Mendocino County Grand Jury • 2007-2008 • Agency Response
Response to: Mendocino County Board of Supervisors

Combined Responses From:

Published: April 17, 2008 33 pages
View Original PDF

Findings and Recommendations 52 findings

F1
Mendocino County Supervisors must reside and be present for constituents in their districts as part of their job. They must also travel regularly to scheduled meetings in Ukiah. They are reimbursed for travel to the BOS chambers in Ukiah and for other mileage traveled on county business. Response: (Board of Supervisors) The Mendocino County Board of Supervisors (Board) agrees with this finding. Response: (Chief Executive Officer) The Mendocino County Chief Executive Officer (CEO) agrees with this finding.
No recommendations for this finding
F2
Supervisors have very different levels of travel expense largely depending on the district each one represents and where they live. Round-trip home-to-Ukiah travel requires fewer than 10 miles for some supervisors and more than 100 miles for others. Travel in some districts is on major highways; in other areas, it can require the use of a 4-wheel-drive vehicle. Given these variations, establishing an equitable reimbursement policy has been difficult. Response: (Board of Supervisors) The Board agrees with the first three sentences of this finding. The Board does not agree with the last sentence, which is conclusionary. Response: (Chief Executive Officer) The CEO agrees with the first three sentences of this finding. The CEO does not agree with the last sentence, which is conclusionary.
No recommendations for this finding
F3
Several key findings of the 2006 Grand Jury were confirmed by the 2007 Grand Jury in an independent inquiry into the BOS Travel and Meal Policy and reimbursement claims: • the Fourth and Fifth District Supervisors failed to adhere to the BOS Travel Policy governing reimbursement for in-county travel; 3 The text of Penal Code 932 may be viewed with this report on the Grand Jury website www.co.mendocino.ca.us/grandjury 1st District: Michael Delbar; 2nd District: Jim Wattenburger; 3rd District: John Pinches (previously Hal Wagenet); 4th District: Kendall Smith (previously Patti Campbell); 5th District: David Colfax. COMBINED RESPONSES FROM: Board of Supervisors (Collective) Board of Supervisors (Individual) Chief Executive Officer Auditor-Controller District Attorney Clerk of the Board • the COB was responsible for processing and authorizing all BOS reimbursement claims before forwarding them to the Auditor’s Office for payment; • the COB is directly subordinate to the BOS and is an at-will employee. This is the only case in the County where a subordinate has been vested with the power to authorize reimbursement of personal expenses submitted by a superior; • the BOS travel claim form (Form No. A/C-06) states clearly that signing it certifies “under penalty of perjury that the within claim and the items therein set out are true and correct.” Both the COB and the claimant Supervisor are currently required to sign a completed form before it is forwarded to the Auditor’s Office for payment. Response: (Board of Supervisors) The Board disagrees with the finding in the first bullet point in that it has no direct knowledge of individual Board members adherence to the BOS Travel Policy, but assumes that all Board members comply with County policies. The Board agrees with the second bullet point to the extent it defines the role of the Clerk of the Board. The Auditor exercises authority for the final approval of all reimbursement of claims. The Board agrees with the first sentence of the third bullet point, but has no knowledge regarding this being the only such arrangement in the County. The Board agrees with the fourth bullet. Response: (Current Fourth District Supervisor) I disagree wholly or partially with the Finding. Disagree to the extent that the Fourth District Supervisor did adhere to the reimbursement policy and practice that was in place as of 1/1/05 and I have no knowledge as to the adherence of same by the Fifth District Supervisor. Cannot agree or disagree with sentence two as I do not know if there are subordinates that authorize travel claims in the County. Disagree in part with section two as the BOS travel policy in place in 2005-06 references ‘a confirming travel document’ as required by the auditor. It does not state form No. A/C 06 be used and other forms have been used to record mileage and other expenses. Response: (Current Fifth District Supervisor) I agree with the Finding. Response: (Chief Executive Officer) The CEO disagrees with the finding in the first bullet point in that he has no direct knowledge of individual Board members adherence to the BOS Travel Policy, but assumes that all Board members comply with County policies. The CEO agrees with the second bullet point. The CEO agrees with the first sentence of the third bullet point, but has no knowledge regarding this being the only such arrangement in the County. The CEO agrees with the fourth bullet. 1st District: Michael Delbar; 2nd District: Jim Wattenburger; 3rd District: John Pinches (previously Hal Wagenet); 4th District: Kendall Smith (previously Patti Campbell); 5th District: David Colfax. COMBINED RESPONSES FROM: Board of Supervisors (Collective) Board of Supervisors (Individual) Chief Executive Officer Auditor-Controller District Attorney Clerk of the Board Response: (Auditor-Controller) I disagree wholly or partially with the Finding. I have no direct knowledge of the Fourth and Fifth District Supervisors’ failure to adhere to the BOS Travel Policy. Response: (Clerk of the Board) I disagree partially with Finding No. 3: The Clerk of the Board has had no cause to question the validity of travel charges as presented for payment by either the Fourth or Fifth District Supervisors. The Clerk of the Board is responsible for verifying claims for reimbursement are consistent with the Board’s adopted policy, and for processing and signing all BOS reimbursement claims prior to submitting them to the Auditor’s Office for payment authorization. (Reference Mendocino County Policy No. Travel and Meal Policy, which states under section No. 1.10 “…the County Auditor-Controller shall be the final approving authority regarding reimbursement for any expense.”) The Clerk of the Board position is a department head level position appointed by the Board of Supervisors. The claimant and the COB are required to sign the completed travel reimbursement claim. Once the form has been signed and dollar amounts verified, the form is then forwarded to the Auditor’s Office for final authorization and payment. (Until the release of the Grand Jury Report, it was not known by the Clerk that the policy was interpreted by some as a “per diem” policy, and actual claimed expenses were not incurred,)
No recommendations for this finding
F4
