2004-2005 Grand Jury Report*

The Surveyor's Office is opened from 8:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m. The rest of Public Works remains open until 5:00 p.m., theoretically though, these offices are not accessible unless arrangement is made ahead of time for someone to go downstairs and open the door. At times people have driven from long distances, expecting normal office hours for county offices, and have found that they are not able to get into the building. This is an inconvenience to the public at best. To gain admittance to the building the public must get the attention of office staff through windows which are far above street level. Staff from third floor must go down and open the doors for clients to access these services. Often employees in Public Works offices must leave their desks to admit people for after-hour appointments for the fourth floor, since the fourth floor staff has no way of knowing if someone needs access to the building. This inconveniences the staff of the Public Works offices. Recommendation: Keep the ANF Building open to the public until 4:00 p.m. Provide the fourth floor windows with blinds that can be closed at 4:00 p.m. daily. Post notices on doors and elevators indicating admittance to the fourth floor after 4:00 p.m. is by appointment only.

Initial Grand Jury visits proved that no hours were posted at any of the entrances to the building, nor in the lobby of the building nor on the windows at the front of the building. Subsequent visits found that computer generated copies of the building's hours had been posted in several conspicuous locations. All concerns regarding hours and their purpose had been addressed on these notices. Phone numbers are posted on aforementioned notices. The hours are not, however, listed on the directory adjacent to the elevator, nor in any permanent or semi-permanent manner. These paper signs come loose and are discarded or are taken down at times. Recommendation: Hours should be lettered on the windows or posted in a more permanent, professional manner.

The steady flow of public at the reception desk on the fourth floor prevents staff from accomplishing the paperwork and telephone calls they need to make during the day. The recently opened Tuolumne County Website has several forms available online, which were previously obtained by visiting the Community Development Department office on the fourth floor of the ANF Building. Maps and other information concerning these county offices will soon be available online. Forms and information are available in the public area of the fourth floor. These efforts to serve public needs may lighten the traffic at the desk. Recommendation: Encourage the public to utilize the Tuolumne County Website in order to obtain the forms and information obtainable there, in order to reduce some of the workload for those working the desk on the fourth floor. DISCLAIMER This report of the A.N. Francisco Building Hours of Operation 2004/2005 is issued with the exception of one member of the Grand Jury who is a current employee of the Public Works Department. This grand juror was excluded from all parts of the investigation, including interviews and the making of this report. The report is based on information from outside sources with no information being obtained from the excluded grand juror. Assessor/Recorder/Archives Summary Upon seating the 2004/05 Grand Jury, the Jury Foreperson was provided with a list of five (5) departments to be investigated within the normal rotation of Jury responsibilities. The Assessor/Recorder/Archives Department was one of the departments on the rotation list. This was not a complaint driven investigation. The Grand Jury found areas of concern. These included staffing, revenue and cross-training of staff. Recommendations are provided within this report to provide assistance to the Assessor/Recorder in an effort to improve efficiency and effectiveness. Background The Recorder's Office holds "vital" records i.e. death, birth, marriage, adoption etc. The Assessor's Office was created to appraise public and private property in Tuolumne County for the specific purpose of setting the appropriate tax rate for the property. The Assessor/Recorder's Office was consolidated in 1980 as an effort to become more efficient for property records and research. The function of Archives Division is to preserve and protect Tuolumne County's written history. Methodology The compilation of information contained within this report came from interviews with various employees, the elected department head, and a tour of Recorder's Division, the Assessor's Office and the Carlo M. DeFerarri Archives. Narrative Assessor/Recorder/Archives All of the information gathered was from employees and volunteers who have worked for the County for many years. The current Assessor/Recorder has served Tuolumne County since 1979. They all have seen the county grow and change within the scope of their service. All interviewees were helpful, informative and eager to help us understand the inner workings of the department and its divisions as well as the services rendered to the public. Some suggestions were made by employees to better the Department. Current personnel allocation consists of 20 full time employees as follows: • 1 benefited Assessor-Recorder (elected official) • 1 Archives Coordinator • 1 Assistant Assessor • 1 Assistant Recorder • 3 Recordable Document Examiners • 1 Senior Recordable Document Examiner • 1 Assessment Office Manager • 1 Cadastral Geographical Information System Technician II • 1 Auditor-Appraiser • 2 Senior Appraisers • 2 Appraiser II(s) • 3 Assessment Technician I/II(s) • 2 Sr Assessment Technicians • Volunteers (varies) Assessor Division The current workload for an appraiser is to complete approximately 30-40 appraisals per week. Appraisals are initiated when a change has occurred to the property or a new residence/business is erected. The property calculated appraisal, determines the property tax to the property owner. The taxes collected directly effect the General Fund budget. The County's high rating by the State of California's Board of Equalization, is currently at 99.1% of a possible 100%1 under the guidance of the current department head. The budget for the FY 2004/05 for the Assessor/Recorder's Office is $941,169 partially funded by several programs and grants. The State Board of Equalization oversees the Assessors Office and provides an annual (sometimes more often) audit to ensure the Assessor's Office is providing services, assessing properties and correctly calculating taxes. The other support for this department is the General Fund. Because property taxes are collected into the General Fund, the percentage provided to the department is directly in line with revenues collected from the property taxes. Budget cuts are always part of the ongoing battle for County departments. The Assessor/Recorder's Office is no exception to this fact. The department has been able to continue to provide a vast amount of services to the public even though their staffing has not changed since the early 1970's. However, this level of service is becoming more difficult to maintain with the continuing influx of new residents to the county. This, in turn, will affect the number of appraisals the Department needs to complete, thus affecting the amount of property taxes collected and budget revenues. One of the ways the Assessor/Recorder has been able to keep providing services for the Assessor's Division is attributed to the increased use of electronic services. For example, a great deal of computerized information is available on a counter computer for public use. A drawback is persons lacking computer skills are frustrated by lack of personal contact. Recorder's Office The Recorder's Office is one of the oldest departments in the County. It houses records as far back as the 1800's. The Recorder's Office is supported by two separate trust funds. These monies have very specific guidelines as to their use. Again, there have not been any new personnel allocations made by the Board of Supervisors to this division in many years. The Assistant Recorder has built a program to input all of the recordable data into a database dating from 1972 to the present. This data input takes place via computer scanner. The Assistant Recorder's goal is to complete this task prior to retirement. The Assistant Recorder did not know what would happen to the continued creation of the database after her retirement. This database currently allows the public a wonderful vehicle in which to research the history of this division's information electronically. This is one of the very creative ways the Recorder's Office has helped provide the public services without additional staff. Carlo M. DeFerrari Archives The county archivist, who is appointed by the Board of Supervisors, oversees general administration of the archive. The Records and Archive Coordinator supervises daily operations. The Archivist is currently the only paid employee for this division. The function of the records center is to "provide a records management system that will make Tuolumne County government more efficient and more responsive while reducing the risks associated with poorly managed records."2 All records accepted for preservation in the archive must have a historical connection to official county governmental business. Volunteers from the Tuolumne County Historical Society and the Tuolumne County Genealogical Society provide countless hours of data input in exchange for access to these same records for research. The archive is largely dependent on these volunteers to perform its mission. Tailoring a volunteer's interests with specific needs of the division is a daunting task. The Archivist performs this task with great care and success. • Document restoration (i.e. maps, books, drawings etc.) can only be completed in a very limited capacity. The budget for this division has not changed much in the past few years. Therefore, there is only enough money to provide these services for one or two projects per year. This in turn causes much needed restoration work to be delayed until proper funding is available. • Other than the Archivist, there are no other County employees to assist drop-in visitors seeking information. • There is a very limited ability to provide scanned copies or photographed copies of documents to visitors. • The most efficient way for County departments to access documents is to contact the Archivist and have the documents pulled and picked up/delivered. This function is provided by workers assigned by the Probation Department. Findings and Recommendations

There are many restoration projects in jeopardy of disintegration due to the lack of revenue to complete their restoration. Recommendation: Provide revenue to generate an additional restoration/preservation project each year. Commendation In general, the Tuolumne County Assessor/Recorder/Archive Department is to be commended for its service to Tuolumne County residents. The efforts provided are from exceptional employees guided by a knowledgeable, considerate leader. The recommendations made in this report are believed to provide assistance for both the public and staff. State Board of Equalization Audit 2002 2 Assessor/ Recorder's Office Mission Statement City of Sonora Bungalows at Woods Creek Development Project Summary The Tuolumne County Grand Jury received a citizen complaint regarding issues concerning the City of Sonora's performance in relation to the development on Ponderosa Drive in the City of Sonora. The complainant had questions and/or raised concerns as to: 1. Were permits obtained from the State Department of Transportation (Caltrans)? 2. Did the City of Sonora inspect a wall constructed on the site? 3. Why wasn't a drainage ditch constructed before a hillside washout in the project? 4. Was open bidding done on this project by the City of Sonora? 5. Did the City of Sonora notify State agencies on alleged pollution of Woods Creek? 6. Did the Tuolumne Utilities District (TUD) pay for additional work they completed on this development? The Grand Jury investigated these issues to determine the factual basis for the questions or complaints as they related to the City of Sonora and TUD. Findings and recommendations for this investigation are part of this report. Background The Tuolumne County Grand Jury conducted an investigation based on a Citizens' Grand Jury Complaint Form received regarding The Bungalows at Woods Creek Landing in the City of Sonora. The Bungalows at Woods Creek development is a construction project on Ponderosa Drive that began construction in November 2004. This is a private development with inspection oversight by the City of Sonora. Methodology Members of the Grand Jury conducted several site inspections of the area to view first-hand areas of concern noted in the complaint. The complainant was interviewed. Members met with City of Sonora staff and reviewed documents relating to this project. Additional information was gathered by telephone interviews with businesses on Ponderosa Drive impacted by this construction project. Tuolumne Utilities District (TUD) was contacted relating to water service/interruptions to their existing customers through work by district employees. Caltrans representatives were interviewed regarding permits and work compliance issues for the project. The California Water Quality Board and the California Department of Fish and Game were contacted to determine if contamination of Woods Creek occurred related to this development. Narrative In order for any work to proceed, which encroaches a state highway, Caltrans must approve the work through their permitting process. When a completed application is submitted and accepted Caltrans issues a permit indicating requirements for such work. Necessary applications were made and permits were issued to the developer per Caltrans policy. All requirements were met as noted by the permitting process. Caltrans noted this project was not complete as of April 19, 2005. An extension was granted due to weather related dealys. Caltrans is unaware of any problems with the project under their purview. The project must receive final approval by the City of Sonora. The City has required a $400,000 Irrevocable Standby Letter of Credit from the developer to ensure the project is completed properly. City of Sonora staff claimed that it provided regular ongoing monitoring and inspection of this project as work progressed. According to the City engineer this is a hillside development and the state has strict requirements for such projects. He also stated drainage problems occurred during this project caused by rainwater and mud. The City worked with the contractor to correct these problems. Once the drainage infrastructure was completed, the problems were mitigated. The drainage ditch behind the homes at the top of Spring Drive and above the SBC site was not completed until well after the project began and well into the rainy season. Had the ditch been completed earlier it may have lessened the washout situation, even if it didn't eliminate the problem. The City indicated they cannot dictate the contractor's construction schedule, but would not provide final clearance of the project until all requirements are completed. The City of Sonora engineering staff required a retaining wall be engineered and constructed to correct the washout problem on the SBC site. No written records could be provided to verify inspections of the retaining wall construction. The lack of written records during the construction, by the City of Sonora engineering staff, compromises the competency of this critical work. The City has a $400,000 Irrevocable Standby Letter of Credit, secured by the developer, which is only released when the City accepts the project as complete. The Bungalows at Woods Creek Landing is a private project, not a City project. No City funds are allocated for the development and therefore the City has no involvement in a bidding process on any contracts related to the development. The funds the complainant noted, were solely allocated by the City of Sonora for each of the five units designated as affordable housing in this project. These funds are allocated from the Community Block Grant Program to the City's Homebuyer's Assistance Loan Program to assist low-income families to purchase a home. Loans to qualifying buyers in this program are allowed up to $85,000 per unit and are paid back in thirty-one years by the purchaser. If low-income families do not purchase these units, the unused money will stay in the Homebuyer's Assistance Loan Program and can be used city-wide for affordable housing. There is no evidence to indicate Woods Creek was contaminated or polluted because of drainage problems connected with this development. The City of Sonora noted they were unaware of any such complaint so no notification to any State agency was required. The State of California Water Quality Board has no record of any contamination to Woods Creek relating to the development. The California Department of Fish and Game noted they did receive an anonymous complaint regarding possible runoff problems into the creek. A Fish and Game representative responded to the site and noted mud and dirt on the street, which could have washed into the creek. At the time of inspection no problem was noted with the creek. The Fish and Game representative contacted the contractor, and based on their conversation additional precautions were taken by placing silt barriers (hay bales) around storm drains. The Fish and Game representative did not contact any City of Sonora staff as he was satisfied the problem was addressed adequately. No other complaints were received by the Department of Fish and Game. Additional inspections resulted with no problems being noted. Tuolumne Utilities District (TUD) was aware of several problems during the construction of this project. Several water line breakages occurred, for which the contractor was responsible, resulting in water service interruptions to customers on Ponderosa Drive. At one point TUD repaired the water line problems and TUD employees removed the contractor and completed the work. None of these charges were passed on to TUD ratepayers. Findings and Recommendations

Because of the removal of the contractor from the project, Tuolumne Utilities District (TUD) completed work on this project. TUD billed the contractor for all corrected work completed by TUD (including staff time, materials and labor). Recommendation None DISCLAIMER This report of the City of Sonora – Development Investigation is issued by the 2004-2005 Grand Jury with the exception of one member of this Grand Jury who had a conflict of interest. This Grand Juror was excluded from all parts of the investigation, which included interviews, deliberations, and the making and acceptance of this report. This report is based on information obtained from outside sources with none of the information being obtained from the excluded Grand Juror. Public Works Department Educational Reimbursement Summary The granting of the largest educational reimbursement to date in the history of Tuolumne County to the person responsible for the development and management of the Public Works Department budget, begged an investigation. Charges of collusion, conspiracy, misappropriation of funds and misuse of county equipment were not supported by the evidence. All parties were acting within the existing Memorandum of Understanding (labor contract) between the County and the Tuolumne County Management Association. The Grand Jury finds no evidence of a breach of public trust or fiduciary responsibility in the granting of educational reimbursement to the Public Works Department Business Manager. However, the Grand Jury did find a serious lack of department head involvement in the development and administration of agreements between the county and its ten bargaining units. This oversight rests upon the shoulders of the County Administrative Officer and his administrative staff. The Grand Jury recommends that the county develop a process for seeking input from department heads prior to agreeing to changes in any Memorandum of Understanding and that the county develop an ongoing process for educating department heads about the provisions of these agreements. Background: In November and December 2004, local media reported a controversial educational reimbursement request from a county employee. The request from the Public Works Business Manager (hereinafter “Business Manager”) was for approximately $13,500 and was made pursuant to a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the County of Tuolumne (hereinafter “County”) and the County of Tuolumne Management Association (hereinafter “Association”). The MOU states that the reimbursement shall be 100% of the cost of books and tuition for job-related courses approved by the Department Head and not offered by the county. Despite this language, the Assistant Auditor-Controller felt the amount was excessive and authorized reimbursement of only $5,000. The decision of the Assistant Auditor-Controller was appealed by the Business Manager. The County Board of Supervisors approved the full reimbursement amount on a 3/2 vote on November 9, 2004. The Business Manager is charged with and given authority to plan, coordinate, supervise and perform fiscal and budgetary functions for the department. In reality, the Business Manager is the person who prepares the line-item budget with only cursory review by the department head and an analyst in the office of the County Administrative Officer (hereinafter: “CAO”). Because of the Business Manager’s responsibilities in the development of the Public Works budget, the office held by this person with the Association and it’s bargaining team, the unprecedented amount of the claim and public statements made by some elected and appointed county officials, the Grand Jury decided, on it’s own accord, that it would serve the public interest to conduct an inquiry into this matter. Additionally, allegations were made that the Business Manager violated County policies by failing to fully inform the Director of Public Works (hereinafter “Director”) of the total cost associated with the educational program and that he used county computers for personal business during working hours. Methodology A committee consisting of four members was authorized and formed by the Grand Jury in December 2004. Between January 2005 and April 2005 the committee conducted an investigation into the circumstances surrounding the educational expense reimbursement to the Business Manager and the use of county computers. The committee began by gathering background information documents. Interviews with key personnel within county government were conducted. The committee interviewed a member of the Auditor-Controller’s office to obtain a historical perspective on previous educational reimbursement requests and the role of the Auditor-Controller’s