⚠️ 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 5 findings
F1
The City adopted a Code of Ethics (Municipal Code Section 31.45 thru 31.58), which states the following: “…there is hereby established a code of ethics for all officials and employees, whether elected or appointed paid or unpaid. The purpose of this code of ethics is to establish ethical standards of conduct for all such officials and employees…” (Ord. 91.3 adopted February 19, 1991). Information obtained by the Grand Jury indicated violations of the City Code of Ethics as illustrated below: a. A City Council subcommittee on ethics, in a statement dated August 5, 2003, reported ethics violations by certain City officials. b. A former City official recommended that a security contract be approved and later asked for, and was granted, a contract increase from $8,000 to $10,000. It was discovered that this same City official’s relative’s name had been removed from the letterhead before presenting the contract to the Council for action. c. A former City official renegotiated a developer’s contract so that street improvements would extend past this official’s property. This official then recommended that the Council approve the contract without disclosing his/her interest. d. A former City official, whose company performed work within the City, neglected to report that income on his/her Statement of Economic Interest-Form 700. e. Information was reported on the Statements of Economic Interest-Form 700 by certain City officials who did not recuse themselves from apparent conflicts of interest. The Political Reform Act (Government Code Sections 81000- 91015) requires state and local government officials and employees to disclose publicly personal assets and income in their Statements of Economic Interest-Form 700. 2
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
All City employees adhere to the City Code of Ethics. City Council members and City employees who are required to complete a Statement of Economic Interest-Form 700 attend a workshop outlining instructions on completing this form, and also attend ethics training as required by AB 1234.
F2
It was discovered during an independent financial audit that Administrative Services did not follow proper accounting procedures. Internal control of accounts receivable during fiscal years 2003-2004 and 2004-2005 resulted in special permit funds being commingled with the general fund.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
Specialized permit funds should have detailed accounting records, including allocation and disbursement of funds. The City adhere to the recommendations by the independent auditors that the permit funds be segregated from the general fund, and that an annual audit of specialized funds be conducted.
F3
A former City official held five positions (city manager, executive director of development agency, city engineer, building official, and development director), simultaneously within the City administration. This may have been in conflict with the Common-Law Doctrine of Incompatible Public Offices for a Charter City. On September 30, 1998, the Attorney General of the State of California, in his opinion and analysis, summed up the Common-Law Doctrine as follow: “Offices are incompatible, in the absence of statute suggesting a contrary results, if there is any significant clash of duties or loyalties between the offices, if the dual office holding would be improper for reasons of public policy, or if either officer exercises a supervisory, auditory, or removal power on the other.”
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
City officials should not hold two or more positions simultaneously in City government if a conflict of interest arises.
F4
As of 2005, City employees had not received a handbook outlining their employment rights (Skelly rights), nor were employees designated as “At-Will,” aware of their status.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4
All employees be provided a handbook of their employment rights. This handbook should include specifics on the Skelly rights for government employees. Those employees designated as “At-Will” should be required to sign a statement similar to what Riverside County requires for its “At-Will” employees (See Attachment A, Memorandum of Understanding). Riverside County Resolution No. 2005-475 Section 601-E details what “At- Will” means and how it affects employment and termination.
F5
Hiring procedures were often ignored by the Human Resources Department. Some employees were hired for certain positions within the City without the required educational degrees and/or criminal background checks. 3
Related Recommendations (1)
R5
Preemployment verification should include educational degrees, position requirements, and criminal background checks. Report Issued: 06/26/06 Report Public: 06/29/06 Response Due: 09/25/06 4 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING This memorandum is an employment understanding between the County of Riverside and: Name:_____________________________________________________________________ Appointed Position:__________________________________________________________ Salary:_____________________________________________________________________ Date of Appointment:_________________________________________________________ Employment Conditions: The incumbent is appointed by the Board of Supervisors and serves at the pleasure of the individual Supervisor (i.e. At-Will) as provided under Article 6, Section E (3) of the Management Resolution No. 2005-475. _____________________________________ ___________________________ Employee Signature Date _____________________________________ ___________________________ Department Head/Agency Head Signature Date EMPLOYEE SERVICES\AT WILL Statement (Board Employee). Dot 3/20/2006 (Attachment A) 5