El Dorado County Grand Jury • 2001-2002

Foreward Just what is the Grand Jury, who are its members, and what are their functions? William J. Shaw and Noah

Published: July 01, 2002 338 pages Consolidated Report

View Original PDF

⚠️ 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 82 findings

Chapter 3.12 of the El Dorado County Charter documents Purchasing Procedures and is known as the County Purchasing Ordinance. This section of the County Charter provides in part: “3.12.020: The purpose of this chapter is to secure for the county taxpayers the advantages and economies which will result from centralized control over the purchase of supplies, materials, equipment and contractual services resulting from the application of modern, businesslike methods relative to government expenditures for such purchases. Further, this chapter is to adopt policies and procedures governing the purchase of supplies, 1 equipment and contractual services by the county in accordance with the Government Code, section 54201 et seq. 3.12.060: The purchasing agent may, and where legally required to do so, shall, authorize in writing any county department to purchase renewable types of office supplies and materials in total amounts of four hundred ninety-nine and 99/100 dollars ($499.99) or less, utilizing the ‘direct’ purchase order form, independently of the county purchasing agent’s office; but such purchases shall be made in conformity with the applicable procedures. The purchasing agent may also rescind the authorization to purchase independently, by written notice to the county department unless otherwise prohibited by law. 3.12.070 A. Only department heads or their designated representatives may approve and sign direct purchase orders in total amounts of four hundred ninety-nine and 99/100 dollars ($499.99) or less. Department heads may delegate such authority by filing a written authorization therefor with the purchasing agent and the auditor-controller. … C. All departments shall strictly adhere to written purchasing procedures as they may be issued or amended from time to time by the purchasing agent or the board of supervisors.”

The General Services Department in conjunction with the Information Services Department developed a tracking system to report the number and percentage of confirming purchase orders. Confirming or “after the fact” purchase orders are not acceptable and are a violation of County Purchasing Ordinance requirements. The data reflects purchase orders issued between $0 - $10,000.00. Data was not extracted for purchases exceeding $10,000.00 since the competitive bidding threshold is established at $10,000.00 by ordinance. The data does not include the issuance of blanket purchase order purchasing activity, but rather independent purchase orders that were requisitioned by departments as confirming. Following are the results of this tracking system: Reporting Period Total Purchase Total Confirming Percentage Ending Fiscal Year 2000-2001 $14,716 $10,955 74% September 30, 2001 2,544 1,901 75% December 31, 2001 4,043 2,997 74% March 31, 2002 4,552 3,070 67%

Purchase orders are sometimes “split” in order to circumvent required signature authority. For example, while a $15,000 purchase requires competitive bidding, two $7,500 purchases would not. This is an unacceptable practice. 2

There is no system in place to hold department heads accountable for failing to adhere to County Purchasing Ordinance Requirements.

Purchasing practices that do not adhere to the County Purchasing Ordinance subject the County to risks of overspending and poor budget management.

Departments audited by the Grand Jury do not have independent computer systems for tracking fixed assets or inventory within their individual departments.

The instruction form for Schedule E of Form 700 informs that it is the acceptance of a gift, not the ultimate use to which it is put, that imposes a reporting obligation. Such gifts must be disclosed even if they are never used and even if they are given away to another person, unless, within thirty (30) days after receipt, they are returned to the donor or delivered to a charitable organization without being claimed as a charitable contribution for tax purposes.

When the Sheriff filed his various Annual Statements of Economic Interest, he did not declare the receipt of or the value of the rifle or the shotgun, as he should have if they were personal gifts.

The Sheriff sold the Weatherby rifle, through a consignment arrangement with a gun store for $500.00. The $500 was credited to the Sheriff’s personal account at the store. The shotgun is still in the Sheriff’s personal possession.

F10

The Sheriff decided to turn over the sale proceeds and the shotgun to the complainant to resolve the matter.

F11

As of April 20, 2002, the complainant has received neither the money nor the gun.

F12

On May 8, 2002, the Sheriff filed an amended Schedule E to Form 700, Statement of Economic Interests (Income – Gifts), with the County Elections Department. That amended Form 700 was "certif[ied] under penalty of perjury," with a representation that the Sheriff had "used all reasonable diligence in preparing this statement," and that "to the best of [his] knowledge the information contained [in it] and in any attached schedules is true and correct." Although the Form 700 indicated that "[t]he period covered [was] 12/31/99 through December 31, 2001," and not a "leaving office" type of statement, the amended Schedule E indicated that it was both a "2001/2002 Annual" and a "Leaving" type of statement. 8

F13

The amended Schedule E filed by the Sheriff on May 8, 2002, contained the following statements: • The Sheriff had received a Weatherby rifle and a single-barrel shotgun from a named individual • The rifle was attributed a value of $275 to $375 as of 1999. • The shotgun was attributed a value of $25, with the explanation "used gun, hard to estimate."

F14

There is a $125 - $225 discrepancy between the $500 actual credit received by the Sheriff and the valuation amount reported by him.

F15

In the "Comments" section of Schedule E, the Sheriff made the following statements: "This man gave me a rifle and shotgun in 1999, I think. At the time I saw it as he wanted to ge [sic] rid of them and so he gave them to me. At the time I did not think them a reportable gift. As I am finishing my term and leaving elected office I was advised that maybe I should file to set the record straight."

F16

County managers, such as Sheriff’s Department Captains and Lieutenants are allowed to utilize their respective 96 or 80 hours of management leave for personal purposes, including electioneering. These hours are sometimes used during regular eight-hour shifts, creating the impression that the Captains or Lieutenants may be campaigning on county time.

F17

Internal election battles waged within the Sheriff’s Department and the resulting bad feelings affected relations among Sheriff’s personnel and between Sheriff’s personnel and the public.

F18

There are residual bad feelings among some of the Sheriff’s personnel. Many believe it will take years for healing to take place.

F19

There are seven elected county department heads. Elections for Sheriff are frequently contentious because: • Opposing candidates are generally long time employees of the Department. • The Sheriff’ Department has a greater number of employees. • Departmental employees are highly visible in uniform. • The type of work, such as responding to emergencies, is stressful. • Persons attracted to law enforcement are usually assertive, tough minded and confrontational. 13 • The culture and traditions of law enforcement encourage such contentiousness.

F20

The Sheriff’s Team of Active Retirees (STAR) are uniformed volunteers who assist the Sheriff’s Department with a variety of functions. There are more than 200 STAR volunteers. They are viewed by the public as being departmental employees.

F21

The 2002 election is over. The unsuccessful candidate has already announced that he will be a candidate in 2006. That announcement may result in continued contentiousness for the next four years.

F22

Alcoholics Anonymous, Narcotics Anonymous, and a variety of religious programs are provided by volunteers from the community.

F23

The booking area appeared cluttered.

F24

The loading dock was not clean.

F25

Overall, the management of the Jail appeared to be considerably above average.

F26

Understanding ROP JPA policies, agreements, financial reports, and complex financing issues involving asset transfers, program delivery costs, and enrollment caps are difficult at best. Making decisions based on independent research and investigation is impossible without extensive study and personal experience. Few ROP JPA board members are willing or equipped to do this. There is no JPA staff separate from EDCOE and school district administrative personnel.

F27

It is extremely difficult for the ROP JPA Board to make independent decisions on ROP governance issues because of the lack of frequent interaction among the board members and because of the structure of the ROP JPA. Attendance at board meetings is inconsistent. Seven ROP JPA Board meetings were held between September 13, 2000, and March 7, 2002. The same three appointed board members were present at only two of the seven meetings. An alternate board member for one participating school district was present at another meeting. Only two board members, the bare minimum necessary to establish a quorum, were present at four of the seven meetings.

F28

One of the objectives of the ROP JPA Board and administration is to preserve the base enrollment and maintain the revenues for the ROP program, currently in excess of $1.8M, in order to supplement other revenues for general education purposes. The additional ROP allowance is $3,100 per student over and above the standard average daily attendance (ADA) per pupil allowance. This $3,100 allowance is a significant inducement to maintain and increase ROP enrollment, even though ROP enrollment is capped or limited by the amount of student eligibility established by funding formulas when the Central Sierra ROP was established.

F29

The EDUHSD is serving more adults in ROP classes than in previous years by coordinating with the CalWORKs program to provide vocational training classes for welfare recipients. BOMUSD and LTUSD are just beginning to serve adults in ROP classes. 39

F30

Enrollments in ROP classes generate more revenue for school districts than enrollments in Adult Education classes. Adult Education classes are also capped, but unlike ROP classes, they receive substantially less than $3,100 per ADA. Accordingly, school district administrators and the ROP JPA Board have a dilemma. They can choose to provide instruction to enhance personal skills or hobbies, such as “Computer Applications for Adults Age 55 and Over,” in Adult Education classes where it properly belongs, or they can attempt to generate greater revenue by designating the same course as an ROP class. The latter choice results in students taking ROP classes when they have no job-related purposes. This creates a credibility problem for ROP, which is regarded as a serious vocational training effort by some and a "cash cow" for school districts and a waste of taxpayer-generated state funding by others.

F31

In-service training for school district teachers and support personnel also can be conducted under the auspices of ROP. This opportunity creates a potential conflict between the desire of school boards to generate revenue through ROP and their responsibility to protect the interests of taxpayers by spending tax-generated dollars only for bona fide vocational students.

F32

Although no official reorganization plan had been adopted to transfer radio and telephone operations out of DGS, Communications was informed in midyear that the Information Services Department would assist it in budget preparation for FY 2002- 2003. Likewise, Radio was informed in midyear that the Sheriff's Department would assist it in budget preparation for FY 2002-2003. This unofficial midyear plan has created a problem for the employees in these units because the lines of authority are no longer clearly defined. There is uncertainty about how these units will operate in different departments in the coming fiscal year.

F33

There are no apparent policies and guidelines in existence that deal with the preparation of budgets for Radio by the Sheriff's Department or for Telephones by the Information Services Department.

F34

Fleet Services is responsible for purchasing, maintaining, disposing of, and interdepartmental billing for all county-owned vehicles.

F35

There are presently over 550 county-owned and operated vehicles, approximately 100% more than existed five years ago. This has dramatically increased the workload of the entire staff in Fleet Services. The Board, in September 2001, approved a new position for a Fleet Services Technician in South Lake Tahoe.

F36

Technicians provide specialized installation and maintenance of lights, consoles, radios, computers, etc., in vehicles. Routine maintenance continues to be performed countywide by outside vendors. 50

F37

Fleet vehicles are fueled at a county-owned gas pump operated by DGS. Fuel can be pumped without providing accurate vehicle identification numbers and odometer readings, thereby distorting records for interdepartmental billings. As a result, certain departments are not billed for all mileage and vehicle use by employees of those departments. Consequently, budget preparations by those departments do not incorporate accurate cost projections.

F38

Administrative responsibility for Fleet Services was transferred in September 2001 from the Supervisor of the Communications and Fleet Services Division of DGS to the Manager of the Airports, Parks and Grounds Division. The most current reorganization proposal is to transfer responsibility for Fleet Services from the Manager of Airports, Parks and Grounds, which is now a vacant position, to the Assistant Director of DGS, which is also a vacant position. Line authority has not been clearly defined for making and reporting decisions, and the continuing changes have had an adverse effect on employee morale.

F39

The position of Fleet Services Supervisor has been vacant for more than six months. During this time the duties and responsibilities of Fleet Services Supervisor have been carried out by an employee who has not been given official supervisory authority or a pay differential.

F40

Because of inadequate staffing and inconsistent management, interdepartmental billings for use of fleet vehicles fell months behind schedule. Requests for administrative assistance and for substantial fiscal and clerical help were ignored or denied. As a result, interdepartmental billings were not completed for certain departments in the 2000-2001 fiscal year, resulting in incomplete data for preparation of budgets for the 2001-2002 fiscal year. In an effort to address these problems, in September 2001 the Board approved a new position, Fiscal Technician, for Fleet Services.

F41

For years, Fleet Services was housed in an old leaky trailer with damp, moldy interior wall spaces. Even though this condition was reported, the Department allowed this unhealthy work environment to continue to exist and did nothing to remedy the situation. Finally, action was taken in August 2001 by the new Interim Director of DGS. The new Manager of Airports, Parks, and Grounds was assigned responsibility for Fleet Services, and the old leaky trailer was replaced with a new trailer.

F42

The Fleet Services trailer location is isolated from other DGS offices. This has contributed to administrative problems, separation of employees from support systems, and inadequate oversight by management.

F43

Supervisory and management personnel at various levels of DGS have failed to address obvious conduct and performance issues. Some employees have performed well above required standards. Other employees have failed to meet standards for attendance and productivity. This has resulted in unfair workloads for some 51 employees and a potential risk to the County of increases in workers compensation claims.

F44

In the recent past, critical vehicle registration documents were not processed properly or timely for fleet vehicles. Among other consequences, this lack of proper documentation jeopardized the safety of law enforcement officers using Fleet Services vehicles in undercover investigations. Extra Help employees could perform critical functions in Fleet Services. With limited staff and no backup, absences for vacations, sick leaves, family leaves, administrative leaves, and scheduled training result in tremendous workloads for the remaining employees.

F45

The "fleet rate" set by DGS for interdepartmental billing includes administrative costs. It is unclear why the "fleet rate" was higher when DOT administrative costs were a factor and why the "fleet rate" decreased after Fleet Services was transferred to DGS. The "fleet rate" is critical to develop accurate budget proposals for every county department. Airports, Parks, and Grounds Division Findings

F46

The Airports Division is authorized to have one Airport Supervisor and two Airport Technicians to cover the Placerville and Georgetown Airports. The position of Airport Supervisor has been vacant for more than a year and currently is under-filled on a temporary basis by one of the Airport Technicians.

F47

Board Policy F-9, dated October 19, 1993, Subject: Airports-Portable Hangar Color, and Board Policy F-10, dated April 19, 1994, Subject: Minimum Standards for Commercial Aeronautical Activities for El Dorado County Airports, refer to the Department of Transportation (DOT) as responsible for airport operations. DGS is currently the responsible department and has been handling all matters related to county owned and operated airports for more than three years.

F48

Board Policies F-9 and F-10 refer to the Airport Commission as the recommending body to the Board for airport matters. The Airport Commission no longer exists; it has been replaced by two Airport Advisory Committees, one for the Placerville Airport and one for the Georgetown Airport.

F49

Subsequently, the Board revised Policy I-3, September 16, 1999, Subject: El Dorado Airport Commission, to create two Airport Advisory Committees -- the Placerville Airport Advisory Committee and the Georgetown Airport Advisory Committee. This revised policy abolished the Airport Commission, but did not indicate which department has primary jurisdiction over airport matters. The original Policy I-3 indicated that DOT had primary jurisdiction. Primary jurisdiction, however, is now with DGS, but no written document has established this fact.

F50

Administrators of Fleet Services and Airports must interface with federal and state transportation agencies regarding policies and operating requirements. These units in 52 DGS clearly have management issues and reporting responsibilities that are aligned with federal and state transportation matters. Fiscal and Administrative Services Findings

F51

According to the 2001-2002 Budget/Workplan, DGS is responsible for work plans and budgets set forth in five separate funds: Fund 10 is the DGS General Fund Budget for general operations; Fund 12 is for Special Districts (County Service Areas #2, #3, #5, and #9); Fund 13, the Accumulated Capital Outlay (ACO) Fund, sets forth the County's capital improvement projects for facilities and parks; Fund 31, the Airports Enterprise Fund, provides separate budgets for the Placerville and Georgetown airports; and Fund 32 is the vehicle Fleet Management Internal Service Fund.

F52

The Fiscal Administration Manager (FAM) is responsible for the operations of the Fiscal and Administration Services Division of DGS and for the work plans and budget preparations for the five Funds.

F53

Considerable money was spent for overtime during February and March to prepare DGS budget requests for submission to the CAO's budget analyst in early April 2001. The process, however, extended into May, and the FAM and DGS Director (then interim) were required to make major revisions with insufficient notice to complete revisions without additional overtime. Communication with division managers during this process was insufficient to keep them informed of critical budget requests, which were deleted from the final proposal by the FAM and the CAO's budget analyst.

F54

The CAO presented the DGS budget to the Board for approval without including substantial details on the full scope of budget needs for each division. The Board was not informed as to the nature or priority of requests deleted from the final DGS budget. It appears that the CAO’s budget analyst is too far removed from the operational requirements of DGS divisions, project design, and construction management to make critical budget recommendations. For example, at one time the construction of a toilet facility in a county park was approved, but, unbelievably, the septic system required for the toilet facility was deleted from the budget.

F55

Some capital facilities projects for the county are identified in the budget of Department 15 (General Fund Other Operations), which is composed of discretionary county revenues and expenditures, rather than in the DGS budget for Fund 13 (Accumulated Capital Outlay projects). Examples of those discretionary projects set aside in the Department 15 Fixed Asset budget include the South Lake Tahoe Juvenile Hall ($4.5 million) and the “capital facilities programming and financing plan” ($250,000).

F56

It is not clear why the Department 15 budgeted item of $250,000 for a "capital facilities programming and financing plan" did not appear in the narrative for the 53 DGS 2001-2002 Budget/Workplan. DGS has divisions of Real Property Planning and Administration and of Facilities Services, both of which should be (but have not been) fully informed and involved in the creation and execution of this "plan," referred to in previous Findings as "Facilities Master Plan." Real Property Planning and Administration Division Findings

F57

The Real Property Planning & Administration (RPPA) Division of DGS has authorized positions for a Manager, Administrative Secretary, Senior Administrative Analyst, and Administrative Technician. There is one additional position of Storekeeper for Records Management, which is filled by two "extra help" employees, each working one half time, or .5 full time equivalent (FTE).

F58

RPPA is responsible for purchasing, leasing, and disposing of county facilities, analyzing space needs, contacting realtors and property owners, coordinating department moves, managing county cemeteries, negotiating cable television franchises, and monitoring property leases in the Sacramento Placerville Transportation Corridor.

F59

In addition to the above listed duties, RPPA provides storage for all permanent county records and documents in the basement of the main library building and the lower floor of county-owned Building C. Record storage and retrieval requests are processed daily. Records disposal is accomplished on a schedule determined by county ordinances and departmental regulations. The Grand Jury's inspection of the records storage areas was conducted without notice. Storage areas appeared to be organized, clean, and adequate. The present library building and Building C, however, were not designed to provide permanent, safe storage for county records in the event of a manmade or natural disaster.

F60

In 2001, RPPA prepared and published an excellent manual to assist county departments in planning, organizing and completing department or division moves from one facility to another, or reconfiguring existing space.

F61

Administration of cable television franchise contracts with five different cable companies was assigned to RPPA without a commensurate increase in staff and resources. RPPA does not have sufficient staff or expertise to address all the issues that must be resolved if the County is to collect higher revenues from franchise contracts. Communication with the responsible people in each company is difficult because of constantly changing ownership resulting from mergers and acquisitions in the telecommunications industry. Franchise contracts have been difficult to track and renegotiate. One company is seriously delinquent in paying franchise fees to the County, and collection of these delinquent fees has not been accomplished.

F62

Management of county-owned and county-operated cemeteries has required increased staff time and record keeping. RPPA personnel are required to respond frequently, often on very short notice, to the public, concerned citizens, and mortuaries in order 54 to provide services and monitor compliance with state laws and county ordinances. They are required to be present at all interments in county cemeteries. Management of historic pioneer cemeteries has become a matter of public debate and concern.

F63

The Sacramento Placerville Transportation Corridor (SPTC) is an abandoned railroad right-of-way that was deeded to El Dorado County. There are 537 parcels in the SPTC. The County is the lessor for 77 of these parcels. RPPA requested an initial budget allocation of approximately $30,000 for Professional and Special Services. This money would be used for parcel appraisals in order to establish realistic values and lease rates. The Department has not been able to negotiate lease renewal contracts at realistic rates that are advantageous to the County. RPPA has begun eight parcel appraisals with the initial $24,000 in approved funding. Additional appraisals will be completed for future lease agreements as these leases are renewed.

F64

Section 205 of County Resolution 228-84 identifies those county employees who may potentially invoke the jurisdiction of the Commission.

F65

Matters are brought to the attention of the Commission through review of decisions of department heads. The Commission’s caseload is generated through procedures initiated by employees through HRD. There is not a provision for the direct filing of complaints with the Commission. HRD attempts to resolve employee complaints before they are brought to the Commission, and employee complaints generally reach the Commission only as a last resort.

F66

The Commission is authorized to hear only the following types of matters: • Claims of unlawful discrimination in personnel matters; • Disciplinary matters involving classified employees with permanent status; and • Such other matters as may be provided for in personnel rules, MOUs between the County and recognized employee organizations, or Board Policy.

F67

The Commission has authority to cause subpoenas duces tecum to be issued for matters within its lawful jurisdiction.

