefits, substantially exceeding the City’s adopted Fiscal Year 2024-2025 Salary Schedule with no proposed budget adjustment to cover this expenditure, violating the City’s Financial Policies.
F5
Council approved an enhanced severance and benefit package for the city manager to minimize turnover.
F6
The Finance Committee has not met since July 2024, at a time when oversight and advice on the City’s financial record keeping and budget matters have been critically needed.
F7
The City has experienced a multi-year breakdown in audits and resulting financial statements, with significant reporting delays from fiscal year 2018-2019 through fiscal 57 year 2021-2022 and a complete failure to report thereafter, violating its own financial policies and protocols.
F8
Years of Council failure to ensure the City’s financial audits and financial statements are completed annually creates a critical vulnerability to waste, fraud, and abuse, indicating a severe systemic failure and breach of fiduciary duties.
F9
The Financial Transactions Report due to the State Controller’s Office contains unaudited financial data.
F10
Incomplete implementation of recommendations from prior audits slowed the completion of subsequent audits and caused a number of internal control exceptions.
F11
Ongoing significant deficiency and/or material weakness in internal controls related to financial transactions resulted in the auditor issuing a fiscal year 2020-2021 modified audit opinion (financial statements may not be entirely accurate or reliable).
F12
Chronic delays and a failure to finalize financial audits since 2021 have severely compromised the City’s fiscal transparency and its ability to borrow funds.
F13
Council approved expedited bookkeeping and audit services because it was in the City’s best interest to bring the backlog of audits current as quickly as possible.
F14
Outstanding audit recommendations related to significant internal control weaknesses described in the fiscal year 2018-2019, 2019-2020, and 2020-2021 audit reports resulted in a decision to suspend formal audits for fiscal years 2021-2022 and 2022-2023, and replace with remedial, contracted bookkeeping services performed by an auditor, a material deviation from established municipal financial protocols.
F15
Neglect of interfund loan repayments since 2015 highlights a fundamental governance breakdown masking financial accuracy resulting in lack of transparency.
F16
Despite adopting a Debt Policy in 2018 with a policy goal to reduce the City’s sizable unfunded liability for OPEB, no action has been taken to address the unfunded debt obligation.
F17
The finance manager performs current duties in addition to daily transactional personnel functions and other operational tasks, which may lead to burnout and errors.
F18
High turnover in the city manager and finance manager positions impacted fiscal transparency, delayed the completion of audits, and the City’s ability to qualify for loans.
F19
High turnover in the city manager, finance manager, and other City staff positions leads to serious losses of institutional knowledge that hinders City operations. 58
F20
The Finance Department has relied upon a retired annuitant for multiple years to complete outstanding audits, indicating a failure to address the underlying staffing shortage that can significantly impact operations.
F21
Morale of City staff has greatly improved since the hire of the city manager and finance manager.
F22
The reliance on a retired annuitant to perform core functions over a multi-year period without a transition plan creates a dependency on one special hire, jeopardizing the retention of institutional knowledge.
F23
The City does not employ a dedicated Human Resource position to manage personnel paperwork, benefits, enrollment, and workers compensation, creating significant legal, financial, and liability risks for the City.
F24
The City lacks formal, written policies or procedures regarding recruitment, interview, selection, and centralized filing for personnel files.
F25
The City’s recruitment and hiring process for the most recent city manager position was characterized by a lack of fundamental documentation of the hiring process.
F26
The lack of a hiring policy, a dedicated Human Resources position, and adequate filing system contributes to an absence of administrative oversight.
F27
Council updated its Protocol Manual, replacing the prior version dating back to 2008.
F28
The Council and city manager have frequently bypassed or inconsistently applied established administrative and operational policies.
F29
The city manager frequently made decisions based on expediency over adopted City protocols, bypassing necessary financial oversight and the intended role of advisory bodies.
F30
The city manager presented a contract previously signed by the city manager, city attorney, and city clerk without Council approval, eight months after services started, violating City policies.