The 2007 Grand Jury received and reviewed the required responses from the BOS and the CEO to Findings and Recommendations included in the 2006 Grand Jury BOS Travel Policy Report.4 There were material discrepancies between the BOS and CEO responses to Findings 18 and 19, which relate to the COB’s responsibility for authorizing the Supervisor’s expense claims. • Regarding Finding 18: The CEO’s Office agreed that “…The Clerk of the Board processes and authorizes all BOS reimbursement claims and forwards them to the Auditor’s Office for payment.” The BOS agreed that “…the COB processes claims for reimbursement and forwards them to the Auditor’s Office,” but noted that “…The Auditor however, exercises authority for final approval of all reimbursement claims pursuant to adopted policies.” • Regarding Finding 19: The CEO’s Office agreed that “…The Clerk of the Board is directly subordinate to the BOS and is an at-will employee. This is the only case in the County where a subordinate is vested with the power to authorize personal expenses submitted by a superior.” The BOS response “…agrees with this Finding to the extent that the Clerk is directly subordinate to the BOS and is an at-will employee.” However, the BOS response states that “…the Clerk does not have the vested authority to authorize 4 The report and responses are published on the Grand Jury website www.co.mendocino.ca.us/grandjury 1st District: Michael Delbar; 2nd District: Jim Wattenburger; 3rd District: John Pinches (previously Hal Wagenet); 4th District: Kendall Smith (previously Patti Campbell); 5th District: David Colfax. COMBINED RESPONSES FROM: Board of Supervisors (Collective) Board of Supervisors (Individual) Chief Executive Officer Auditor-Controller District Attorney Clerk of the Board personal expenses of individual board members. The authority to authorize expenses is the responsibility of the Auditor.” Response: (Board of Supervisors) The Board agrees with this finding regarding the difference in responses from the Board and the CEO to last year’s Grand Jury report. Response: (Chief Executive Officer) The CEO agrees with this finding regarding the difference in responses from the Board and the CEO to last year’s Grand Jury report, with clarification that the quote labeling the County Auditor-Controller as the final approving authority regarding reimbursement for any expense is taken from County Policy #18, which governs County employee travel, not Board travel. Response: (Auditor-Controller) I disagree wholly or partially with the Finding. There was an assumption on the part of the Auditor-Controller that the Clerk of the Board, in authorizing the payments to Supervisors, was obtaining the necessary information and backup in order to do so. Claim forms were not submitted to this office in such a way that we could verify the accuracy of the claim. Response: (Clerk of the Board) I agree with Finding No. 4 in that the 2006 responses from the CEO and BOS differ. I agree with the BOS responses to findings No. 18 and 19 of the 2006 Grand Jury report. The Auditor is the Chief Financial Officer of the County and supervises the accounting practices of various organizations. Mendocino County Policy No. Travel and Meal Policy, states under section No. 1.10 “…the County Auditor-Controller shall be the final approving authority regarding reimbursement for any expense”. The Clerk of the Board office receives Board members expense claims, verifies the claimed amounts, and processes the claim pursuant to the Board’s adopted policy. If discrepancies are detected, the claims are returned to the claimant for further attention. Once the claim has been processed for reimbursement, it is transmitted to the Auditor’s Office for final authorization and payment.
No recommendations for this finding
F5
The BOS and (former) CEO both agreed to implement 2006 Recommendation 3, that “…Supervisors submit all BOS authorized travel and other reimbursement claims directly to the County Auditor, rather than the Clerk of the Board Office for final approval. The COB will continue to serve an administrative function in preparing the documents.” Response: (Board of Supervisors) The Board agrees with this finding. Response: (Chief Executive Officer) The CEO agrees with this finding. 1st District: Michael Delbar; 2nd District: Jim Wattenburger; 3rd District: John Pinches (previously Hal Wagenet); 4th District: Kendall Smith (previously Patti Campbell); 5th District: David Colfax. COMBINED RESPONSES FROM: Board of Supervisors (Collective) Board of Supervisors (Individual) Chief Executive Officer Auditor-Controller District Attorney Clerk of the Board Response: (Clerk of the Board) I agree with Finding No. 5.
No recommendations for this finding
F6
As of March 2008, the COB continues to act as approving manager for the BOS Travel expense reimbursement claims. She is still the only employee in the County who approves her managers’ reimbursement claims. The current CEO is not moving forward to transfer authorization of BOS Travel reimbursement claims from the COB to the Auditor’s Office. Response: (Board of Supervisors) The Board disagrees with this finding in that the Board has asked the current CEO to review and establish a revised process for submitting, authorizing and paying reimbursement claims for Board Members. Response: (Chief Executive Officer) The CEO disagrees with this finding in that he is reviewing the situation and CEO staff is working with the Auditor-Controller to establish a revised process for submitting, authorizing, and paying reimbursement claims for Board members. Response: (Clerk of the Board) I disagree partially with Finding No. 6 (see above responses to Finding Nos. 4 and 5). The Clerk of the Board is responsible for processing the claims and verifying claims against the Board’s adopted policy, however, the final authority for payment authorization rests with the Auditor/Controller.
No recommendations for this finding
F7
The 2006 Grand Jury documented violations to the following sections of the BOS Travel Policy that was effective through June 2007: • Section A (2) (d): “Supervisors with meetings “back-to-back” may elect to stay overnight rather than drive back and forth and will be reimbursed not to exceed the mileage rate that would have been charged for travel.” • Section A (3): “Attendance at social and other meetings, which the member would attend regardless of his/her Supervisory position are not reimbursable. Attendance at retirement or similar functions will not be reimbursed unless the Board has requested a member to attend as their representative.” • Section B (5): “Board members will be reimbursed for official travel to functions or organizations of which the County or an individual Supervisor is an official member. If a Board member wishes reimbursement for meetings for which he or the County is not a member, said reimbursement would have to be determined by a majority vote of the Board of Supervisors.” Response: (Board of Supervisors) The Board neither agrees nor disagrees with this finding as it has no direct knowledge of information utilized by the Grand Jury. 1st District: Michael Delbar; 2nd District: Jim Wattenburger; 3rd District: John Pinches (previously Hal Wagenet); 4th District: Kendall Smith (previously Patti Campbell); 5th District: David Colfax. COMBINED RESPONSES FROM: Board of Supervisors (Collective) Board of Supervisors (Individual) Chief Executive Officer Auditor-Controller District Attorney Clerk of the Board Response: (Chief Executive Officer) The CEO neither agrees nor disagrees with this finding as he has no direct knowledge of the information utilized by the Grand Jury.
