Required Responses:

Several key findings of the 2006 Grand Jury were confirmed by the 2007 Grand Jury in an independent inquiry into the BOS Travel and Meal Policy and reimbursement claims: • Disagree to the extent that the Fourth District Supervisor did adhere to the reimbursement policy and practice that was in • the Fourth and Fifth District Supervisors failed to adhere to the BOS place as of 1/1/05 and I have no knowledge as to the adherence of Travel Policy governing reimbursement for in-county travel; same by the Fifth District Supervisor • the COB was responsible for processing and authorizing all BOS • Agree reimbursement claims before forwarding them to the Auditor’s • Agree, sentence one. Cannot agree or disagree with sentence Office for payment; two as I do not know if there are subordinates that authorize • the COB is directly subordinate to the BOS and is an at-will employee. This is the only case in the County where a subordinate travel claims in the County. has been vested with the power to authorize reimbursement of • Agree with part one. Disagree in part with section two as the personal expenses submitted by a superior; BOS travel policy in place in 2005-06 references ‘a confirming • the BOS travel claim form (Form No. A/C-06) states clearly that travel document’ as required by the auditor. It does not state signing it certifies “under penalty of perjury that the within claim form No. A/C 06 be used and other forms have been used to and the items therein set out are true and correct.” Both the COB and record mileage and other expenses. the claimant Supervisor are currently required to sign a completed form before it is forwarded to the Auditor’s Office for payment.

The 2007 Grand Jury confirmed the 2006 finding that in the case of Disagree in part. I agree this was the finding however I disagree with the the Fourth District Supervisor, an incorrect interpretation of the finding and how it was arrived at. The Fourth District Supervisor incurred travel policy as a “per diem” resulted in claims for reimbursement more expenses for travel than were submitted or reimbursed. when no miles were actually traveled and no cost was incurred for overnight lodging.

When requested by the 2006 Grand Jury to present travel diaries, Disagree in part. The Fourth District Supervisor stated information was journals, receipts, or other original evidence of meetings and travel, not retained for this entire period nor was it required to be. Additionally, the the Fourth District Supervisor first stated that she had forgotten to Supervisor offered to attempt to provide information regarding specific dates bring them and then said that she did not maintain such records. if requested to do so. Specific date information was not requested. She informed the 2007 Grand Jury that she did not and does not maintain an engagement calendar to record travel and business- related appointments.

Disagree. Lodging receipts were not required under the policy The County Auditor could only estimate the amount of implementation of the BOS travel policy when I assumed office in 2005. overpayments to the Fourth District Supervisor through November Additionally, dates, destinations and business purpose of travel were 2006 because the Fourth District Supervisor did not support her sufficient for the previous Auditor to reimburse the claims. In several travel claims with lodging receipts and documentation of dates, instances the Fourth District Supervisor provided more detailed destinations and County business purpose of her travel documentation of travel than was provided in claims submitted by other expenditures. supervisors during a similar time frame.

In lieu of accurate records, the Fourth District Supervisor Disagree. The Fourth District Supervisor did not submit a formula to estimate proposed, to the 2006 Grand Jury and to the Auditor, a formula to mileage in lieu of accurate records. The Fourth District Supervisor submitted estimate what percentage of her mileage claims had actually been travel claims consistent with the travel policy in 2005-2006 and consistent driven. Applying this formula, 27% of the mileage for which the with those of her immediate predecessor. The Grand Jury suggested a formula Supervisor had been reimbursed was not actually traveled. be used to address their concerns. This was prior to an actual review of past records and the Clerk of the Board’s memo stating the past practice as evidenced by those records.

