The Imperial County_ Civil Grand Jury Serial Court CAI 2009-2010 Final Report*

building bridges between students' work in SAVAPA and professional careers in the arts;

building consistent interdisciplinary collaborations;

promoting communication between academy partners; and

expanding the visual components of SAVAPA arts instruction.

Final Site Disposition The project was estimated to cost a total of $7,315,869 in funding. The committee interviewed the principal planner and administrator of the Findings: project and examined a collection of appropriate documentation. The method for determining waste was explored, as well as the justifications given by the IID for sole sourcing the remediation contractor. Current status of the project was reviewed; notably, four sites have already been cleared. The project required considerable time and attention for planning and implementation, and this has been thoroughly accomplished. IID staff took great pains to find funding from State sources, successfully locating and obtaining matching grant funding. Individual elements of the testimony were vetted and verified, and all statements were found to be factual. Evidence submitted showed a minor amount of specific agricultural waste and significant amounts of general waste. This was supported by photographic evidence. Concurrent to the interviews, a copy of the Major Work Authorization (MWA) for Illegal Dumpsites Remediation was placed into evidence. This document is part of the IID's public record and was properly approved, as per policy, by the Executive Program Manager of the Water Division, the Chief Financial Officer, the General Manager, and the IID Board of Directors. The MWA was dated in October of 2009. Sole sourcing of remediation contractors is not an unusual practice; in this case, the justifications were comprehensive and fully-verifiable. The contractor that was selected has unique qualifications in the handling of such remediation processes. The timeline was intentionally shortened by the project planners in order to take advantage of the matching funds from the State and to avoid fines that might otherwise have been assessed. Commendation: The Civil Grand Jury found the IID's Illegal Dumpsite Remediation Program to be well-implemented and well-managed. The project adheres to stated policy. Managers put extra effort into the process of locating and securing matching sources for grant funding. The Civil Grand Jury commends the managers and employees of this program for their work and for their efforts to maintain transparency and accountability.

a Water Division, which diverts and distributes water from the Colorado River to cities and nearly 500,000 acres of agricultural land in Imperial County;

An Energy Division, which is responsible for procuring, generating and distributing electrical power to a base of customers within both Imperial County and that portion of Riverside County known as Coachella Valley; and 3) a General Services Division that supports and maintains operations and administrative functions between the two other divisions. The mission of the Imperial Irrigation District, according to IID Board Policy E-1, adopted July 24, 2007, is "to meet the needs of water users in its irrigation service territory and electrical customers in its energy control area and to do so in the most comprehensive, cost-effective and environmentally-sensitive way possible." To further those ends, the IID's Board of Directors, on the same date, adopted the following language into official policy as well: "IID is a public agency whose programs, initiatives and people are organized around building a culture of transparency, instilling a system of accountability, fostering a sense of community and advancing the common good." The Civil Grand Jury (CGJ) spent much of the past year interviewing IID personnel and reading through policies, strategic plans, board actions and in-house service data. The Civil Grand Jury wishes to impose accountability, not bureaucracy, on the IID and its personnel. We submit the following report to the Imperial Irrigation District's Board of Directors and to the general public; it has been properly endorsed and adopted by a quorum vote of the 2009-2010 Imperial County Civil Grand Jury. Findings Regarding the ECA (Energy Cost Adjustment): Historically, the Energy Cost Adjustment (ECA) was a variable rate attached to the usage rate on every customer's bill. It was designed to offset the fluctuating production costs involved in delivering electricity. In 2006, the ECA was artificially frozen by the IID Board of Directors to control spiraling charges after the gas hedging disaster, at which time this charge ceased being a true ECA, though its name and description on the billing statement was never changed. The 2008-2009 Civil Grand Jury pointed out during testimony that the ECA needed to be variable or that it needed to be renamed. The ECA adopted by the IID Board, at the insistence of its management, is not a true ECA, and it needs to be called something else. There would be strong incentive and little preventive oversight on the part of the IID to turn the proposed ECA, a variable rate on top of a fixed base, into a powerful short-term tool for fund-raising. A one cent surcharge on a customer's bill, spread among the entire pool of consumers, would result in approximately 3 million dollars in increased income monthly, and in 30 to 40 million dollars in increased income annually. Re-designating the current ECA as a base-fund would re-categorize the income generated by that portion of a consumer's bill. Instantly, the monies generated would switch categories from a restricted fund - restricted by the IID's covenant with its ratepayers to the arena of supply and trading - to a much less fettered fund, which indeed could then be considered a part of the IID's General Fund.

Showing up to inspect a site unannounced (two complaints)

Spending past the allotted budget Findings in Relation to These Complaints:

In every instance of alleged juror misconduct, the presiding judge made inquiry. Two individuals were removed from their empanelment for incidents of juror misconduct; other individuals were counseled and allowed to continue serving.

Overstepping jurisdictional bounds (one complaint)