No recommendations for this finding
F8
The 2007 Grand Jury confirmed the 2006 finding that in the case of the Fourth District Supervisor, an incorrect interpretation of the travel policy as a “per diem” resulted in claims for reimbursement when no miles were actually traveled and no cost was incurred for overnight lodging. Response: (Current Fourth District Supervisor) I disagree wholly or partially with the Finding. I agree this was the finding however I disagree with the finding and how it was arrived at. The Fourth District Supervisor incurred more expenses for travel than were submitted or reimbursed.
No recommendations for this finding
F9
When requested by the 2006 Grand Jury to present travel diaries, journals, receipts, or other original evidence of meetings and travel, the Fourth District Supervisor first stated that she had forgotten to bring them and then said that she did not maintain such records. She informed the 2007 Grand Jury that she did not and does not maintain an engagement calendar to record travel and business-related appointments. Response: (Current Fourth District Supervisor) I disagree wholly or partially with the Finding. The Fourth District Supervisor stated information was not retained for this entire period nor was it required to be. Additionally, the Supervisor offered to attempt to provide information regarding specific dates if requested to do so. Specific date information was not requested.
No recommendations for this finding
F10
The County Auditor could only estimate the amount of overpayments to the Fourth District Supervisor through November 2006 because the Fourth District Supervisor did not support her travel claims with lodging receipts and documentation of dates, destinations and County business purpose of her travel expenditures. Response: (Current Fourth District Supervisor) I disagree wholly or partially with the Finding. Lodging receipts were not required under the policy implementation of the BOS travel policy when I assumed office in 2005. Additionally, dates, destinations and business purpose of travel were sufficient for the previous Auditor to reimburse the claims. In several instances the Fourth District Supervisor provided more detailed documentation of travel than was provided in claims submitted by other supervisors during a similar time frame. Response: (Auditor-Controller) I agree with the Finding. 1st District: Michael Delbar; 2nd District: Jim Wattenburger; 3rd District: John Pinches (previously Hal Wagenet); 4th District: Kendall Smith (previously Patti Campbell); 5th District: David Colfax. COMBINED RESPONSES FROM: Board of Supervisors (Collective) Board of Supervisors (Individual) Chief Executive Officer Auditor-Controller District Attorney Clerk of the Board
No recommendations for this finding
F11
In lieu of accurate records, the Fourth District Supervisor proposed, to the 2006 Grand Jury and to the Auditor, a formula to estimate what percentage of her mileage claims had actually been driven. Applying this formula, 27% of the mileage for which the Supervisor had been reimbursed was not actually traveled. Response: (Current Fourth District Supervisor) I disagree wholly or partially with the Finding. The Fourth District Supervisor did not submit a formula to estimate mileage in lieu of accurate records. The Fourth District Supervisor submitted travel claims consistent with the travel policy in 2005-2006 and consistent with those of her immediate predecessor. The Grand Jury suggested a formula be used to address their concerns. This was prior to an actual review of past records and the Clerk of the Board’s memo stating the past practice as evidenced by those records. Response: (Auditor-Controller) I disagree wholly or partially with the Finding. I have no direct knowledge of the procedure by which a formula was arrived at. The Grand Jury asked me to apply a formula they had determined.
No recommendations for this finding
F12
The formula was based on travel records submitted to the Auditor in 2007 in response to the 2006 Grand Jury travel investigation. The formula was rejected by the Grand Jury as an inaccurate representation of the undocumented travel that was claimed between January 2005 and November 2006 when the Supervisor was claiming a “per diem” for each day spent in Ukiah. Response: (Current Fourth District Supervisor) I disagree wholly or partially with the Finding. The formula referenced was suggested by a Grand Jury member to the Fourth District Supervisor to resolve differences of opinion as to the travel policy interpretation. The Fourth District Supervisor has no knowledge as to a rejection of the formula by the Grand Jury. Response: (Auditor-Controller) I disagree wholly or partially with the Finding. I have no direct knowledge of the Grand Jury’s rejection of the formula. Finding 13 states this.
No recommendations for this finding
F13
The Auditor was not made aware of the Grand Jury’s rejection of the formula or of the reason for this rejection. Lacking any substantive documentation of the expense claims, she estimated that the Fourth District Supervisor owed the County at least $3,676. 1st District: Michael Delbar; 2nd District: Jim Wattenburger; 3rd District: John Pinches (previously Hal Wagenet); 4th District: Kendall Smith (previously Patti Campbell); 5th District: David Colfax. COMBINED RESPONSES FROM: Board of Supervisors (Collective) Board of Supervisors (Individual) Chief Executive Officer Auditor-Controller District Attorney Clerk of the Board Response: (Current Fourth District Supervisor) I disagree wholly or partially with the Finding. I have no knowledge of communication between the Auditor and the Grand Jury. Response: (Auditor-Controller) I agree with the Finding.
No recommendations for this finding
F14
The Fourth District Supervisor then submitted newly found expense documentation to the Auditor, including copies of 15 monthly rent checks of $100 each to rent a room in a private home for use when County business required her to stay in Ukiah. Response: (Current Fourth District Supervisor) I disagree wholly or partially with the Finding. Documents were not ’newly found’. The auditor asked for additional travel documentation hereto fore not required. Response: (Auditor-Controller) I agree with the Finding.
No recommendations for this finding
F15
The rental period was from June 2005 through August 2006. The Auditor noted that overnight stays during this time should be reimbursed at the rate of $3.33/day (the pro-rated daily lodging cost at $100/30) rather than on the basis of round-trip mileage. Response: (Current Fourth District Supervisor) I disagree wholly or partially with the Finding. This was the Auditor’s assessment when attempting to arrive at an amount that may have been overpaid to the Fourth District Supervisor. Response: (Auditor-Controller) I agree with the Finding.