The formula was based on travel records submitted to the Auditor Disagree. The formula referenced was suggested by a Grand Jury member to in 2007 in response to the 2006 Grand Jury travel investigation. the Fourth District Supervisor to resolve differences of opinion as to the travel The formula was rejected by the Grand Jury as an inaccurate policy interpretation. The Fourth District Supervisor has no knowledge as to a representation of the undocumented travel that was claimed rejection of the formula by the Grand Jury. between January 2005 and November 2006 when the Supervisor was claiming a “per diem” for each day spent in Ukiah. The Auditor was not made aware of the Grand Jury’s rejection of The Fourth District Supervisor does not agree or disagree with this statement the formula or of the reason for this rejection. Lacking any as I have no knowledge of communication between the Auditor and the Grand substantive documentation of the expense claims, she estimated Jury. that the Fourth District Supervisor owed the County at least $3,676.

The Auditor was not made aware of the Grand Jury’s rejection of The Fourth District Supervisor does not agree or disagree with this statement the formula or of the reason for this rejection. Lacking any as I have no knowledge of communication between the Auditor and the Grand substantive documentation of the expense claims, she estimated Jury. that the Fourth District Supervisor owed the County at least $3,676.

The Fourth District Supervisor then submitted newly found Disagree in part. Documents were not ’ newly found’. The auditor asked for expense documentation to the Auditor, including copies of 15 additional travel documentation hereto fore not required. monthly rent checks of $100 each to rent a room in a private home for use when County business required her to stay in Ukiah.

The rental period was from June 2005 through August 2006. The Disagree in part. This was the Auditor’s assessment when attempting to arrive Auditor noted that overnight stays during this time should be at an amount that may have been overpaid to the Fourth District Supervisor. reimbursed at the rate of $3.33/day (the pro-rated daily lodging cost at $100/30) rather than on the basis of round-trip mileage.

On the basis of the additional documentation submitted by the Disagree in part. The amount referenced was outlined in a memo from the Fourth District Supervisor, the Auditor reduced the amount owed auditor dated 6/26/07. It clearly states “may” have been overpaid. It also states from $3676 to $3087. that a historical analysis of past claims was not done. It is not a comprehensive audit of the Fourth District Supervisor’s claims, the immediate past Fourth District Supervisor or any other supervisor’s claims.

The Fourth District Supervisor acknowledged having received the Disagree in part. The statement as quoted does not acknowledge receiving an overpayment. In a memo to the Auditor, dated June 20, 2007, she overpayment. Committing to concluding a matter without review of-or absent stated: pertinent documents and analysis of- past practice, would be wrong. The “…The Mendocino County Grand Jury has asked that I pay to the documents to conclude this matter expeditiously are available. County of Mendocino an amount you determine to be appropriate under your interpretation of the Board of Supervisors Travel and Meal Policy.” “…While I do not feel your initial methodology included all pertinent factors, I am committed to concluding this matter by June 28, 2007, in a manner satisfactory to you and to the Grand Jury.”

When the funds had not been repaid by the June 28, 2007 deadline, Disagree in part. The action did occur as listed but I do not believe an the 2006 Grand Jury instituted legal action under the provisions of overpayment occurred. The Fourth District Supervisor incurred more costs in Penal Code Section (PC) 932 ordering the DA to recover $3,087 in conducting County business during the timeframe listed than were submitted overpayments made by the County to the Fourth District for reimbursement. Supervisor.

Disagree in part. The 2005 travel policy references management personnel The written BOS Travel Policy that was already in place in 2005 reimbursement rates that are delineated in Mendocino County Policy #18. and remained in place through June 2007, and the current policy Also, other travel compensation is addressed by resolution. that took effect in January 2008, cover all reimbursable in-county travel. This includes in-county mileage and overnight stays when there are back-to-back meetings. Meals associated with in-county over-night stays are not covered under any of the BOS Travel Policies.

The Fourth District Supervisor stated that the Travel Policy in Disagree in part. The 2005 BOS travel policy is not clearly worded. As an effect from 2005 through June 2007 was confusing and that she did example, it does not state receipts are required for in-county travel, yet not completely understand it. She further stated that she had retroactively they have been requested of the Fourth District Supervisor. The interpreted the Travel Policy as a “per diem”, i.e., a fixed amount to management policy clearly states receipts are not required under certain which she was entitled whether or not she had either mileage or circumstances and, meals are also provided in-county under certain lodging expenses. circumstances. My interpretation of the travel policy was that of my predecessor as the records reflect.