F31
Failure by Council and the city manager to address documented policy violations fosters an attitude that compliance is optional rather than mandatory.
F32
The public appreciates the tangible results and overall progress of city projects such as improvements to Howard Park infrastructure and completion of the amphitheater at Picnic Hill.
F33
The city attorney performs tasks—without Council direction—that could be handled by internal staff or a Council subcommittee, i.e., revising the protocol manual. 59
F34
Despite public and councilmember criticisms of rising legal fees and requests to review itemized attorney invoices, Council failed to provide rigorous, consistent, proactive scrutiny of monthly invoices. This systemic failure in oversight allowed expenses to exceed budgeted amounts without appropriate authorization or adequate justification.
F35
There is a lack of transparency to the public and Council regarding spending on legal services, specifically general municipal and estimated cost vs actual.
F36
There are no cost control measures in place to preauthorize or closely track high legal expenditures, and increased oversight is needed to control these expenses.
F37
The city manager failed to uphold fairness and accountability by responding to verbal requests from some councilmembers to include items on future meeting agendas while requiring others to provide such requests in writing, in violation of agendizing rules contained in the 2008 Protocol Manual.
F38
Staff reports are missing from many Council meeting agenda packets, a violation of adopted policy.
F39
Information to be provided in staff reports, such as who requested the agenda item, fiscal impact, and the specific action the Council is asked to take, has not been consistently presented in the agenda.
F40
The city manager fails to provide current financial data to Council as required by policy as part of Council meeting agenda packets despite numerous requests from councilmembers and the public.
F41
A culture of non-responsiveness exists during Council meetings where the city manager and the mayor ignore repeated and frequent information requests from councilmembers and the public.
F42
Council meeting minutes were not posted or provided to the public for September, October, November, and December 2025 (as of March 31, 2026).
F43
The City demonstrates a high level of transparency by publishing Council meeting audio/video to the City’s YouTube channel within 24 hours of adjournment.
F44
Oral presentations made during Council meetings typically do not include written presentation materials or staff reports. The absence of visual aids (e.g. PowerPoint slides or written handouts) makes it difficult for attendees and online viewers to fully comprehend, analyze, and retain presentation information and hampers transparency.
F45
The city manager does not provide regular, comprehensive reports concerning all aspects of City operations to Council as required in protocol manual. 60
F46
The Council lacks policy mechanisms and enforcement tools to detect or prevent serial "daisy-chain" violations.
F47
The City has no formal, mandatory onboarding or ongoing training program for elected officials.
F48
The absence of training, particularly on the code of conduct, meeting protocols, and financial management, contributes to continued lack of decorum on the dais and impacts City operations.
F49
The City has kept inconsistent and incomplete training records.
F50
The lack of financial training by elected officials and the city manager has contributed to a failure in exercising proper fiduciary control over City funds, exemplified by weak internal controls, poor file management, and inconsistent record keeping.
F51
During Council meetings, the mayor has ignored councilmember calls for a Point of Order, violating City policy and causing disruption and conflict among meeting participants.
F52
During Council meetings, the councilmembers frequently talk over each other, engage in arguments, use inappropriate language, or mutter asides that disrupt deliberations, without consequences, violating the adopted Protocol Manual and Code of Ethics.
F53
During public comments, the public has requested the Council “do better,” “stop bickering,” and “do the job you were elected to do,” but the Council has failed to respond to these requests. The rampant lack of civility evident at most Council meetings undermines Council credibility and constituents’ trust in their local government.
F54
Councilmembers have used print and social media to vent about alleged inappropriate Council activities instead of discussing the issues during public meetings, in part because the mayor cut short their opportunities to speak in public meetings.
F55
Council’s open animosity, personal attacks, and demonstrated lack of decorum on social media and on the dais, fails to set an example of credible leadership and civility to the community.
F56
When addressed, breaches of protocol are often treated with the most extreme measures (censure or litigation) rather than a progressive, tiered approach to corrective action, i.e. first using verbal warnings, written warnings, fines, or reprimands that would be much less inflammatory and costly.
