Placer County Grand Jury
• 2005-2006
Immediate Issues Interim Report Auburn Recreation District (ard)
⚠️ 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.
Findings and Recommendations 9 findings
F1
This year’s Grand Jury believes that there is no circumstance in which it is advisable to allow an employee to draft his or her own employment contract and under no circumstances should such a draft be considered as a basis for contract discussion or negotiation.
No recommendations for this finding
F2
We find that there is no logic which would permit an employee’s legal complaints to be any basis whatsoever for considering a new contract. The two matters must be maintained as separate and distinct.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
The Board should document and state clearly in writing to the District Administrator that it has rejected all of his claims. If he then chooses to resign or to pursue the matter by other legal means, that is his decision.
F3
The proposed contract extends far beyond the term of any current board member. It would be poor practice to award a new contract that obligates future boards when it is impossible to understand if that action will cause great harm to the budget process of those future boards. The uncertainty of future income and the uncertainty as to the need in the future for ARD to have an executive director are unknown at this time.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
All discussion and consideration of a new contract for the District Administrator should cease.
F4
Considering that the District Administrator is currently under a contract not expiring until 2008, there is no apparent need to consider an extension or modification at this time, especially considering the tenuous relationship between the District Administrator and the Board.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
All discussion and consideration of a new contract for the District Administrator should cease.
F5
The draft contract presented by the District Administrator requests compensation far beyond the value of the position.
No recommendations for this finding
F6
The termination provisions are almost certainly illegal under state law in exceeding the maximum allowable 18-month severance compensation.
No recommendations for this finding
F7
Continuing consideration of this matter in ARD Board closed session meetings has been divisive and an impediment to the Board’s effective direction of ARD.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1
All discussion and consideration of a new contract for the District Administrator should cease.
R3
The Grand Jury urges all board members and the District Administrator to put personal agendas and differences behind them and to make a conscientious and sincere attempt to begin to work together as an effective team. Anyone who cannot with clear conscience adhere to this recommendation and act accordingly should resign in the best overall interest of ARD.
F8
There is a likelihood that the content of closed session meetings of the ARD Board regarding the proposed contract has been disclosed to local newspapers either by one or more meeting attendees or through intermediaries.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4
The Grand Jury reminds all participants in closed session meetings of the ARD Board that the proper avenues under the law for strong disagreement with meeting content are the Grand Jury and the District Attorney. We offer no sympathy to anyone who has chosen, out of disagreement with other members of the board or the District Administrator, to violate the law governing the conduct of elected boards. Such actions run the risk of further diminishing ARD’s reputation and of subjecting ARD and individual members to liability. REQUEST FOR RESPONSE (S): California State law provides requirements for response to Grand Jury report findings and recommendations. These are detailed on pages 39 through 42 of the Final Report of the 2004-2005 Grand Jury. Copies are provided to each respondent below. The specified respondents to this Interim Report are as follows: Each member of the ARD Board as an individual respondent The ARD District Administrator By law, written responses are required in 60 days. However, we urge that the Board and the District Administrator accept the recommendations of this report and implement them immediately. NOTE TO RESPONDENTS The legal requirements affecting respondents and responses to Grand Jury findings and recommendations are contained in California Penal Code, Section 933.05. The full text of the law is printed below. Each Respondent should become familiar with these legal requirements and, if in doubt, should consult legal counsel prior to responding. For the assistance of all Respondents, Sections 933.05 of the California Penal Code is summarized as follows: The responding person or entity must respond in one of two ways:
F9
Such disclosures, if they in fact occurred, are a violation of the Brown Act, Section 54963, and are subject to legal remedies. CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS As noted previously, the Grand Jury anticipates that it will continue to investigate ARD and to report its overall findings and recommendations. This report addresses only the immediate questions of considering a new contract for the District Administrator and the public disclosure of the proposed terms. Thus, the Grand Jury makes the following recommendations at this time
Related Recommendations (1)
R4
The Grand Jury reminds all participants in closed session meetings of the ARD Board that the proper avenues under the law for strong disagreement with meeting content are the Grand Jury and the District Attorney. We offer no sympathy to anyone who has chosen, out of disagreement with other members of the board or the District Administrator, to violate the law governing the conduct of elected boards. Such actions run the risk of further diminishing ARD’s reputation and of subjecting ARD and individual members to liability. REQUEST FOR RESPONSE (S): California State law provides requirements for response to Grand Jury report findings and recommendations. These are detailed on pages 39 through 42 of the Final Report of the 2004-2005 Grand Jury. Copies are provided to each respondent below. The specified respondents to this Interim Report are as follows: Each member of the ARD Board as an individual respondent The ARD District Administrator By law, written responses are required in 60 days. However, we urge that the Board and the District Administrator accept the recommendations of this report and implement them immediately. NOTE TO RESPONDENTS The legal requirements affecting respondents and responses to Grand Jury findings and recommendations are contained in California Penal Code, Section 933.05. The full text of the law is printed below. Each Respondent should become familiar with these legal requirements and, if in doubt, should consult legal counsel prior to responding. For the assistance of all Respondents, Sections 933.05 of the California Penal Code is summarized as follows: The responding person or entity must respond in one of two ways: