📋
Extracted from Consolidated Report
This investigation was originally published as part of a larger consolidated report containing multiple investigations. View the consolidated PDF for the complete document.
⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Note: Missing finding numbers detected: F6, F7
Findings and Recommendations 9 findings
F1
Page 18
The Grand Jury received a lack of cooperation in the production of documents required to prove or disprove the Chief Counsel’s alleged self-dealing.
No recommendations for this finding
F2
Page 18
Witnesses claim that hiring of certain employees did not follow Board-approved policy. The Grand Jury found that, in one instance, an individual was selected, a job was created, and Board policy modified to accommodate the position. In a separate instance, a practice of handpicking employees resulted in the hiring of a senior staff member who did not meet the minimum qualifications of the position.
No recommendations for this finding
F3
Page 18
In-house legal counsel created a management unit benefit package, with an enhanced retirement benefit package, to include lifetime health, dental and vision coverage. This enhanced, lifetime package is available after only two years of service.
No recommendations for this finding
F4
Page 18
The California State Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) enjoyed a few years of over-funding due to favorable investments. CCWD pays both employer and employee contributions to the fund. During the period of over-funding, CCWD was not required to pay the employer contribution. After the terrorist acts of September 11, 2001, and subsequent stock market downswing, CalPERS notified all public agencies that employer contribution would not only be reinstated but also increased up to an additional 3% of employee’s annual salary, starting in 2004. This increase, up to10% of employees’ salaries in retirement contribution, was presented to the Board by management as having no financial impact. The pending rate increase and its financial impact should have been brought to the attention of the Board.
No recommendations for this finding
F5
Page 18
Staff advised management that it is bad financial practice to allow the water assessment revenues to support the sewer operations in order to avoid the impact of rate increases. 10
No recommendations for this finding
F8
Page 16
Establish a permanent office with regular hours and conduct District business from that location.
No recommendations for this finding
F9
Page 16
Reduce the Directors’ fees to bring them more in line with fees paid to Directors in similar districts
No recommendations for this finding
F10
Page 16
All contracts over $3,500.00 should receive a minimum of three bids and all subject bids should be posted in the local newspaper with the largest subscription base. No contractor should be accepted without a State license. Emergency work may be done on an on-call basis and, when feasible, should be done by a licensed contractor.
No recommendations for this finding
F11
Page 16
VSPUD legal counsel should thoroughly interpret the requirements of the Brown Act to each Board Director so they fully understand both their obligation to conform to the requirements and the penalties for non-conformance. RESPONSE REQUESTED VSPUD Board of Directors VSPUD Manager 8 CALAVERAS COUNTY WATER DISTRICT (CCWD) REASON FOR INVESTIGATION A complaint was filed against CCWD alleging, “the majority of Board discretionary activities are either unnecessary, inappropriate, frivolous, or outright boondoggles.” PROCEDURES The Grand Jury examined CCWD legislative platform approved by Board and compared this to a list of proposed CCWD projects prepared by management and presented to the Board for approval. FINDING CCWD has undertaken the pursuit of programs not consistent with its approved Legislative Platform, which is a violation of California Government Code 56824.12.
No recommendations for this finding