F68

The Commission is empowered only to affirm, modify or reverse decisions of the “appointing authority,” generally the department heads, in disciplinary actions.

F69

Findings and decisions of the Commission in disciplinary actions are final and binding, subject only to judicial review.

F70

Remedies available to county employees through access to the Commission are seldom sought, and accordingly, the Commission is not used to its full capacity. The Commission has not had a contested hearing for approximately a year. The most recent contested matter brought before the Commission for hearing was the complaint of a sergeant in the Sheriff’s Department.

F71

On occasion, properly requested information has not been provided to the Commission in a timely manner.

F72

The Director and/or other employees of HRD: • Act as the Executive Officer for the Commission; • Receive all mail directed to the Commission concerning appeals and grievances; 68 • Provide a secretary to the Commission; • Prepare the budget for the operation of the Commission, without the Commission’s participation; and • Administer the expenditure of funds for the Commission. This state of affairs essentially removes any opportunity for confidential communications from employees to the Commission without the necessity of initiating formal proceedings.

F73

Members of the Grand Jury toured the hospital emergency rooms and several floors of the facility, and found them to be very clean and well maintained. There is only one examination room in the emergency room area with an observation window. When the examination rooms are full, this particular room, which is preferred for psychiatric observation, may not be immediately available.

F74

Security at Barton Memorial Hospital is provided by the maintenance staff, who have received special training and who are available on every shift. When restraint is necessary to control mentally ill patients, the preferred method of restraint is medication, rather than physical restraint, to reduce injuries to patients and staff.

F75

Tahoe Manor Residential Care (Tahoe Manor) is a privately owned, state licensed board and care facility in South Lake Tahoe with accommodations for 49 residents. Fifteen of the residents are clients of the Clinic.

F76

Tahoe Manor is the only residential care facility in El Dorado County that accepts Supplemental Security Income (SSI) payments for board and care residents. The County contracts with Tahoe Manor for residential care for clients who are also receiving mental health services at the Clinic. 110

F77

Grand Jury members toured Tahoe Manor without an appointment. During the visit, no group activities were observed. The physical layout and floor plan are not adequate for group activities and events. Hallways are narrow. There is no designated activity area except a small day room and a dining room. The overall appearance of the facility is drab, but it is moderately clean.

F78

Tahoe Manor is not licensed to accept residents who have been diagnosed with dementia. A request for a dementia waiver was denied by the Department of Social Services of the State of California in October 2000.

F79

Monthly payments from the County to the contractor at Tahoe Manor were approximately two months in arrears. The County’s requirement that invoices be routed through several different departments slows payment processing and discourages providers from contracting with the County.

F80

The annual licensing review and evaluation of Tahoe Manor by the State Department of Social Services, called a Facility Evaluation Report and dated April 2000, identified four deficiencies: • Medications were not stored, locked, labeled, and dispersed according to regulations. • Medications were being set up more than 24 hours in advance. • Hazardous areas in the laundry room were accessible to residents. • Staffing was not sufficient to meet state licensing standards.

F81

The Facility Evaluation Report for Tahoe Manor dated April 2001 showed no deficiencies in the community care licensing standards. The resident census at that time was 35, which was 14 less than the maximum allowed number of 49 residents.

F82

The 2002 Facility evaluation and inspection of Tahoe Manor has not yet been conducted.

Recommendations 32

R1

All department heads must be held accountable for adhering to the County Purchasing Ordinance. Directors of departments ordering supplies and services without an appropriate purchase order or contract in advance of those orders should be required to appear before the Board of Supervisors, explain the reason(s) for such noncompliance, and obtain express approval for the unauthorized acquisitions.
R2

Each department head should develop a system to hold subordinates exercising purchasing authority accountable for noncompliance with the County Purchasing Ordinance.
R3

The County Purchasing Ordinance should be amended to expressly prohibit the “splitting” of purchase orders.
R4

1 Adopt a policy establishing reserve levels for the three components of the risk management fund and the total fleet management fund based on information provided by the Chief Administrative Officer including: (a) a year by year schedule of all known and estimated liabilities for the health benefits, workers' compensation and general liability funds; and, (b) the amount needed to fund reserves at alternative confidence levels ranging from "pay as you go" to fully funded;
R5

The Board of Supervisors should review the list of "designated employees," the limitations on personal gifts from reportable sources, the County's Conflict of Interest Code, the Ethics in Government Act and the rules and regulations promulgated by the Fair Political Practices Commission thereunder, and disseminate all necessary information to ensure that all county employees are fully aware of gift acceptance and gift reporting requirements.
R6

The El Dorado County District Attorney should investigate the conduct of the Sheriff described above. 9
R7

The personnel practice allowing Sheriff’s Department Captains and Lieutenants to use their respective 96 or 80 hours of personal management leave for election activities should be amended to preclude the use of such time for election activities.
R8

STAR volunteers should receive training in appropriate election campaign behavior and be held accountable to the same standards as the sworn deputies.
R9

The Cohen and Associates Report of 2000 needs to be updated. It should set forth current county demographics and future trends. It should include not just numbers of juvenile anticipated to become wards in detention but also other relevant information such as gender, age, type of problems and type of programs that will be needed.
R10

Participating school districts should keep files of clippings with corresponding purchase orders for printed advertisements and print-outs of web site postings in conjunction with advertised job openings, including positions for contract employees like ROP instructors.
R11

Participating school districts should review student enrollment in ROP classes such as computer training to ascertain that all enrollees meet the criteria for ROP vocational instruction,
R12

The CIP should be placed on a proposed list by the DGS director, CAO's Office, and Risk Management in order of priority, based on ADA compliance requirements, life/health/safety issues, and other established criteria.
R13

Assuming the Board is willing to delegate authority to the CAO based on the reasons set forth in the Grand Jury's Report on the CAO/CEO dated January 23, 2002, the CAO should determine, and explain to the Board, the reasons why each CIP project 56 was not contracted or completed before recommending re-authorization of that project in the following fiscal year.
R14

If CIP projects are not contracted or completed within the fiscal year, the Board should re-authorize each specific project for the following fiscal year only after determining to its satisfaction the reasons why projects were not contracted or completed as planned.
R15

The Board and the DGS Director should review the current ordinances on bidding requirements for service contracts. The Board should consider revising policies and ordinances for such contracts to increase the limit from $10,000 to $15,000. County ordinances requiring bids for New Facility Projects, Carryover Projects, and New Park Development Projects costing less than $15,000 appear to be out-of-date and do not reflect increased costs resulting from inflation.
R16

The Board should increase the present $499.99 limit of signature authorization for materials and supplies to $999.99 to expedite work by DGS personnel on installation, repair, and maintenance projects.
R17

The Board should take appropriate action to approve and acquire new call accounting system software. This is a matter of urgency because the Communications Division cannot obtain software support for the original call accounting system.
R18

The Board should take appropriate action to transfer Fleet Services and Airports from DGS back to DOT.
R19

A complete review and analysis of the formula used to establish the vehicle "fleet rate" in DGS should be undertaken by the DGS Director, the CAO, and the Board to determine why the overhead costs in the DOT formula and the overhead costs in the DGS formula are different. The Board should receive a full explanation of the reasons for any change in the "fleet rate" which would result from transferring Fleet Services from DGS to DOT.
R20

The DGS Director should immediately order the installation of a system that will require the identification of the county employee, the vehicle, and the vehicle's mileage before pumping fuel at the county fuel pump. Employees who attempt to bypass these identification requirements should be identified by the system, reported to the appropriate department, and disciplined.
R21

If the Board does not adopt the recommendation to transfer Fleet Services back to DOT, the DGS Director, the CAO, and the Board should consider providing budget support, training, and authorizing positions for "Extra Help" in DGS.
R22

The DGS Director, the CAO, and the Board, with the assistance of HRD, should initiate a thorough analysis of the compensation schedule for the authorized position of Airports Supervisor. 57
R23

The Board should revise policies and adopt ordinances, which clearly state which department -- DGS or DOT -- is responsible for and has primary jurisdiction over Airports.
R24

The Board should recognize and take appropriate action to remedy the County's lack of expertise in the area of cable television franchise fee negotiations and collection of fees.
R25

The Board should authorize immediately the full budget allocation which was requested by the RPPA to contract for property appraisals in the Sacramento Placerville Transportation Corridor.
R26

The DGS Director, with the assistance of the CAO's office, should be allowed to present the Department’s entire budget request to the Board, including detailed justifications for expenditures, to assist the Board in understanding the unique and critical functions of DGS.
R27

