📋
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.

Shasta County Grand Jury • 2008-2009

Mountain Gate Community Services District: Community Government

9 pages
View PDF View Full Original

Findings 13 findings

F1 Page 39
The Mountain Gate board was advised by its legal counsel that there was no conflict of interest in the hiring of the General Manager. The Grand Jury, however, determined there was the appearance of favoritism when the board lowered the employment standards and hired the former board member to be general manager.
F2 Page 39
Prior to the board implementing a policy on credit card usage, charges to the district’s credit card were incorrectly reported as fuel expenses when actually they were meals for employees. Although the bylaws allow for a per diem, there is no specific authorization in the bylaws for employees to charge meals on the district’s credit card.
F3 Page 39
After receiving training, board meetings attended by the Grand Jury were orderly.
F4 Page 34
Enterprise/non-enterprise: The district’s enterprise funds (from the sale of water and services) and non-enterprise funds (property taxes for fire protec tion) are no t separated in the district budget as recommended by Governmental Accounting Standards Board Statement No. 34.
F5 Page 34
Credit cards: The district has not a uthorized issuance of credit cards for use by its fire protection personnel. The lack of credit cards available to the fire department impedes the ability of fire personnel to purchase fuel and other needed items when responding to out-of-area fires. Although these responses eventually generate money, the department must have the means to sustain itself while working these fires.
F6 Page 34
Management: Three present and former board members reported to the Grand Jury that the current manager has technical field expertise but lacks administrative abilities.
F7 Page 34
Two departments: Although the present manager is head of the water and fire operations of the district, he has no expertise in the area of firefighting but depends on information provided by the part- time fire chief.
F8 Page 34
Board interactions: The board of directors v iolated the Brown Act on March 1 0, 2 009, b y discussing an agenda item during a break in its meeting. Board meetings attended by members of the Gra nd Jury were not conducted in accordance wit h Robert’s Rules of Order. Audience p articipation was not cont rolled, and audience outb ursts were tolerated. As a conseq uence of board infighti ng a recall petiti on was cir culated that re sulted in a c ost to the district of approximately $10,000.
F9 Page 34
Statement of Economic Interests (700 Form): The law requires that special dist ricts’ board members each m ust complete a 700 Form , which is public info rmation. The Grand Jury could not locate 700 Forms for some of the board members.
F10 Page 34
Policy & Procedures: The district’s policy and procedures manual is outdated and consists mainly of board resolutions, making it difficult to locate pertinent information.
F11 Page 34
Training: The general manager an d board m embers acknowledged that the y have not receive d training on how to perfor m their duties. District board mem bers and staff do not participate in an y association conferences, such as the Association of California Water Agencies or the California Special Districts Association. 34
F12 Page 35
Fire Department Manuals: Neither the fire department’s training manual nor the policy and procedures manual comprehensively guides the firefighters in understanding what is expected of them.
F13 Page 35
Infrastructure: Board members and the general manager stated to the Grand Jury that the district’s infrastructure is in “severe disrepair.” For example, the water pipeline contains asbestos, is very old and is prone to breaks.

Recommendations 3