San Joaquin County Grand Jury
• 2012-2013
San Joaquin County Grand Jury Recovering from Stockton’s Financial Sinkhole – Don’t Fall Back In
⚠️ 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 32 findings
F1
1 The agenda reports for the Events Center project for the December 14, 2004 council meeting, and other major projects were presented to Council Members with inadequate time to review the complex issues. The same finding was disclosed in the 2005-2006 Grand Jury report City of Stockton Redevelopment.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
1 Information regarding major new and/or complex projects or programs that have an adverse impact on the City’s financial condition be provided to the City Council members and public not less than 10 calendar days before the date of proposed Council actions to allow for a thorough review of materials and an opportunity for the Council Members and public to ask questions.
F2
1.1 While the City Auditor is accountable only to the City Council under the City Charter, city managers influenced the Auditor’s day-to-day operations through recommendations on the City Auditor’s budget, thus limiting the Auditor’s direct interaction with department heads.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
1 The City Council adopt a concise policy by December 31, 2013 identifying the City Council’s oversight obligations of the City Auditor, whether an individual or a firm, and the review process of the Auditor’s findings and reports.
F3
1 The long-term nature of the contract with the former External Auditor firm may have been a major cause of complacency by both the auditors and City staff. The friendliness between the auditors and finance staff undermines the integrity and objectivity regarding the thoroughness of the audit process.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
1 The City Council adopt a policy no later than November 1, 2013 that stipulates all contracts for external audit services, including the preparation of the CAFR, be awarded for three year terms, with a maximum of two one- year extensions.
F4
1.1 The Finance Department under the prior city government did not provide other City departments with timely or accurate information regarding financial status of expenditures versus budget appropriations.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4
1 No later than December 31, 2013, the City Council approve a study for an approach to replace or upgrade the finance operation’s computer and software to current technology standards, and to develop a plan under the Direction of the City Manager and Chief Financial Officer to implement such a change.
F5
2 An identification of key performance indicators had not been clearly presented by the City Council to the public.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5
2 A public discussion and subsequent development of key performance indicators by the City Council with assistance from the City Manager, Chief Financial Officer and City Auditor, be completed prior to February 2014.
F6
1 Testimony from both elected and appointed City officials indicated the Audit Committee provided limited oversight of the City Auditor’s function. Presentations on the annual financial audit were not detailed, and no witness recalled the Committee making inquiries into the External Auditor’s results, findings or recommendations.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6
1.1 No later than November 1, 2013 the City Council amend Council Policy No. 100-4 to create a single Finance Committee to replace the current budget and audit committees, to allow the new Committee’s involvement with the FY 2012-13 CAFR review and the FY 2014-15 budget adoption. The purpose of the new Standing Committee would be to review in detail and make comprehensive recommendations to the whole City Council on financial matters including, but not limited to, those related to the City’s budget; internal and external auditor reports; proposed bonds or loans; any proposed fee or tax increases or modifications; and modifications to the City’s account and/or budget structures. The Committee should meet no less than quarterly.
F7
1 The degree of training and knowledge about municipal finance varies among the current council members who responded to the Grand Jury’s survey.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7
1 The City Council submit a policy resolution for consideration during the LCC annual conference for the League to establish training programs for local elected officials to learn about the various aspects of municipal finance similar to the depth and content of the CSAC courses.
F8
1 The behind the scenes actions and lack of complete and clear information from former city managers resulted in elected officials and the public having a false sense of confidence in the City’s financial condition.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8
1 The City Manager and his/her administrative staff provide detailed, timely, and accurate information supporting proposals with significant long-term financial implications for the City and that such documents be available to the public.
F1.1
The agenda reports for the Events Center project for the December 14, 2004 council meeting, and other major projects were presented to Council Members with inadequate time to review the complex issues. The same finding was disclosed in the 2005-2006 Grand Jury report City of Stockton Redevelopment.
No recommendations for this finding
F1.2
Few Council Members asked questions of City staff about the City’s financial condition or the financial impacts of major expenditures they were being asked to approve.
No recommendations for this finding
F1.3
The City Council’s approval of loans between restricted funds without receiving any information or documents on the repayment requirements or impacts created an unclear picture of the actual fund balances in the various accounts.
No recommendations for this finding
F2.3
The recent practice of using a firm as the City Auditor gives the City Council more flexibility in directing what audits and studies are to be conducted since a wider field of expertise offered by the firm can be tapped to undertake the investigations.
No recommendations for this finding
F3.1
The long-term nature of the contract with the former External Auditor firm may have been a major cause of complacency by both the auditors and City staff. The friendliness between the auditors and finance staff undermines the integrity and objectivity regarding the thoroughness of the audit process.
No recommendations for this finding
F3.2
The City Auditor did not manage the external audit process in an effective manner to determine if a full independent review of the accounting processes was being conducted.
No recommendations for this finding
F3.3
The final audit for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2011 indicated there had been major deficiencies and material errors in the prior financial accounting records and procedures, which the prior external audit firm failed to identify and emphasize in their reports.
No recommendations for this finding
F3.4
Concerns raised by the former External Auditors were repeated in subsequent Reports to Management indicating a lack of accountability before implementation of the City’s action plan response by prior city management.
