📋
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.
El Dorado County Grand Jury
• 2009-2010
EI Dorado County Grand Jury 2009-2010 Report
⚠️ 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 11 findings
F1
A Vote by Mail program will save EI Dorado County significant amounts of budget funds each year.
F2
A Vote by Mail program will likely increase the voter turnout in the county.
F3
Page 15
A Vote by Mail program will not increase the likelihood of voter fraud.
F4
Page 20
The City’s government employs a notable number of married couples and family members among its employees, commission members, and elected officials. Some of the related employees are in positions of significant influence. Although the policy relating to nepotism does not seem to have been violated, the existence of these close relationships has resulted in an atmosphere where many employees are afraid to discuss operational problems in the City. They are concerned that their observations might be viewed as criticism of family members. In testimony received, there is “angst” by City employees who believe, that employees who have spoken about problems within City government have ended up on “layoff lists”. This fear is so pervasive that some witnesses requested assurance, when they appeared before the Grand Jury, that members of the Grand Jury were not related to officers and employees of the South Lake Tahoe City government before they testified.
F5
Page 21
City Council members and City officials have varying degrees of understanding and openly disagree with the Brown Act. Although bound by the laws of the State of California to obey the same, some violate them on a regular basis. For example: a. More than one Council member or City staff member erroneously has reported Brown Act violations by City officials. b. One Council member has publicly and frequently expressed disdain for the Brown Act and has often been identified as the source of improper disclosures about confidential matters within City government. This Council member also disclosed information which was discussed in closed session by the City Council. c. Closed sessions are reserved for discussions of confidential and sensitive information. Disclosures of information from closed sessions could have detrimental consequences for the City. When information about this disclosure was obtained by the other members of the City Council, they failed to take the appropriate corrective action by censuring or officially reprimanding the offending City Council member. d. The instructor selected by the City of South Lake Tahoe gave ethics training to Council members with only cursory information about the Brown Act, and appeared to have limited knowledge about the Act.
F6
Page 21
A City Council member filed a complaint with the Grand Jury that the City Manager was operating without authority and not doing his job. The Council member also made these remarks in public. The Grand Jury received testimony and found these accusations without merit and misleading. The City Council hires and supervises the City Manager and apparently was unwilling to conduct its own investigation to address these accusations. Instead, the Council attempted to use the Grand Jury as its tool to correct a situation that was completely within their jurisdiction.
F7
Page 21
Testimony supports that City officers and employees at times operate using accepted historical practices that conflict with official written policy. This has resulted in misunderstandings, contentious City Council meetings, and a public impression that the City’s government operates outside the law. These misconceptions could expose the City to lawsuits. a. A member of the City Council requested reimbursement for legal fees paid to an outside law firm. The legal advice consisted of a legal opinion and preparation of a letter to the Fair Political Practices Commission. No contract had been signed and the City Council had not approved the expenditure in advance. The City Manager stated that he gave verbal approval for the expenditure. California State Law clearly states that government contracts for payment may not be backdated. All unusual expenditures should be approved in open session. The City’s Purchasing Policy and Procedure Manual calls for the presence of written contracts when professional services are sought, and makes no provision for payment and reimbursement absent the presence of a contract.
F8
Page 30
The Board of Supervisors' decisions regarding the selection of the location for the Animal Control Shelter and the method of construction were strongly influenced by one Supervisor. According to authoritative sources with direct knowledge, that Supervisor "drove the bus". Nonetheless, all members of the Board of Supervisors share responsibility for approving the purchase.
F9
Page 30
The Board of Supervisors failed to make diligent inquiries into the usability of the entire 10-acre parcel, failed to ask important questions about the costs of improvements specified in the purchase agreement, and failed to negotiate a fair cost- sharing agreement with the Sellers for the costs of the improvements.
F10
Page 31
The Department of General Services, and the CAO, failed to provide the Board of Supervisors with all pertinent information concerning the costs of the improvements to be made by the County as described in the purchase agreement for the 10-acre parcel.
F11
Page 31
The County Counsel's office, who prepared the purchase agreement for the 10- acre parcel, made a glaring omission by neglecting to insert an "escape clause" that would permit the County to avoid making the specified improvements if the Animal Control Shelter were not actually constructed on the l C-acre parcel. Even if the County received a lower price for the 10-acre parcel because it agreed to build the road and make other improvements, any difference in price did not justify the County being left "holding the bag" or having a costly contractual obligation for the required improvements.
Recommendations 3
-
R5Page 4Each County Department should designate a supervisor as the point of contact for employee complaints of uncomfortable temperatures, so that the supervisor can determine whether BOS Policy A-18 is being complied with, and if not, communicate the problem to appropriate maintenance personnel. RESPONSES Responses to both numbered findings and recommendations in this report are required in accordance with California Penal Code §933 and §933.05. Address responses to: The Honorable Suzanne N. Kingsbury, Presiding Judge of the E1 Dorado County Superior Court, 1354 Johnson Blvd., South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The County Department of Transportation should be recognized for applying for the $812,423 Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant program which is funded through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Federal stimulus dollars). Facilities Inspected: Boiler Room, Building B, El Dorado County Government Center, Placerville, California Control Room, Building 3, 2850 Fairlane Court, Placerville, California County-leased facility at 3057 Briw Road, Placerville, California EI Dorado County Library, Placerville, California Interviews Conducted: Building Maintenance personnel Building Operations Supervisor Capital Group, Executive Citizen complainant Deputy Director, Facilities Engineering, DOT Documents Reviewed: California Energy Commission letter dated August 3, 2009, to the EI Dorado County Supervisors inviting the County to apply for $812,423 in federal stimulus dollars (American Recovery and Reinvestment Act money) Department of Transportation's Response to Grand Jury Inquiry of November 30,2009, containing: a. Description of all energy audits that have been performed within the past five years; b. Description of all plans for replacing inefficient heating, ventilation, air conditioning (HV AC) and lighting equipment; c. Description of County Master Plan, Capital Improvement Fund, etc.; d. Reports of power consumption by each EI Dorado County facility; e. Report of all funds received from the Federal and State Governments for increasing energy efficiencies; f. Report of all plans for spending federal and state monies for increased energy efficiencies; g. Information on the annual expenses for electricity, propane and natural gas for HV AC and lighting for all facilities under the jurisdiction of the County government. EI Dorado County Board of Supervisors Agenda Item dated August 11, 2009, approving letter for support for the Lake Tahoe Green Energy District.
-
R6Page 5City employees, starting with City Council members and senior City officials, should receive mandatory training in ethics, sexual harassment, and confidentiality, with emphasis on the Brown Act. The City should consider training from sources other than those used in the past.
-
R7Page 5City officials must find a way to assure that the City adheres to written policies and procedures, and does not allow itself to “cut corners” by using historically accepted practices that violate written policies. Senior City officials and Council members should receive mandatory annual training on policies and procedures. Enforcing adherence to this might require establishment of an Ombudsman or Inspector General position. CONCLUSION The City Council, in its reports, procedures and by evidence received by the Grand Jury, points to a severely handicapped organization that needs major changes. The 2009-2010 Grand Jury has recommended to the County Supervisor for District V, that the City of South Lake Tahoe needs a “Management and Procedural Review” to be conducted by an independent consultant. The consultant should make their report to the District Attorney for possible legal action. This Grand Jury is of the opinion that an accusation for malfeasance or nonfeasance by this City Council may be appropriate after the study is concluded. The Grand Jury only touched the “tip of the iceberg” in its investigation and recommends that the citizens of South Lake Tahoe get involved with their City government. It is up to the citizens to establish the kind of governance they desire, to exercise their democratic right to vote, and get a City government that works for the common good and in an efficient manner for its citizens. RESPONSES Responses to both findings and recommendations in this report are required in accordance with California Penal Code §933 and §933.05. Address responses to: The Honorable Suzanne N. Kingsbury, Presiding Judge of the El Dorado County Superior Court, 1354 Johnson Blvd., South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150. -009 REASON FOR REPORT California Penal Code §919(a) and §919(b) require that grand juries annually inspect any jail, prison, or juvenile detention facility within their respective counties.
Conclusions 1
-
CL1The City Council, in its reports, procedures and by evidence received by the Grand Jury, points to a severely handicapped organization that needs major changes. The 2009-2010 Grand Jury has recommended to the County Supervisor for District V, that the City of South Lake Tahoe needs a “Management and Procedural Review” to be conducted by an independent consultant. The consultant should make their report to the District Attorney for possible legal action. This Grand Jury is of the opinion that an accusation for malfeasance or nonfeasance by this City Council may be appropriate after the study is concluded. The Grand Jury only touched the “tip of the iceberg” in its investigation and recommends that the citizens of South Lake Tahoe get involved with their City government. It is up to the citizens to establish the kind of governance they desire, to exercise their democratic right to vote, and get a City government that works for the common good and in an efficient manner for its citizens. RESPONSES Responses to both findings and recommendations in this report are required in accordance with California Penal Code §933 and §933.05. Address responses to: The Honorable Suzanne N. Kingsbury, Presiding Judge of the El Dorado County Superior Court, 1354 Johnson Blvd., South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150. EL DORADO COUNTY GRAND JURY 2009-2010 EL DORADO COUNTY JUVENILE HALL Case No. GJ 09-009 REASON FOR REPORT California Penal Code §919(a) and §919(b) require that grand juries annually inspect any jail, prison, or juvenile detention facility within their respective counties.
Commendations 10
-
CM1The Board of Supervisors authorized the purchase of a parcel owned by a friend of one Supervisor;
-
CM2The parcel purchased by the County is 10 acres but only about 7 acres are useable;
-
CM3The purchase agreement required the County to build a road and water lines at a cost of approximately $1.5 million to reach the landlocked 10-acre parcel;
-
CM4The road and water lines will enhance the surrounding privately-owned parcels, but the County will not be reimbursed for any of the cost;
-
CM5The Board of Supervisors insisted on a concrete tilt-up design; however, this is not the most cost effective construction for this location.
-
CM6The 2009-2010 EI Dorado County Grand Jury commends the EI Dorado County Registrar of Voters for his plans to save County budget funds and to take action to secure the accuracy of all ballots cast. EL DORADO COUNTY GRAND JURY 2009-2010 CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CITY COUNCIL Case No. GJ 09-008 REASON FOR REPORT A Grand Jury investigation originated from a complaint by a local union official that there had been violations of California State law including the Ralph M. Brown Act, and local City and county ordinances. It was alleged that the violations had been committed by a member or members of the City Council of the City of South Lake Tahoe. The complaint related to the release of confidential personnel information. Specifically, during the hiring process for a new City Attorney, local news media outlets reported that two members of the City Attorney’s staff had not passed the California State Bar examination. The information was believed to have come from members of the City Council, and possibly from closed sessions of City Council meetings. As the investigation into the violations progressed, the Grand Jury became aware of additional issues. It was stated that breaches of confidentiality affected the conduct and fiduciary functions of the City Council, compromising its ability to govern.
-
CM7The current CAO and staff are to be commended for efforts taken to-date toward greater consolidation of administrative service functions throughout County government. EL DORADO COUNTY GRAND JURY 2009-2010 REVIEW OF PUBLIC GUARDIAN AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATOR Case No. GJ 09-023 REASON FOR REPORT The Orange County Grand Jury requested assistance from this Grand Jury securing legislation that would require all county grand juries to conduct an annual review of the offices of Public Administrator and Public Guardian. Specifically, they requested we review their report and send letters requesting passage of this legislation to our state senator and assemblyman.
-
CM8The 2009-2010 El Dorado County Grand Jury commends the South Lake Tahoe Jail administration and staff for their dedication in providing a safe and secure custodial environment. The number and variety of available programs, especially the Culinary Arts program, have a proven record of success. EL DORADO COUNTY GRAND JURY 2009-2010 SOUTH LAKE TAHOE JUVENILE TREATMENT CENTER Case No. GJ 09-026 REASON FOR REPORT The California Penal Code §919(a) and §919(b) charges the Grand Jury to annually inspect correctional institutions that operate within the county.
-
CM9The 2009-2010 El Dorado Grand Jury commends the staff of the South Lake Tahoe Juvenile Treatment Center, the El Dorado Probation Department, and the El Dorado Office of Education for their outstanding advocacy and rehabilitation programs for at-risk youth. EL DORADO COUNTY GRAND JURY 2009-2010 HAPPY HOMESTEAD CEMETERY DISTRICT PAYMENT FOR TEMPORARY PERSONNEL Case No. GJ 09-028 REASON FOR REPORT A complaint was received from the El Dorado County Auditor/Controller concerning claims submitted by the Happy Homestead Cemetery District (HHCD) for temporary employment services. Two issues were presented by the complainant. The first issue involves a retroactive charge in the amount of $2,272 for a temporary office worker. The second issue concerns a $3,000 settlement agreement proposed by the employment agency to settle potential legal claims.
-
CM10The 2009-2010 El Dorado County Grand Jury commends the Growlersburg Conservation Camp and its leadership teams for providing: Excellent inmate training in firefighting; Significant assistance in fighting forest fires throughout California; Meaningful maintenance assistance to local districts and agencies; Working and living conditions for inmates to improve themselves and return to productive lives.
No Responses Found 1
Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.
El Dorado County
County