Office in the approval and disbursement of county funds. A high ranking administrator in the CAO office was interviewed to gain an overall understanding of the county’s budgeting process and what role, if any, that office played in the approval of the educational reimbursement. Detailed interviews were held with the Director, Business Manager and a member of the Board of Supervisors. All were given the opportunity to respond to specific allegations made publicly and confidentially to the committee. Narrative The Public Works Department has an annual operating budget of nearly $15 million and a workforce of 55 employees. The Business Manager was hired in September 2001, into a newly created position. The Director recommended to the Board of Supervisors that such a position could streamline the department’s business operations and save the county much needed funds. The Business Manager was elected president of the Association in February 2003. During the investigation, an allegation was made that from the very beginning of his employment, the Business Manager had two goals; increase the health and welfare benefits package and change the educational reimbursement from 50% to 100%. In the context in which the statement was made the implication was that this was evidence of premeditative acts to use his positions as Business Manager and Association President for personal gain. There is no evidence to prove this allegation. The fact is that the Association proposed a three tier structure for educational reimbursement with 100% for a grade of A, 75% for a grade of B and 50% for a grade of C. Under this scheme, the Business Manager would have received less than 100% reimbursement for three classes. According to the chief negotiator for the County, it was the CAO who proposed the 100% reimbursement. It is true that any improvements in the MOU would benefit the Business Manager but all other employees represented under the MOU would benefit as well. Even if there was evidence supporting the allegation, there would be no violation of law or county policy. If the Business Manager used the collective bargaining process to achieve personal gain to the detriment of others, that would be a matter for the Association membership and is outside the jurisdiction of the Grand Jury. As to the allegation that the Business Manager failed in his fiduciary responsibilities by failing to inform the Director as to the true and actual costs of a Masters of Public Administration (MPA) degree, we found evidence to the contrary. According to both the Director and the Business Manager, they attended a conference in November 2003 where Golden Gate University had a booth advertising an accelerated MPA degree. According to the Director, he learned at that time that the cost would be $12,000-15,000. When the Business Manager made his verbal request for advanced approval of the courses the Director was well aware of the cost. Once approved it was the responsibility of the Business Manager in the role of budget manager, to ensure funds were available to pay for the expense, just like he would do if an expense for new office furniture was approved by the Director. We find no evidence which would suggest the Business Manager violated his fiduciary responsibility to the County or any collusion between the Director and Business Manager to manipulate funds in order to pay for the educational reimbursement. In fact, the department had a budget surplus for the year in question. In a memo to the Board of Supervisors dated November 1, 2004, the Assistant Auditor-Controller sets forth rationale for denying the Business Manager full reimbursement for the educational expenses. One of those rationale states, "The entire line item is $15,000 for this department. This is double from the year before. This one claim will deplete the entire line item. There will be no other training funds for other employees in this department." We believe it is from this statement that at least one member of the Board of Supervisors and some members of the public arrived at the conclusion that the reimbursement to the Business Manager would deplete funds for road crew safety training. This is an inaccurate conclusion! The Public Works Department includes eight departments; Administration, Engineering-Development, Engineering-Capital Improvement Projects, Traffic and Engineering, Roads, Transportation, Solid Waste and Survey. They all have separate department budgets, with a travel – training and seminars line item and each is managed by the Business Manager. It is from this line item, account number 529120, that educational reimbursement is budgeted and paid. The Administration Division to which the Business Manager is assigned has a total of six employees, none of who are assigned to road crews. While it is true that the Business Manager's claim will deplete the entire funds in the Administration 529120 account and that the $15,000 is double the amount in the FY 2003-2004 budget, the Grand Jury found justification for both. After receiving approval from the Director, the Business Manager began classes in March 2004. At the time of enrollment and with approval from the Director, the Business Manager arranged for Golden Gate University to bill the county directly at the beginning of each term rather than paying for classes and then seeking reimbursement from the county. This arrangement would save the county $500 over the course of five terms. In March 2004 the Director received an invoice from Golden Gate University in the amount of $2,736. This invoice was submitted to the Auditor-Controller for payment. The claim was denied on the grounds that the coursework was not job-related. By email dated April 2, 2004, the Director informed the Assistant Auditor-Controller that he had approved the courses and that they were in fact job-related. The opinion and decision of the Director was supported by the CAO, Assistant CAO, and the Human Resources Manager. According to an email sent to the CAO and Assistant CAO in September 2004, the Assistant Auditor-Controller approved the payment of $2,736 in April 2004, but because the original claim was not resubmitted to the Office of the Auditor-Controller, it was not paid. The claim should have been promptly paid; it was not and the Office of the Auditor-Controller failed to inform either the Director or the Business Manager that the claim needed to be resubmitted. The Business Manager continued taking classes from March through September believing the initial invoice had been paid and that Golden Gate University had billed the county directly for additional classes taken between June and August. Had Golden Gate University billed the county in a timely manner, approximately $5,500 dollars in tuition would have been paid during FY 2003/2004. Golden Gate University failed to submit additional invoices but allowed the Business Manager to continue taking classes despite the lack of payment. The Business Manager did not learn of the billing problems or the failure to pay the original $2,736 until September 2004. The FY 2004/2005 budget process began in April 2004, and the Board of Supervisors adopted a final budget at the end of June. The Public Works Administration budget account 529120 was approved at $15,000. This amount was derived from the $7,500 which was spent the previous fiscal year plus $7,500 for the remaining cost for the MPA degree. It is significant that at the time the budget was prepared, the Business Manager believed that approximately $5,500 in tuition had already been paid by the county. At the time the budget was adopted it was believed that the 529120 account held enough money to cover the historical