The Fourth District Supervisor persisted in submitting travel Disagree. I did not discuss the travel policy with the Auditor in late 2005. claims according to her “per diem” interpretation even after discussing the Travel Policy with the former Auditor late in 2005 (her first year in office) and being told that it was incorrect.

The 2007 Grand Jury confirmed that the Fourth District Supervisor Disagree. The Fourth District did not submit claims for 22 round trips in June claimed 22 round-trips in June of 2006 including 17 round-trips in of 2006. Nor were there 17 round trips in 18 consecutive days submitted. This 18 consecutive days. For the same month, she had paid monthly is incorrect as the records reflect. rent of $100 for a room in Ukiah for use as a bedroom “…as needed to do her job.”

The Fourth District Supervisor discussed her “per diem” interpretation with the former Auditor again in December 2006 Disagree. The Fourth District Supervisor did not discuss the travel policy with and received the same answer. the Auditor in December 2006. I asked the Auditor for a meeting to conduct an exit interview during December 2006. This meeting did not occur until January 2007, just prior to his leaving office.

Under Section (A) (2) (d) of the Travel Policy (prior to June, 2007), Disagree. This is not what the policy states. if no miles are traveled and no cost is incurred for lodging, no reimbursement is permitted.

Reimbursement is defined as repayment of funds actually spent. Agree Ethics training provided to the Supervisors by County Counsel Agree includes the admonition that elected officials are required to know and abide by applicable reimbursement policies.

Ethics training provided to the Supervisors by County Counsel Agree includes the admonition that elected officials are required to know and abide by applicable reimbursement policies.

Supervisors of the First, Second, Third and Fifth Districts and the Neither agree or disagree with this finding as I have no knowledge of what the former Fourth District Supervisor each indicated that they individuals listed “indicated” they understood of BOS travel policies in understood the meaning of the Travel Policies in effect for the discussions with the Grand Jury period of 2005-2007. Each of them rejected the interpretation of the mileage allowance as a “per diem.” Each of them rejected the argument that mileage could be claimed when there had been no expense either for driving or for lodging.

Neither agree or disagree with the first part of this finding as I have limited Supervisors for the First, Second and Third Districts did not claim knowledge of other supervisors travel. The Fourth District Supervisor any substantial weekend travel; the Fourth District Supervisor had provided information for weekend travel as well as weekday travel. some weekend travel and was unable to describe for the Grand Jury the county-related business purpose of the travel.

When asked once again, by the 2007 Grand Jury to compensate the County for excessive reimbursement claims, the Fourth District Disagree in part with this statement. The Fourth District Supervisor declined Supervisor declined to make the repayment, as she had previously to repay the County for excessive reimbursement claims as they were not agreed to do. She stated that the policy was “confusing,” the excessive. They were filed consistently in compliance with the travel policy in practice was “common procedure,” and that she had many expenses place when I assumed office, as the records reflect. as a result of her job including “tires, pet care and meals away from home.”

Tires are among the car costs covered by the allowed government Agree with first sentence. Disagree in part with second sentence as in-county mileage rate for reimbursement for miles actually driven. Pet care, meals are reimbursable under Policy # 18 and the BOS travel policy of 2005- in-county meals and other incidentals are not reimbursable under 2006, under certain circumstances. any county travel policy.

The revised policy makes no allowance for reimbursement of more Agree. This is an accurate statement of the current BOS travel policy. Lodging than two overnight stays in a week and limits hotel reimbursement receipts are required and the policy clearly states this unlike the previous BOS to weeks with a regularly scheduled Board of Supervisors’ meeting. policy in effect in 2005-06 which did not state receipts were required. Lodging receipts are required. Meals associated with overnight stays are not reimbursed.