No recommendations for this finding
F16
On the basis of the additional documentation submitted by the Fourth District Supervisor, the Auditor reduced the amount owed from $3676 to $3087. Response: (Current Fourth District Supervisor) I disagree wholly or partially with the Finding. The amount referenced was outlined in a memo from the auditor dated 6/26/07. It clearly states “may” have been overpaid. It also states that a historical analysis of past claims was not done. It is not a comprehensive audit of the Fourth District Supervisor’s claims, the immediate past Fourth District Supervisor or any other supervisor’s claims. Response: (Auditor-Controller) I agree with the Finding. 1st District: Michael Delbar; 2nd District: Jim Wattenburger; 3rd District: John Pinches (previously Hal Wagenet); 4th District: Kendall Smith (previously Patti Campbell); 5th District: David Colfax. COMBINED RESPONSES FROM: Board of Supervisors (Collective) Board of Supervisors (Individual) Chief Executive Officer Auditor-Controller District Attorney Clerk of the Board
No recommendations for this finding
F17
The Fourth District Supervisor acknowledged having received the overpayment. In a memo to the Auditor, dated June 20, 2007, she stated: “…The Mendocino County Grand Jury has asked that I pay to the County of Mendocino an amount you determine to be appropriate under your interpretation of the Board of Supervisors Travel and Meal Policy.” “…While I do not feel your initial methodology included all pertinent factors, I am committed to concluding this matter by June 28, 2007, in a manner satisfactory to you and to the Grand Jury.” Response: (Current Fourth District Supervisor) I disagree wholly or partially with the Finding. The statement as quoted does not acknowledge receiving an overpayment. Committing to concluding a matter without review of-or absent pertinent documents and analysis of- past practice, would be wrong. The documents to conclude this matter expeditiously are available. Response: (Auditor-Controller) I agree with the Finding.
No recommendations for this finding
F18
Based on this commitment, the 2006-07 Grand Jury Report states that it “…anticipated that the funds would be recovered.”
No recommendations for this finding
F19
When the funds had not been repaid by the June 28, 2007, deadline, the 2006 Grand Jury instituted legal action under the provisions of Penal Code Section (PC) 932 ordering the DA to recover $3,087 in overpayments made by the County to the Fourth District Supervisor. Response: (Current Fourth District Supervisor) I disagree wholly or partially with the Finding. The action did occur as listed but I do not believe an overpayment occurred. The Fourth District Supervisor incurred more costs in conducting County business during the timeframe listed than were submitted for reimbursement. Response: (District Attorney) I agree with the Finding. 1st District: Michael Delbar; 2nd District: Jim Wattenburger; 3rd District: John Pinches (previously Hal Wagenet); 4th District: Kendall Smith (previously Patti Campbell); 5th District: David Colfax. COMBINED RESPONSES FROM: Board of Supervisors (Collective) Board of Supervisors (Individual) Chief Executive Officer Auditor-Controller District Attorney Clerk of the Board
No recommendations for this finding
F20
PC 932 is the only remedy available to a Grand Jury that establishes cause to seek repayment of public funds.5 Response: (District Attorney) I disagree wholly or partially with the Finding.
No recommendations for this finding
F21
The District Attorney declined to investigate the matter and suggested that the Grand Jury seek action in Small Claims Court.6 Response: (District Attorney) I disagree wholly or partially with the Finding. Penal Code § 932 is not the only remedy available to the Grand Jury. The grand jury may use the Small Claims Court to collect the $3,087 they claim is owned to the County by Supervisor Smith. See response to Finding No. 22. Additional remedies available for misuse of public funds or falsifying expense claims are outlined in Government Code § 83232.4 as follows: Penalties for misuse of public resources or falsifying expense reports in violation of expense reporting polices may include, but are not limited to, the following: (a) The loss of reimbursement privileges. (b) Restitution to the local agency. (c) Civil penalties for misuse of public resources pursuant to §8314. (d) Prosecution for misuse of public resources, pursuant to Penal Code §424. My analysis of the available remedies is outlined in further detail in correspondence to the Grand Jury dated August 22, 2007. A copy is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit A. The Mendocino County Grand Jury Manual [Manual] provided to guide jurors makes no mention of Penal Code § 932 as a remedy available to the Grand Jury. Rather, the manual directs the Grand Jury as follows: The primary duty of the regular Grand Jury is to investigate the functions of city and county government agencies, schools, and districts. . . . At the end of its term, the Grand Jury publishes recommendations in a report that is distributed to public officials, libraries, and the news media, and listed on the Grand Jury’s website . . . Penal Code 932 may be reviewed with the electronic version of this report at www.co.mendocino.ca.us/grandjury 6 The District Attorney’s response to the Grand Jury’s 932 Order may be reviewed with the electronic version of this report at www.co.mendocino.ca.us/grandjury 1st District: Michael Delbar; 2nd District: Jim Wattenburger; 3rd District: John Pinches (previously Hal Wagenet); 4th District: Kendall Smith (previously Patti Campbell); 5th District: David Colfax. COMBINED RESPONSES FROM: Board of Supervisors (Collective) Board of Supervisors (Individual) Chief Executive Officer Auditor-Controller District Attorney Clerk of the Board See also Board of Retirement of the Santa Barbara County Employees’ Retirement System v. Santa Barbara County Grand Jury (1997) 58 Cal. App. 4th 1185, 1191. Investigation Reports and recommendations are the purview of the Grand Jury; not prosecutions. It should be further observed that only 3 cases have referenced Penal Code § 932: they occurred in 1901, 1903 and 1941. I was informed that grand jury members attended a California Grand Jurors Association training seminar and learned that the members were not familiar with the use of Penal Code § 932. A history of Mendocino County Grand Jury Investigations since 1982 is included with the Grand Jury Manual. There have been no instances of the Grand Jury ordering the District Attorney to institute an action pursuant to Penal Code § 932. The District Attorney is the legal advisor to the Grand Jury. Government Code § 26501; Manual at 39. While the mandatory language of Penal Code § 932 appears to dictate that the District Attorney must carry out the directives of the Grand Jury, other factors indicate that a body of citizens, acting as a quasi-judicial entity, cannot overrule the crime charging discretion and ethical duties of the District Attorney. The public prosecutor is vested with discretion in deciding whether to prosecute. Govt C §§ 26500, 26501, People v. Gephart (1979 Cal.App.3d Dist) 93 Cal. App. 3d 989, California Criminal Law Procedure and Practice (CEB 2008) § 7.11. No one may institute criminal proceedings without the concurrence, approval, or authorization of the district attorney. Hicks v. Board of Supervisors (2977, Cal App 4th dist) 69 Cal. App. 3d
No recommendations for this finding
F22
A Grand Jury has no statutory or other authority to seek action in Small Claims Court. Response: (District Attorney) I disagree wholly or partially with the Finding. The Grand Jury has standing to sue in small claims court. The Small Claims Court, A Guide to Its Practical Use (California Dept. of Consumer Affairs) at 9. A legal entity “can be represented by a regular employee, an officer, or a director . . .” Id. Legal Intern Nicola Gladitz confirmed this information on June 12, 2008, in a conversation with small claims advisor Dennis O’Brien (866) 820-8663. 1st District: Michael Delbar; 2nd District: Jim Wattenburger; 3rd District: John Pinches (previously Hal Wagenet); 4th District: Kendall Smith (previously Patti Campbell); 5th District: David Colfax. COMBINED RESPONSES FROM: Board of Supervisors (Collective) Board of Supervisors (Individual) Chief Executive Officer Auditor-Controller District Attorney Clerk of the Board Precedent also confirms that a county grand jury does, in fact, have standing in the California small claims court. Board of Retirement of the Santa Barbara County Employees’ Retirement th System v. Santa Barbara County Grand Jury (1997) 58 Cal. App. 4 1185. Further, small claims courts have broad jurisdiction and complexity of issues does not affect their jurisdiction City and County of San Francisco v. Small Claims Court (1983) 141 Cal. App.3d 470.