No recommendations for this finding
F4.2
Recommendations have been provided to the Stockton Civil Service Commission to upgrade selected staffing classifications and qualifications in the Finance Department; a CPA has recently been hired to augment the finance department’s management. Additional classification reviews are needed to improve the overall qualifications and accounting capabilities of the department’s employees.
No recommendations for this finding
F4.3
The complexity of City funds and accounts permitted prior city governments to move money among accounts without adequate tracking or knowledge of actual balances in the funds.
No recommendations for this finding
F6.1
Testimony from both elected and appointed City officials indicated the Audit Committee provided limited oversight of the City Auditor’s function. Presentations on the annual financial audit were not detailed, and no witness recalled the Committee making inquiries into the External Auditor’s results, findings or recommendations.
No recommendations for this finding
F6.2
Appointment to and removal from the Budget Committee by the prior city government had been based on political alliance rather than interest or knowledge of the City’s fiscal activities, limiting the inquiries into the former management’s activities.
No recommendations for this finding
F7.1
The degree of training and knowledge about municipal finance varies among the current council members who responded to the Grand Jury’s survey.
No recommendations for this finding
F7.2
The current City Manager and CFO provide training on financial matters as they relate to issues being presented to the city council.
No recommendations for this finding
F7.3
The lack of knowledge about municipal finance resulted in some council members not having the ability to ask questions or understand the financial information presented to them.
No recommendations for this finding
F2.1.1
While the City Auditor is accountable only to the City Council under the City Charter, city managers influenced the Auditor’s day-to-day operations through recommendations on the City Auditor’s budget, thus limiting the Auditor’s direct interaction with department heads.
No recommendations for this finding
F2.1.2
The City Council showed little actual activity in fulfilling its obligations to oversee the City Auditor’s office.
No recommendations for this finding
F2.2.1
The City Auditor was instructed by a former city mayor and former city manager not to review the City’s overall finances. The City Auditor did not at that time or since, conduct independent reviews of revenue or expenditure projections used for project and program funding.
No recommendations for this finding
F2.2.2
Elected officials testified that the City Auditor was not assertive in conducting reviews and evaluations of city contracts, department programs, or the overall City financial condition, thus denying the City Council and public an independent review of financial implications of the city managers’ recommendations.
No recommendations for this finding
F2.2.3
The City Auditor did not conduct, nor did the City Council direct, a separate review of compliance with construction contracts related to the Events Center or the assumptions on which financial decisions for the project were made.
No recommendations for this finding
F4.1.1
The Finance Department under the prior city government did not provide other City departments with timely or accurate information regarding financial status of expenditures versus budget appropriations.
No recommendations for this finding
F4.1.2
Using the cumbersome and outdated financial software, few detailed financial reports have been prepared for the City Council because of the difficulty in extracting and arranging data in a meaningful manner.
No recommendations for this finding
F5.1.1
A director’s management of his/her department’s budget relies on timely and accurate information on expenditures versus budgeted amounts. Failure to have the information available to the directors reduces their ability to be financially accountable.
No recommendations for this finding
F5.1.2
A City Manager requires timely and accurate financial information to provide oversight and control of expenditures versus appropriations, which was not readily available in the past. F 5.2 An identification of key performance indicators had not been clearly presented by the City Council to the public. F 5.3 Past City Councils were not kept informed of the extent to which departments were or were not adhering to their budget appropriation limits, or about the City’s overall financial health.
No recommendations for this finding
Conclusions 1
-
CL1History has shown that when ego takes the place of responsibility, when personal agendas replace actions for the public good, or when silence replaces the community voice, the public is not well served. A Mayor and City Council that prefers to not ask questions or demand complete and accurate information from its management, or to remain uneducated about the intricacies of the city’s financial structure and operations can be more easily swayed by staff recommendations that are not in the public’s best interest. This observation is not new. It has been brought to the community’s attention by past Grand Juries. The 2012-2013 Grand Jury understands and appreciates the actions taken by recent council members and city managers to get Stockton out of its financial hole. It has not been easy and many parties to the problem have suffered grave personal loss. However, the Grand Jury also expresses its concern that without changes to how things were done in the past when reviewing and approving major actions with long-term fiscal impacts (and without improvements to the City’s elected and appointed officials’ ability to understand, operate and evaluate its financial health in an accurate and timely manner), this fiscal calamity could recur. The Grand Jury reminds the public that “Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.” Disclaimer Grand Jury reports are based on documentary evidence and the testimony of sworn or admonished witnesses, not on conjecture or opinion. However, the Grand Jury is precluded by law from disclosing such evidence except upon specific approval of the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court, or another judge appointed by the Presiding Judge (Penal Code Sections 911, 924.1(a) and 929). Similarly, the Grand Jury is precluded by law from disclosing the identity of witnesses except upon an order of the court for narrowly defined purposes (Penal Code Sections 924.2 and 929). Response Requirements California Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05 require that specific responses to all findings and recommendations contained in this report be submitted to the Presiding Judge of San Joaquin County Superior Court (within 90 days). The City of Stockton is required to respond to each Finding and Recommendation contained in this Report. Mail or hand-deliver a hard copy of the response to: Honorable David P. Warner, Presiding Judge San Joaquin County Superior Court P. O. Box 201022 Stockton, CA 95201 Also, please email the response to Trisa Martinez, Staff Secretary to the Grand Jury at grandjury@sjcourts.org.
No Responses Found 1
Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.
Stockton
City