F57
A lack of decorum on the dais, constant bickering, and disrespectful language from councilmembers have turned public meetings into a public embarrassment, discouraging members of the public from engaging in City government. 61
F58
There is no consistent process for tracking and reporting to the public the implementation status of approved Council motions.
F59
Council and city manager do recognize employee and staff contributions during public meetings.
F60
Council approved invoices for contracts the city manager had signed that substantially exceeded his authorization limit of $15,000 for non-emergency spending with no reprimand or consequences for the violation.
F18-1
Condition: At June 30, 2018, we noted the general fund had a deficit fund balance of $797,514, the Fire Service Impact Fee Fund had a $1,298,772 deficit fund balance, the Government Impact Fees fund had a deficit fund balance of $606,972, the Rail Road Depot fund had a deficit fund balance of $27,000 and the Safer Grant fund had a deficit fund balance of $9,913. We noted improvement in the Sewer Capital Fund with an increase of net position of $654,513 and ending accumulated deficit of $2,975,875. The Sewer Tertiary Fund had an increase in net position during the 2017/19 fiscal year of $1,822 and an ending accumulated deficit of $467,306. We have noted these conditions in prior audits.
F18-2
Condition: We noted the City had a lack of segregation of duties, as one person is capable of handling all aspects of processing certain transactions from beginning to end. A lack of segregation of duties increases the risk of potential error or irregularities occurring without being detected; however, due to a limited number of personnel in the finance department as a result of downsizing an adequate segregation of duties is not possible without incurring additional costs. We have noted this finding in prior audits.
F18-3
Condition: During our testing of sewer commercial accounts, we noted the City is charging based on the number of fixtures, however the City did not have files for commercial properties documenting the number of fixtures so that we could recalculate the charges. We noted this condition in prior audits.
F18-4
Condition: During our testing of the prior year deposit liability account, we noted Ryland (now Axios) pulled building permits, however, the City did not adjust their deposit liability balance to reduce the liability for the 2016/17 FY activity.
F18-5
Condition: During our prior year testing of health insurance and in lieu payments, we noted there were some employees with insurance deduction over withheld/under withheld from their paychecks. We also noted on the health in lieu payouts some of the employees were also overpaid/underpaid. We also noted this condition in the prior audit.
F18-6
Condition: During our testing of the SAFER federal grant we noted the following conditions:  A related party to the SAFER grant volunteer coordinator is authorizing the timesheets as supervisor.  The volunteer coordinator is submitting the invoices to the granting agency for reimbursement and no receivable is recorded in the general ledger by the finance department.  The invoice submitted to the grant agency to reimburse the period of April 2018 through September 2018 was submitted in January 2019 prior to the City paying for the services rendered for that period. We did not see language in the grant agreement that advances were allowed under the program.  While it appears the City Manager and the Mayor appointed the volunteer coordinator to run the SAFER grant program, the City did not adopt a job description for the position that would have included a rate of pay, if this was a full-time or part-time position and benefits package.  We noted the volunteer coordinator was submitting reimbursement requests for fringe benefits. The payments were being made directly to the volunteer coordinator. The grant agreement allowed for the cost of fringe benefits for things such as social security, Medicare, health insurance and worker’s compensation to be included as a reimbursable expense to the City. There was no mention in the grant agreement that the grant would pay the volunteer coordinator for fringe benefits in lieu of the volunteer coordinator receiving these benefits.  We noted the volunteer coordinator might have worked over 1,000 hours during the 2017/18 fiscal year for this program and was not enrolled in the City’s retirement program with CalPERS. Under the terms of the contract between the City and CalPERS retirement program, if an employee works over 1,000 hours in a fiscal year then they should be enrolled as a member of CalPERS. Because the grant coordinator was recording salary and not actual hours worked on several timesheets it is not certain that the 1,000 hours was exceeded.

Recommendations 31