No recommendations for this finding
F23
The funds due to Mendocino County remained unpaid when the 2007 Grand Jury was seated in July 2007. The new Panel elected to continue the BOS Travel Policy investigation due to the outstanding funds and the fact that inadequacies in the policies and procedures had not been addressed.
No recommendations for this finding
F24
The written BOS Travel Policy that was already in place in 2005 and remained in place through June 2007, and the current policy that took effect in January 2008, cover all reimbursable in-county travel. This includes in-county mileage and overnight stays when there are back-to-back meetings. Meals associated with in-county over-night stays are not covered under any of the BOS Travel Policies. Response: (Board of Supervisors) The Board agrees with this Finding. Response: (Current Fourth District Supervisor) I disagree wholly or partially with the Finding. The 2005 travel policy references management personnel reimbursement rates that are delineated in Mendocino County Policy #18. Also, other travel compensation is addressed by resolution. Response: (Chief Executive Officer) The CEO agrees with this finding. Response: (Auditor-Controller) I agree with the Finding.
No recommendations for this finding
F25
The Fourth District Supervisor stated that the Travel Policy in effect from 2005 through June 2007 was confusing and that she did not completely understand it. She further stated that she had interpreted the Travel Policy as a “per diem”, i.e., a fixed amount to which she was entitled whether or not she had either mileage or lodging expenses. Response: (Current Fourth District Supervisor) I disagree wholly or partially with the Finding. The 2005 BOS travel policy is not clearly worded. As an example, it does not state receipts are required for in-county travel, yet retroactively they have been requested of the Fourth 1st District: Michael Delbar; 2nd District: Jim Wattenburger; 3rd District: John Pinches (previously Hal Wagenet); 4th District: Kendall Smith (previously Patti Campbell); 5th District: David Colfax. COMBINED RESPONSES FROM: Board of Supervisors (Collective) Board of Supervisors (Individual) Chief Executive Officer Auditor-Controller District Attorney Clerk of the Board District Supervisor. The management policy clearly states receipts are not required under certain circumstances and, meals are also provided in-county under certain circumstances. My interpretation of the travel policy was that of my predecessor as the records reflect.
No recommendations for this finding
F26
The Fourth District Supervisor persisted in submitting travel claims according to her “per diem” interpretation even after discussing the Travel Policy with the former Auditor late in 2005 (her first year in office) and being told that it was incorrect. Response: (Current Fourth District Supervisor) I disagree wholly or partially with the Finding. I did not discuss the travel policy with the Auditor in late 2005.
No recommendations for this finding
F27
The 2007 Grand Jury confirmed that the Fourth District Supervisor claimed 22 round-trips in June of 2006 including 17 round-trips in 18 consecutive days. For the same month, she had paid monthly rent of $100 for a room in Ukiah for use as a bedroom “…as needed to do her job.” Response: (Current Fourth District Supervisor) I disagree wholly or partially with the Finding. The Fourth District did not submit claims for 22 round trips in June of 2006. Nor were there 17 round trips in 18 consecutive days submitted. This is incorrect as the records reflect. Response: (Auditor-Controller) I disagree wholly or partially with the Finding. My review of the travel claim for June of 2006 indicates 17 round trips in 19 consecutive days.
No recommendations for this finding
F28
The Fourth District Supervisor discussed her “per diem” interpretation with the former Auditor again in December 2006 and received the same answer. Response: (Current Fourth District Supervisor) I disagree wholly or partially with the Finding. The Fourth District Supervisor did not discuss the travel policy with the Auditor in December
No recommendations for this finding
F29
Under Section (A) (2) (d) of the Travel Policy (prior to June, 2007), if no miles are traveled and no cost is incurred for lodging, no reimbursement is permitted. Response: (Board of Supervisors) The policy language specifically states “(d) Supervisors with meetings “back to back” may elect to stay overnight rather than drive back and forth and will be reimbursed not to exceed the mileage rate that would have been charged for travel”. The policy speaks for itself. 1st District: Michael Delbar; 2nd District: Jim Wattenburger; 3rd District: John Pinches (previously Hal Wagenet); 4th District: Kendall Smith (previously Patti Campbell); 5th District: David Colfax. COMBINED RESPONSES FROM: Board of Supervisors (Collective) Board of Supervisors (Individual) Chief Executive Officer Auditor-Controller District Attorney Clerk of the Board Response: (Chief Executive Officer) The CEO agrees with this finding. Response: (Current Fourth District Supervisor) I disagree wholly or partially with the Finding. This is not what the policy states.
No recommendations for this finding
F30
Reimbursement is defined as repayment of funds actually spent. Response: (Board of Supervisors) The Board agrees with this finding. Response: (Chief Executive Officer) The CEO agrees with this finding. Response: (Current Fourth District Supervisor) I agree with the Finding.
No recommendations for this finding
F31
The 2007 Grand Jury observed no “confusion” as to this interpretation except on the part of the Fourth District Supervisor. When interviewed, all Supervisors acknowledged that reimbursement means being repaid money for funds actually expended in accordance with the Travel Policy. Response: (Board of Supervisors) The Board neither agrees nor disagrees with this finding in that it has no direct knowledge of the information utilized by the Grand Jury.
No recommendations for this finding
F32
Ethics training provided to the Supervisors by County Counsel includes the admonition that elected officials are required to know and abide by applicable reimbursement policies. Response: (Board of Supervisors) The Board agrees with this finding. Response: (Current First District Supervisor) I agree with the Finding. Response: (Current Second District Supervisor) I agree with this finding. I have attended the Ethics training provided by the County Counsel’s office and fully understand the reimbursement policies. 1st District: Michael Delbar; 2nd District: Jim Wattenburger; 3rd District: John Pinches (previously Hal Wagenet); 4th District: Kendall Smith (previously Patti Campbell); 5th District: David Colfax. COMBINED RESPONSES FROM: Board of Supervisors (Collective) Board of Supervisors (Individual) Chief Executive Officer Auditor-Controller District Attorney Clerk of the Board Response: (Current Third District Supervisor) Response: (Current Fourth District Supervisor) I agree with the Finding. Response: (Current Fifth District Supervisor) I agree with the Finding. Response: (Chief Executive Officer) The CEO agrees with this finding.
No recommendations for this finding
F33
Supervisors of the First, Second, Third and Fifth Districts and the former Fourth District Supervisor each indicated that they understood the meaning of the Travel Policies in effect for the period of 2005-2007. Each of them rejected the interpretation of the mileage allowance as a “per diem.” Each of them rejected the argument that mileage could be claimed when there had been no expense either for driving or for lodging. Response: (Current First District Supervisor) I agree with the Finding. Response: (Current Second District Supervisor) I agree with the Finding. Response: (Current Third District Supervisor) Response: (Current Fourth District Supervisor) I neither agree or disagree with this finding as I have no knowledge of what the individuals listed “indicated” they understood of BOS travel policies in discussions with the Grand Jury. Response: (Current Fifth District Supervisor) The Fifth District Supervisor neither agrees nor disagrees with this Finding as he has no knowledge of what the other four supervisors “indicated,” “understood,” or “rejected.”
No recommendations for this finding
F34
Review of the expense claims of all current Supervisors and two retired Supervisors revealed great variation both in the amount of travel expense claimed and in the level of documentation provided.
No recommendations for this finding
F35
Only the District One and District Two Supervisors routinely support their claims with receipts and by indicating the destination and business purpose of their travel. While most claims appear reasonable, other Supervisors provide little or no backup documentation. 1st District: Michael Delbar; 2nd District: Jim Wattenburger; 3rd District: John Pinches (previously Hal Wagenet); 4th District: Kendall Smith (previously Patti Campbell); 5th District: David Colfax. COMBINED RESPONSES FROM: Board of Supervisors (Collective) Board of Supervisors (Individual) Chief Executive Officer Auditor-Controller District Attorney Clerk of the Board Response: (Current First District Supervisor) I agree with the Finding. Response: (Current Second District Supervisor) I agree with the Finding.
No recommendations for this finding
F36
Supervisors for the First, Second and Third Districts did not claim any substantial weekend travel; the Fourth District Supervisor had some weekend travel and was unable to describe for the Grand Jury the county-related business purpose of the travel. Response: (Current First District Supervisor) I agree with the Finding. Response: (Current Second District Supervisor) I agree with this finding. I have relatively rare weekend business travel and when I have had such travel, I have and will continue to show receipts indicating destination and reason for such travel. Response: (Current Third District Supervisor) Response: (Current Fourth District Supervisor) I neither agree or disagree with this finding. I have limited knowledge of other supervisors travel. The Fourth District Supervisor provided information for weekend travel as well as weekday travel.
No recommendations for this finding
F37
The Fifth District Supervisor claimed extensive weekend travel compared with the other Supervisors. He declined to explain the purpose of this travel and refused to provide backup documentation until a subpoena was issued for his records. The subpoenaed documents did not support his travel claims. Response: (Current Fifth District Supervisor) Sentence 1. The Fifth District Supervisor neither agrees nor disagrees with this statement as he has no knowledge of the other four supervisors travel rates. Sentence 2. The Fifth District Supervisor disagrees with the first part of this statement as he spent approximately seven hours in several sessions of this and the previous Grand Jury discussing county travel policy and his travel. Both Grand Juries had been provided with copies of the Fifth District Supervisor’s Travel Reimbursement Auditor-Controller Form No. A/C-06. The presiding member of the first full Grand Jury interview, in reviewing these records commended the Fifth District Supervisor for the “accuracy” of these materials. Sentence 2. The Fifth District Supervisor disagrees with the second part of this statement as he “refused” nothing “until a subpoena was issued for his records.” The Fifth 1st District: Michael Delbar; 2nd District: Jim Wattenburger; 3rd District: John Pinches (previously Hal Wagenet); 4th District: Kendall Smith (previously Patti Campbell); 5th District: David Colfax. COMBINED RESPONSES FROM: Board of Supervisors (Collective) Board of Supervisors (Individual) Chief Executive Officer Auditor-Controller District Attorney Clerk of the Board District Supervisor requested that he be subpoenaed in order that his testimony would be heard by the full Grand Jury. The issued subpoena included a request that personal notebooks be provided and, after discussions with his attorney and the Chairman of the Grand Jury, they were. Sentence 3. The Fifth District Supervisor neither agrees or disagrees with this statement as he has no knowledge of what the Grand Jury was seeking, beyond sworn information provided in form No. A/C-06, that would “support” or “not support his travel claims.”
