📋
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.

Mendocino County Grand Jury • 2024-2025

Mcrpd Lost Almost Three Million Dollars in Grant Funds from the State of California June 28, 2021

9 pages
View PDF View Full Original

Findings and Recommendations 6 findings

F1
MCRPD lost the opportunity to receive more than $2.5 million in grant funds because it operated in violation of State Codes and guidelines pertaining to the administration of the CAOHVPD Grants and award of the fence contract per PCC section 20682.5 (b).
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
MCRPD’s BOD should amend its Bylaws following release of this GJ report to require independent professional legal guidance for any project to assure that all 8 Assembly Bill No. 1234, Chapter 700 "Local agencies: compensation and ethics." Approved by Governor October 07, 2005. Filed with Secretary of State October 07, 2005. Grant(s) and the award of contracts comply with State codes and guidelines to guard against the loss of grant funding due to conflicts of interest and outdated bylaws. (F1)
F2
MCRPD incurred debt which it has been unable to repay and led to bankruptcy because of purchasing the Highway 20 property prior to the completion of the feasibility study for the intended purpose of a golf course and the possible mismanagement of public funds.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
MCRPD’s BOD should engage a professional consultant to develop a feasibility study and strategic plan prior to the initiation of any capital improvement project (CIP). MCRPD should document and publish the report for public review and comment at least 60 days prior to the award of contract for any CIP. Complete disclosure and public notice in the letting of all Special District contract may avoid the loss of grant funding due to conflicts of interest and outdated bylaws. (F2)
F3
MCRPD BOD does not have an effective mechanism to ensure training and compliance with conflict-of-interest rules.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
MCRPD’s BOD should engage an independent Outside Counsel to review its Bylaws of this report; MCRPD’s Bylaws should be updated annually with outside Counsel at the beginning of each new term and post them on MCRPD’s website to make them available to the public. (F3)
F4
MCRPD risks civil litigation or statutory violations as MCRPD BOD and Executive staff do not receive initial and annual training in Brown Act, Ethics and Harassment in compliance with AB1234.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4
MCRPD’s BOD of the start of their term and annually should receive training for Brown Act, Ethics and Harassment laws and regulations as required. All staff at the start of employment and annually thereafter should receive training for Brown Act, Ethics and Harassment laws and regulations as required. Records should be maintained to track participation. (F4)
F5
MCRPD risks potential conflicts of interest and potential litigation as Bylaws do not require attendance of Counsel at its BOD meetings.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5
MCRPD’s BOD shall retain legal counsel with required attendance at every BOD meeting to avoid actions that may violate Federal, State, County, Local, Penal Code, Ethics or Brown Act violations. (F5)
F6
MCRPD fails to provide financial transparency to the public as monthly financial statements are not routinely published for public viewing. Monthly financial statements would identify revenue sources such as rental fees, expenditures and capital commitments.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6
MCRPD shall prepare and publish on its website a monthly financial report as approved by the BOD to provide transparency to the public. This report should include a review of the monthly accounting of checks issued and revenue received. (F6)