costs for the six Administration employees to attend seminars, conferences and classes plus the remaining costs of the MPA degree. The adverse impact of the MPA degree program on the FY 2004/2005 529120 account can be attributed to the failure to pay the initial $2,736, the failure of Golden Gate University to timely bill the county and the failure on the part of the Director and the Business Manager to anticipate the bills and to follow-up with Golden Gate when the invoices were not received. Nearly all county employees are represented by an exclusive bargaining representative who bargains with the county on behalf of those employees. There are ten such bargaining representatives within the county. The Public Works Department employees are represented by several different bargaining representatives, each with a different MOU. Administering the MOU on a daily basis is the responsibility of each department head. During the course of the investigation the committee learned that department heads have not been asked for input during the bargaining process nor been provided orientation on any of the ten MOUs. Specifically, with regards to the Association's MOU educational reimbursement provision, we consistently heard from high ranking officials that no one anticipated the potential costs of 100% reimbursement language. When each of the persons interviewed was asked whether he had attended a meeting where application of the educational reimbursement language from any of the MOUs was discussed, the answer was always "no"! And when asked if there were any written guidelines to follow when approving educational reimbursement or any other MOU provisions, again the answer was "no"! Despite what appears to be clear language in the Association's MOU that courses must be "...approved by the Department Head prior to registration..." and the fact that the Director knew of other department heads who had denied requests for educational reimbursement, the Director firmly believed he had no option but to approve the Business Manager's request. In his memo to the Board of Supervisors, the Business Manager argued that the cost of a MPA degree from Golden Gate University is reasonable when compared to other institutions. He wrote that through the University of Phoenix cybercampus the cost exceeds $25,000. Had the Business Manager decided to enroll at the University of Phoenix, would the Director have been obligated to approve this course as well? We do not mean to imply that the cost of a MPA degree through Golden Gate University is excessive, we did not research that issue. What we do suggest is that responsibility for this situation starts at the very top of county government; had the CAO sought input from department heads on the proposed change in language from 50% to 100% it is likely someone would have asked whether there was a limit as to the amount that could be approved. Furthermore, the Director, or someone else, may have asked if a department head had the authority under the MOU to deny approval even if the course is job related. As to the issue of unauthorized use of county computers; the county has a very extensive Information Technology (IT) Policy. Section 4 states in part: It is not the intent of this policy to preclude the use of IT resources for non-business related activities at appropriate times during the workday. This view must be taken into account in any department or agency level supplemental policies that arise from this policy. Department Heads and Agency Administrators can approve non-business related use of County IT systems. Authorization of any non-business related use shall be specifically described in departmental or agency supplements to this policy. The Public Works Department supplemental procedures and policies state the following: The desire of this department is that all employees be able [sic] access information from the internet... Public Works employees may use the internet during breaks in their normal Tour of Duty. It should not interfere with their normal work products. According to the Director, he gave the Business Manager permission to use his office computer for course work during lunch and breaks. According to the Business Manager, on several occasions he posted a "do not disturb" sign on his office door because he was completing an on-line, timed, test. Since the Business Manager is exempt from overtime he does not have set break and lunch periods and it is therefore impossible for this committee to determine whether he misused his computer. If he did comply with the directive from the Director then the Business Manager should not face any disciplinary action. Findings and Recommendations

The Board of Supervisors acted appropriately in approving the educational reimbursement to the Business Manager. Recommendation: None

Prior to December 2004, there were no written county procedures for implementing the provisions of the various educational reimbursement provisions within the MOUs and there is a lack of written procedures for implementing other provisions as well. Recommendation: That the CAO order a review of all ten MOUs for the purpose of determining whether provisions exist which necessitate the development of written procedures for implementation. DISCLAIMER This report of Education Reimbursement 2004/2005 is issued with the exception of one member of Grand Jury who is a current employee of the Public Works Department. This grand juror was excluded from all parts of the investigation, including interviews and the making of this report. The report is based on information from outside sources with no information being obtained from the excluded grand juror. Facilities Management Department Summary Upon seating the 2004/05 Grand Jury, the Jury Foreperson was provided with a list of five (5) departments to be investigated within the normal rotation of Jury responsibilities. The Facilities Management Department was one of the departments on the rotation list. This was not a complaint driven investigation. The Facilities Manager reports to the Assistant County Administrative Officer. The Grand Jury found only a few areas of concern in regards to the Facilities Management building, Facilities Manager's responsibilities, employee's assigned equipment and job descriptions. The Grand Jury made recommendations to this efficiently run county department in an effort to provide an even more successful Facilities Management Department. Background Facilities Management's mission is "To provide high quality, cost effective services to all County Departments and the Community, in a way that is dependable and provides a comfortable atmosphere for work and other Community needs." Facilities Management's goals are "To maintain and manage County property in a manner which provides an efficient work environment for employees and to protect the Public Funds invested in them." Facilities Management's objective is "To minimize major breakdowns that are costly and inconvenient. Also in facilities such as the Jail and the Hospital maintaining them at a level that meets State and Federal Standards."1 The FY 2004/2005 budget is $2,691,247. Facilities Management currently has a staff of 35 employees (see Attachment A). The building maintenance unit is responsible for minor new construction, remodeling and preventative maintenance of all county facilities, with the exception of the airports. The major buildings of concern are the County Jail and Tuolumne General Hospital, since most of the electrical and mechanical systems are in constant need of repair due to age. Three maintenance workers are assigned to Tuolumne General Hospital, two are assigned to the Jamestown Mine with the remainder of employees responsible for the County Jail and all other county buildings. The maintenance staff is also responsible for providing grounds keeping to all county owned property and public parks. The staff has a wide range of experience including electrical, mechanical as well as building systems in general. The housekeeping unit provides custodial services to the majority of County facilities. The most demanding area of responsibility is Tuolumne General Hospital. Four housekeepers are assigned to the downtown offices, five housekeepers to the Greenley Basin County offices. The remainder of housekeeping unit is assigned to the Hospital day and night shifts. The overall morale in Facilities Management is moderate to high. The senior staff has more than 20 years of service in this department, and can step in to handle problems when needed. A source of irritation for both units are workload caused by reductions in staffing and shortage of supplies. All maintenance requests are prioritized. High priorities are given to safety problems, plumbing and electrical problems. Light replacement, moving furniture and painting are considered low priorities and are addressed when time is available. Methodology On September 16, 2004, members of the Grand Jury interviewed the Facilities Manager and Assistant County Administrative Officer. A Grand Jury questionnaire was submitted to the Facilities Manager prior to this visit. Both the Facilities Manager and Assistant County Administrative Officer explained in detail current and new projects in which the Facilities Management Department was involved. They also detailed the contracts with unincorporated towns to provide scheduling of facilities, housekeeping and/or maintenance duties from within their community for buildings located in their towns due to the limited staff. For example, Tuolumne Parks and Recreation administers the maintenance of Memorial Hall, Memorial Park, the Tuolumne ball field and the new library and youth center in Tuolumne. The Grand Jury committee met with the Facilities Manager on October 19, 2004, to discuss additional questions generated during the September interview. At that time the Grand Jury members toured the Facilities Management building located at 229 West Jackson Street in Sonora, which houses the offices, wood shop, paint shop, supply storage for the maintenance and housekeeping units and a maintenance work area. A covered outside area is used to store surplus office furniture and recyclable fixtures. Over the next several weeks, the Grand Jury members conducted several interviews, with the housekeeping and maintenance staff. Narrative The housekeeping workers, in general, like their jobs. Some hospital workers expressed a need for training on existing equipment and the purchase of new/upgraded equipment to facilitate daily tasks. They all have a sense of pride in their work. All staff is cross-trained between maintenance and housekeeping as pertains to their current job descriptions. The Facilities Management Department is very well managed. The Facilities Manager is generally accessible at all times through the use of pagers and cell phone. There is a high level of camaraderie between the Facilities Manager and the office staff. Despite the Manager's absences from the office for meetings and outside project management, the office functions at a high level of efficiency due to the tenure, knowledge and cross-training of the Fiscal Technician and Senior Account Clerk. The Facilities Management Department's building is old and cramped and has inadequate parking. County vehicles that are used for this department are parked on the street overnight. There has been no vandalism to these vehicles to date. The employee rest and break area is uninviting with poor heating, cooling and ventilation. A recent staff and space needs study shows that there are currently 35 Facilities Management employees within a total of 4,608 sq. ft. of building space. The space need study recommends current space needs of 8,160 sq. ft. By 2010 the projected need is for 41 staff and 9,840 sq. ft. In FY 2003/2004 the Facilities Manager and Department were involved with 31 projects distinguished from routine maintenance and service functions. The projects range from new drinking fountains in the jail to seismic design and testing at Tuolumne General Hospital. Nine projects were completed, seven projects carried into FY 2004/2005 and 15 were either cut or waiting for further review. In FY 2004/2005 17 new projects (see Attachment B) were begun and two were completed at the time of this report: 1. Animal Control remodel and expansion 2. Tuolumne Library and Youth Center. On projects that are contracted out, the Facilities Manager acts as Project Manager. He spends approximately 60% of his time managing these types of county projects. Findings and Recommendation:

The mold problem has been corrected for the time being. Recommendation: Continue to monitor the mold problem in the jail. The nature of the problem and the health of all persons exposed to mold require vigilance.

During our investigation, it came to our attention that the current Sheriff has never requested funds from the Board of Supervisors for a new jail. Recommendation: The Tuolumne County Sheriff needs to request and pursue funding and construction of a new jail for Tuolumne County. Commendations 1. The Grand Jury commends the entire personnel staff of the Tuolumne County Jail for the high level of job performance under very difficult conditions. 2. Jail personnel were courteous, well informed and current in all aspects of professional training. Request for Response -05 requests a written response to this report from the Sheriff and the Board of Supervisors within the time specified by statute. We further request that the Board of Supervisors prepare and present its own response rather than assign this important responsibility to the CAO. Appendix 1. Scheduled visit (initial investigative visit) to Tuolumne County Jail on October 21, 2004. 2. Unscheduled (unannounced) follow up visit to Tuolumne County Jail on April 29, 2005. 3. Interviews with individual members of the Board of Supervisors on May 11, May18, and May 25, 2005. 4. Review of Grand Jury Reports from FY 1993/1994 through FY 2003/2004. 5. Telephone conversation with Undersheriff on June 2, 2005. 6. Telephone conversation with Jail Commander on June 2, 2005 Sheriff's Office Morale Summary While there was no complaint filed with the Grand Jury specifically addressing the issue of morale within the Sheriff's Office, it was felt by the Grand Jury that this was an appropriate area to investigate. It was found that in spite of difficult conditions such as overcrowding, of prisoners, lack of workspace for staff, out of date and widely dispersed facilities, the committee found the overall morale of the Sheriff's Office was positive. Background During the visit to the Sheriff's Office, Patrol Division, Investigations Division, Drug Enforcement, Search and Rescue, and Boat Patrol, there were several issues that repeatedly arose to the surface. These included: overcrowding, wages, turnover of staff, and the widely separated facilities, which often cause difficulties in communication. The Grand Jury felt these concerns could be having a negative effect on the morale of the Sheriff's Office. Procedures and Methodology The committee to investigate the morale of the Sheriff's Office was formed by the Grand Jury in February 2005. The committee made arrangements to meet and interview two deputies, one from the Patrol Division and one from the Investigations Division. Several employees were interviewed, including various clerical and administrative staff personnel. Other pertinent data was gathered, and at a later date, members of the committee made an unannounced visit to the central offices of the of the Sheriff's Office. During that visit we met and interviewed several clerical, records, and other "non-sworn" personnel. Data related to officer turnover from the department during the last two years was also gathered from Human Resources. Narrative During the interview the Officers were open and quite forthcoming with information. At a later date, we made an unannounced visit to the offices at the main Sheriff's facility. At that time we interviewed several office, clerical, records, and dispatch personnel. All of the people interviewed, with only minor differences, restated what had already been brought to our attention during the previous Grand Jury tour. The facilities are old and overcrowded with little or no storage. The wages and benefits are lower than neighboring areas. There is a high turnover rate in the department. The various divisions are spread out over several locations in the county making intra-departmental communications difficult at best. The committee found these concerns were not adversely affecting morale in the Sheriff's Department. Almost everyone interviewed agreed there are certain serious problems that need to be addressed. Interviewees felt that at times, these problems were making their work more difficult, they generally enjoyed their jobs and felt that this was true of others. The committee found that even though the issues might be lowering efficiency they did not noticeably lower the overall morale of the Sheriff's Office. Findings and Recommendations 1. Finding The committee found the general morale of the Tuolumne County Sheriff's Office to be good. Recommendation: No Recommendation

The Tuolumne County Tax Collector does not use performance indicators to evaluate the success of collection efforts for any department. He does not know how long accounts are kept open until they go to the Board of Supervisors to request forgiveness. Recommendation: Written reports from ORR should be completed on a weekly and monthly basis for review with the Tax Collector. Conclusion It appears this lack of leadership is directly reflective of the CAO's inability to provide over-all leadership to his department heads. The ORR is staffed by loyal and honest employees whose productivity is stymied by an appalling lack of departmental leadership. The Tuolumne County Tax Collector, the Assistant Treasurer/Tax Collector and the TGH administrators are all responsible for communication issues that exist between their departments and all share the blame. These issues must be solved immediately. Time is of the essence. Tuolumne General Hospital Business Office Summary The Grand Jury was not mandated to either visit nor investigate Tuolumne General Hospital (TGH). However, the Grand Jury opted to tour the hospital to get a clearer understanding of TGH's operations. The first tour encompassed the standard hospital facilities. The second tour was conducted to complete the facilities tour including the psychiatric ward. After the tours were completed, members of the Grand Jury met with hospital personnel and also had a chance to speak to several patients. During an interview with Tuolumne County Office of Revenue Recovery (ORR) by another Grand Jury committee, allegations were made that there were long standing issues with the Business Office of TGH concerning the collection of past due accounts, proper procedures for billing completion and communication problems with ORR. The Grand Jury Committee found several areas of concern. Findings and recommendations are provided within this report to help make the day to day operations of Tuolumne General Hospital's Business Office more efficient. Background Tuolumne General Hospital is located at 101 Hospital Road in Sonora. This investigation was based on concerns and allegations that arose during another Grand Jury committee's investigation into the ORR. Interviews with both departments revealed a long standing communication problem between the ORR and TGH Business Office. Issues included policy and procedures compliance, personnel management and proper billing. Methodology A Grand Jury questionnaire was submitted to the Hospital Administrator prior to the visits and interviews. Grand Jury members toured the Business Office, conducted interviews with personnel from the TGH Business Office, Information Systems Services (ISS), Office of Revenue Recovery (ORR), TGH Board of Trustees, Assistant County Administrator, Assistant Auditor Controller, Human Resources and other county staff personnel. Research was conducted into past Grand Jury reports, current ORR collection procedures (see attachment in preceding report) and current TGH Business Office billing procedures. Narrative There have been six Business Office Managers since 1999. The current Assistant Tax Collector provided interim supervision in the Business Office from January 2000-August 2001. His main direction was to update all billings, to collect funds for outstanding debts and create a procedure for staff to continue timely processing of accounts. The manager hired in 2001 was trained by the Assistant Tax Collector. The Assistant Tax Collector stated that during the tenure of this manager, there were no reported problems with accounts at ORR. Allegations were made by the Assistant Tax Collector during the Grand Jury committee's interview on September 24, 2004 in regards to the Business Office of TGH, which allegedly began after a new Business Office Manager was hired in April 2002. The allegations made by the Assistant Tax Collector and investigated by the grand jury are as follows: 1. Many of the delinquent accounts that have been turned over to ORR for collection since the hiring of the new Business Office Manager had never been billed to the patient's insurance carrier. Since ORR cannot bill insurance companies the accounts had to be returned to the Business Office for insurance billing. 2. In a few cases, accounts were sent to ORR in which the patient was deceased without any mention of this fact or who, if anyone, was responsible for the bill. 3. The Business Office accepted payments on accounts that had been sent to ORR, but did not inform ORR of the payment, which caused serious public relations problems when ORR contacted the patient for payment. 4. Face to face communications between the Business Office Manager and Assistant Tax Collector were non-existent. The only interface between the two departments was done by telephone or email and was strained at best. An interview with the Business Office Manager on October 15, 2004 to discuss the ORR issues revealed lack of knowledge of any problems with ORR and TGH's business practices. The Business Office Manager responded to each of the allegations as follows: 1. There was a possibility that accounts were turned over to ORR without insurance companies being billed because in many cases the Business Office receives the paperwork for billing too late to bill insurance companies. This is due to doctors not completing their charts in a timely manner (See Attachment A). She also stated that there are some doctors that are habitually late with their paperwork or refuse to do it all. One doctor was quoted as saying, "I'm here to treat patients, not push paper." (Unfortunately, if this statement is true, this one individual is costing the hospital thousands of dollars in unrecovered funds.) 2. She was unaware of any accounts of deceased patients as not being flagged for ORR notification. 3. The Business Office Manager was aware of payments being made at the hospital for accounts that had been sent to ORR for collection. She stated that her staff does notify ORR by e-mail, memo, and telephone in all cases of payment. 4. She was not aware of any serious communication problem with the Assistant Tax Collector. Upon completion of the interview, the Business Office Manager stated that she would contact the Assistant Tax Collector in an attempt to resolve any issues that were present. The Business Office Manager stated that an attempt to resolve the communication issue with the Assistant Tax Collector was met with resistance and lack of cooperation at our second interview on December 13, 2004. The lack of communication between the Business Office and the ORR is quite disturbing. The Business Office Manager stated that from the beginning of employment there had been many changes and improvements made to the organization of the Business Office in an attempt to standardize billing procedures, update billings, train staff on the Meditech billing system and provide better organization of staff time. Some of these were met with resistance by TGH Business Office personnel. The Business Office Manager met with department heads, department representatives and the Board of Trustees regularly to try and work out issues as they pertained to the Business Office and TGH functions. She believed these meetings had accomplished that goal. In an interview with the Business Office personnel it was brought to light that staff has not been fully trained on the Meditech billing system. The previous Business Office Manager had been hired primarily because of her Meditech background. She stated that some employees have resisted the training to the Meditech billing system and those employees that were learning needed more hands on training. (A consultant was hired to train the Business Office personnel. However, this has not occurred as the consultant has been processing the billing for the Business Office in an effort to bring billing current.) Therefore, the Business Office personnel have not been thoroughly trained in billing procedures and they have not had goals or adequate direction from management to accomplish management's expectations in this area. In interviewing the Assistant County Administrative Officer, this committee was told all the managers have had extensive training in the area of Tuolumne County evaluation processing. Upon interviewing several of the staff members of the Business Office it was found that evaluations had not been performed on the required annual basis. In fact, evaluations for all Business Office personnel were overdue including, but not limited to, the Chief Financial Officer and the Business Office Manager. It was verified through Human Resources that initial three and six month evaluations had been completed for staff but subsequent annual evaluations were not within personnel files in the Human Resources Department. Some staff informed the committee that some evaluations have never been done and that one of staff's evaluation had been lost. When that particular staff person asked Human Resources for assistance, Human Resources never contacted them to assist with this issue. This raises a question of how employees know what is expected of them if performance goals are never set, reviewed or enforced? The Hospital Administrator has not complied with County Personnel Rules and Regulations, Rule #8 "Work Performance Evaluation", Section E. It also appears the County Administrative Officer has been inattentive and unconcerned in making sure evaluations are accomplished by department heads and for department heads in the required time period. It is hard to have accountability from any one individual if the evaluations are not completed and the performance standards for the department have failed. Many of the employees stated that they feel they are being the scapegoats for what is really poor to non-existent upper level management. Business Office personnel stated they feel they were set up to fail. Lack of leadership and communication is counter-productive to even a reasonable work environment. Upper management needs to have better intra personal communication relations, commitment to training and enforcement of policies. The responsibility for the Business Office operations is with the Chief Financial Officer. In the past, the Business Office Manager not only managed staff on day-to-day tasks, but also had to complete some of the daily office tasks normally performed by clerical staff. She was expected to train new employees, attend meetings and provide reports to upper management. This is a heavy workload especially when the Business Office is having so much trouble with the Meditech billing system and not accurately processing delinquent accounts. Attachment A is the standard billing procedure as explained to this committee by the current Business Office Manager who was hired in April 2005. The proper coding of all services rendered is the responsibility of the Medical Records Technician. Since this a vital and critical step in using the correct codes for the insurance industry as well as billing the patient the correct amount, it is imperative that all Medical Records Technicians are properly trained and certified. In Tuolumne County, Medical Records Technicians are represented by the Tuolumne County Employee's Association Memorandum of Understanding 2003-2006 (TCEA MOU). The Business Office Manager provided information on training and certification of Medical Records Technicians. Currently the Medical Records Technicians at TGH are self-taught and are not certified. They are part of the Medical Records Department. Training for Medical Records Technicians is available at both Columbia College and Modesto Junior College. Classes are based on the coder's knowledge of anatomy, physiology, medical terminology, biology, billing etc. There are also weekend seminars that are available for coders to attend. The American Health Information Management Association gives two tests a year that would certify Medical Records Technicians. If a Technician does not pass the first time they must wait a year to take the test again. Three certifications are offered: • Certified Coder Specialist [CCS] – Hospital Coders • Certified Coder Associate [CCA] – Basic coding • Certified Coder Physician [CCP] – Clinic Coders Coding for inpatient and outpatient services are different. Trained and certified Technicians are able to submit the correct codes for the dissimilar services. This begs the questions that if TGH's Medical Records Technician are not properly trained and certified, is it possible that many services and procedures have gone unbilled? If so, for how long? According to the TCEA MOU, Article 12. Educational Reimbursement, "The county shall pay the cost of any specialized certification for employees whose position classification requires said certificate be maintained as a condition of employment." This brings the question, would Tuolumne County be willing to pay for the certification of the Medical Records Technicians in order to provide quality services in the Business Office and ensure proper recovery of all revenues due TGH? Properly completed charts by doctors and nurse practitioners must be sent to the Medical Records Technician as soon as treatment is complete. The Technicians must then send the correct coded information to the Business Office to ensure prompt billing and ultimately prompt payment to the hospital. The Assistant County Administrator has stated that TGH has implemented a new policy that doctors and nurse practitioners do not get paid if their paperwork is not correct and submitted in a timely manner. Findings and Recommendations