No recommendations for this finding
F38
Most of the notations provided by the Fifth District Supervisor in his original documentation do not show what business was discussed and where there is a notation of why the Supervisor was traveling, the notation typically shows attendance at social events, concerts, county fairs or political gatherings. Response: (Current Fifth District Supervisor) The Fifth District Supervisor disagrees with this Finding as it characterizes the information in the notebooks as “his original documentation,” which it was not. County policy does not reference, much less require “original” or “back-up” documentation: the terms are inventions of this Grand Jury. Every request that the Fifth District Supervisor submitted for reimbursement for travel expenses complied in full with County Travel policies and reporting procedures. Every request was approved by the County Auditor. Travel Reimbursement Forms No. A/C-06 were signed under penalty of perjury, are complete and accurate, and are available for public review.
No recommendations for this finding
F39
The Fifth District Supervisor traveled on 41 weekend days out of a possible 105 in 2005 and 36 weekend days out of a possible 105 in 2006. None of the other Supervisors claimed an amount of weekend travel even remotely in this range. Response: (Current Fifth District Supervisor) The Fifth District Supervisor agrees with Sentence 1 of this Finding. He neither agrees nor disagrees with Sentence 2 as he has no knowledge of the claims of the other supervisors.
No recommendations for this finding
F40
The Fifth District Supervisor’s travel on weekends was in excess of the total weekend travel by all other Supervisors combined for the same period. Response: (Current Fifth District Supervisor) The Fifth District Supervisor neither agrees nor disagrees with this Finding as he has no knowledge of the “total weekend travel by all other Supervisors combined.”
No recommendations for this finding
F41
The 2007 Grand Jury further determined that neither the Auditor’s Office, the CEO’s office, nor the COB’s office concurred with a “per diem” interpretation of Section (A)(2)(d) of the BOS Travel Policy. According to all of these respondents, when no miles were driven and no cost incurred for lodging, no reimbursement was due. 1st District: Michael Delbar; 2nd District: Jim Wattenburger; 3rd District: John Pinches (previously Hal Wagenet); 4th District: Kendall Smith (previously Patti Campbell); 5th District: David Colfax. COMBINED RESPONSES FROM: Board of Supervisors (Collective) Board of Supervisors (Individual) Chief Executive Officer Auditor-Controller District Attorney Clerk of the Board Response: (Chief Executive Officer) The CEO agrees with this finding with regard to the lack of concurrence by the CEO’s office on a per diem interpretation, but cannot speak to the views of the other offices. Response: (Auditor-Controller) I disagree wholly or partially with the Finding. I have no direct knowledge of the Chief Executive Office’s, or the Clerk of the Board’s concurrence with a “per diem” interpretation. Response: (Clerk of the Board) I agree with Finding No. 41.
No recommendations for this finding
F42
Current and past auditors have always required receipts to document in-county lodging expenses; the COB’s Office collected lodging receipts prior to 1999 but has not done so on a regular basis since 1999. Response: (Chief Executive Officer) The CEO neither agrees nor disagrees with this finding in that he has no direct knowledge of the information utilized by the Grand Jury. Response: (Auditor-Controller) I disagree wholly or partially with the Finding. I have no direct knowledge of the timeframe for which lodging receipts have, or have not, been submitted. Response: (Clerk of the Board) I disagree partially with Finding No. 42. Where lodging is claimed, a receipt is required, and provided, pursuant to County Policy. The Clerk of the Board office has consistently enforced and upheld this requirement pursuant to adopted policy. If claims for lodging were not accompanied by the required receipt, the claim was returned to the claimant for required documentation.
No recommendations for this finding
F43
The BOS Travel Policy that took effect in January 2008 requires receipts for reimbursement of all lodging costs and clearly specifies the documentation required for this and other expenses.7 Response: (Board of Supervisors) The Board agrees with this finding. The 2008 BOS Travel Policy may be viewed with the electronic version of this report at www.co.mendocino.ca.us/grandjury 1st District: Michael Delbar; 2nd District: Jim Wattenburger; 3rd District: John Pinches (previously Hal Wagenet); 4th District: Kendall Smith (previously Patti Campbell); 5th District: David Colfax. COMBINED RESPONSES FROM: Board of Supervisors (Collective) Board of Supervisors (Individual) Chief Executive Officer Auditor-Controller District Attorney Clerk of the Board Response: (Chief Executive Officer) The CEO agrees with this finding. Response: (Auditor-Controller) I disagree wholly or partially with the Finding. No policy is ever 100% clear, but the new Board of Supervisors Travel Policy makes great strides toward clarity for all concerned. Response: (Clerk of the Board) I agree with Finding No. 43.
No recommendations for this finding
F44
During 2007, the newly elected Third District Supervisor, who resides outside Laytonville, also claimed commute mileage reimbursement in order to offset the cost of a modest secondary residence in Willits. Response: (Current Third District Supervisor)
No recommendations for this finding
F45
The Travel Policies specify reimbursement for “overnight stays for back-to-back meetings.” No allowance is provided for the cost of maintaining a second residence. When the 2007 Grand Jury asked the Third District Supervisor whether he was prepared to repay the excess mileage reimbursement to the County, he readily agreed to do so. Response: (Board of Supervisors) The Board agrees with the first two sentences of this finding. The Board has no knowledge of interactions between the Grand Jury and individual Board members. Response: (Current Third District Supervisor) Response: (Chief Executive Officer) The CEO agrees with the first two sentences of this finding. The CEO has no knowledge of interactions between the Grand Jury and any Board member. Response: (Auditor-Controller) I agree with the Finding.
No recommendations for this finding
F46
When asked once again, by the 2007 Grand Jury to compensate the County for excessive reimbursement claims, the Fourth District Supervisor declined to make the repayment, as she had previously agreed to do. She stated that the policy was “confusing,” the practice was “common procedure,” and that she had many expenses as a result of her job including “tires, pet care and meals away from home.” 1st District: Michael Delbar; 2nd District: Jim Wattenburger; 3rd District: John Pinches (previously Hal Wagenet); 4th District: Kendall Smith (previously Patti Campbell); 5th District: David Colfax. COMBINED RESPONSES FROM: Board of Supervisors (Collective) Board of Supervisors (Individual) Chief Executive Officer Auditor-Controller District Attorney Clerk of the Board Response: (Current Fourth District Supervisor) I disagree wholly or partially with the Finding. The Fourth District Supervisor declined to repay the County for excessive reimbursement claims as they were not excessive. They were filed consistently in compliance with the travel policy in place when I assumed office, as the records reflect.
No recommendations for this finding
F47
Tires are among the car costs covered by the allowed government mileage rate for reimbursement for miles actually driven. Pet care, in-county meals and other incidentals are not reimbursable under any county travel policy. Response: (Board of Supervisors) The Board agrees partially with this finding, while acknowledging the costs of County service, many of them unreimbursed. Under specified circumstances in-county meals can be reimbursed both for Board members and for County employees. Response: (Current Fourth District Supervisor) I agree with the first sentence. I disagree in part with second sentence as in-county meals are reimbursable under Policy # 18 and the BOS travel policy of 2005-2006, under certain circumstances. Response: (Chief Executive Officer) The CEO agrees partially with this finding, but points out that, under certain circumstances, in-county meals can be reimbursed. Response: (Auditor-Controller) I disagree wholly or partially with the Finding. There are occasions when meals are reimbursed, both for Supervisors and for other County employees. Section 4.2 of Mendocino County Policy #18 details those circumstances when County employees may be reimbursed for meals during travel within the County. The BOS Travel policy, Section II B 4 states “Meal reimbursement for Board members, who, as part of official County business, attend an event that charges for a meal, will be paid for the full cost of the meal.”
No recommendations for this finding
F48
On December 12, 2007, the BOS approved a revised travel policy, effective in January 2008. The revised document stipulates that the Board of Supervisors shall review this policy in January of each year commencing January 2009. Under this policy, reimbursement for travel within Mendocino County is subject to the following terms: A. Mileage
No recommendations for this finding
F49
Only the Second District Supervisor has elected to itemize his mileage costs. Reimbursement for itemized mileage under II (A) (1) (b) is not taxable income. The mileage allowance (stipend) described under (A) (1) (a) is fully taxable and may bring increased payroll taxes and retirement costs to both the County and the Supervisors.9 In return, Supervisors electing the stipend might qualify for larger retirement and/or Social Security payments. Current mileage rate is $.505/mile). For 2008, increased County costs might include up to 11% pension, 4% COLA, 4% deferred compensation and Medicare/Social Security in excess of 7%. Supervisor costs will vary. 1st District: Michael Delbar; 2nd District: Jim Wattenburger; 3rd District: John Pinches (previously Hal Wagenet); 4th District: Kendall Smith (previously Patti Campbell); 5th District: David Colfax. COMBINED RESPONSES FROM: Board of Supervisors (Collective) Board of Supervisors (Individual) Chief Executive Officer Auditor-Controller District Attorney Clerk of the Board Response: (Board of Supervisors) The Board agrees with this finding. Response: (Chief Executive Officer) The CEO agrees with this finding. Response: (Auditor-Controller) I agree with the Finding.
No recommendations for this finding
F50
The revised policy makes no allowance for reimbursement of more than two overnight stays in a week and limits hotel reimbursement to weeks with a regularly scheduled Board of Supervisors’ meeting. Lodging receipts are required. Meals associated with overnight stays are not reimbursed. Response: (Board of Supervisors) The Board agrees with this finding. Response: (Current Fourth District Supervisor) I agree with the Finding. This is an accurate statement of the current BOS travel policy. Lodging receipts are required and the policy clearly states this unlike the previous BOS policy in effect in 2005-06 which did not state receipts were required. Response: (Chief Executive Officer) The CEO agrees with this finding. Response: (Auditor-Controller) I agree with the Finding.
No recommendations for this finding
F51
Regarding reimbursement for travel expenses related to official county business, the 2008 Travel Policy defines County Business in Section I General Policy, (A) (B) and (C): A. Official Business Official business of the Board of Supervisors includes but is not limited to attendance at regular Board meetings, special Board meetings, Board standing committee meetings, Board special assignment committee meetings, Board of Equalization meetings, and other County business. B. Reimbursable Expenditures The types of occurrences that qualify a member of the Board of Supervisors to receive reimbursement of expenses relating to travel, meals, lodging, and other actual and necessary expenses include the following: 1st District: Michael Delbar; 2nd District: Jim Wattenburger; 3rd District: John Pinches (previously Hal Wagenet); 4th District: Kendall Smith (previously Patti Campbell); 5th District: David Colfax. COMBINED RESPONSES FROM: Board of Supervisors (Collective) Board of Supervisors (Individual) Chief Executive Officer Auditor-Controller District Attorney Clerk of the Board
No recommendations for this finding
F52
The Grand Jury notes that the clause in Section I (A) that defines types of allowable county business concludes with the statement “…but not limited to…” and is, in fact, open-ended. Response: (Board of Supervisors) The Board disagrees with this finding. The phrase “but is not limited to” is in the middle of a sentence that begin with “Official business of the Board of Supervisors includes” and ends 1st District: Michael Delbar; 2nd District: Jim Wattenburger; 3rd District: John Pinches (previously Hal Wagenet); 4th District: Kendall Smith (previously Patti Campbell); 5th District: David Colfax. COMBINED RESPONSES FROM: Board of Supervisors (Collective) Board of Supervisors (Individual) Chief Executive Officer Auditor-Controller District Attorney Clerk of the Board with a list of different types of Board meetings, “and other County business”. Being bookended between “Official business” and “County business” provides a framework and guidance for the definition of County business activities that allow for reimbursed travel, and cannot be considered open-ended. Response: (Chief Executive Officer) The CEO disagrees with this finding. The phrase “but is not limited to” is in the middle of a sentence that begin with “Official business of the Board of Supervisors includes” and ends with a list of different types of Board meetings, “and other County business”. Being bookended between “Official business” and “County business” provides a framework and guidance for the definition of County business activities that allow for reimbursed travel, and cannot be considered open-ended. Response: (Auditor-Controller) I agree with the Finding.
No recommendations for this finding

Comments 1