The Board should establish a new method of budget preparation for DGS, which allows for full and open discussion of budget needs and requirements by the DGS Director, division managers and supervisors, the Fiscal and Administrative Manager, the CAO's budget analyst, and Board members. This new method must allow adequate time for input directly to the Board from supervisors and managers on recommendations.
R28

The Board must establish new priorities in budget allocations for DGS staff recruitment, training, retention, and critical functions.
R29

The DGS Director should identify, and the Board should authorize the transfer of, personnel and responsibilities before permitting budget proposals to be developed outside of DGS for divisions and units within DGS.
R30

The Commission’s budget should be separate from HRD’s budget, and members of the Commission should have input before the budgetary request is submitted to the Chief Administrative Officer.
R31

Time should be scheduled during new employee orientation for one or more Commission members to explain what the Commission is, its functions, and how and when to contact it. A pamphlet containing such information should be prepared and given to new employees during their orientation.
R32

All information properly requested by the Commission relevant to a pending proceeding should be furnished to it expeditiously.

Conclusions 4

CL1

The initial screening and investigation risk assessment tools required by the Department for social workers to use are not sufficiently structured to ensure consistency of decision-making by different workers and at both Department offices. Nor do the tools provide adequate documentation justifying decisions reached. Unfortunately, they are not used at all in some cases and are only partially completed in others. Even with their limitations, these required forms provide some documentation justifying the decisions reached by the social workers. Cases are being approved by supervisors without these required forms completed in apparent contradiction of Department policy. The Department of Social Services needs more management oversight of worker compliance with required procedures and spot checking of case files to ensure that case decisions are adequately documented and supported. To further improve the level of documentation and justification of decisions reached, the Department should implement use of Structured Decision- Making tools to determine what referrals receive further investigation, how soon a response is needed, and to help social workers conducting investigations to determine if there is further risk posed to the child and whether to remove the child or not. In only 50 percent of the cases reviewed were the current initial intake response forms complete. In a review of a sample of Investigative Narratives, over 70 percent were either incomplete or missing. Since social workers are not accurately completing the Department's existing screening and investigation tools, consistency of intake responses and the decisions by investigators within the Department cannot be tracked. There are substantial problems with the process, ranging from lack of CWS/CMS immediate access to check previous referrals to a lack of consultation from supervisors. Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation 20 (cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9) Section 2: Lack of Standardized Assessment Tools
CL2

The Department of Social Services Child Protective Services unit does not have a formal system in place to track its outcomes. The various units of CPS track caseload, but not outcomes. Some other counties in California have established or are establishing outcome based performance measurement systems. CPS has this capability through the CWS/CMS computer system. Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation 32 (cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9) Section 3: Performance Measurement Without tracking and closely monitoring key outcome measures, CPS and Department management is at a disadvantage in terms of monitoring its performance, identifying existing or potential problems, making necessary changes to improve performance, and measuring the results. The Department is not consistent in its approach to employee evaluations. The Department should conduct formal performance evaluation at least twice during the probation period, but in 33 percent of the time fails to properly do so. In addition, the Department has an informal performance evaluation where a memo is utilized to document employee status. Based on a review of these informal evaluations, 75 percent of employees receive fewer than two of these evaluations. This demonstrates that the Child Protective Services division is not properly documenting employee evaluation.
CL3

The Child Protective Services organizational structure contributes to inconsistency in the level of supervision a worker receives due to variances in the number of employees, functions and office locations overseen by CPS supervisors. Supervision is accepted as a critical element in CPS, however, the current structure is organized in such a way that some staff receives less 3Besides CPS, Department Special Investigations, Income Maintenance, Employment Services, and Staff Services are also located at the South Lake Tahoe office. Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation 39 (cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9) supervision than others. The organizational units within Child Protective Services vary in size, number of functions and spans of control exercised by the supervisors. The Adoptions supervisor oversees 11.1 clerical and social worker full-time equivalent positions (FTEs) in two locations while the South Lake Tahoe supervisor oversees 5.1 FTEs in one location. This structure makes it impossible for all staff to receive a similar level of supervision and guidance. Though the CPS Program Manager is responsible for overseeing staff in both Placerville and South Lake Tahoe, the South Lake Tahoe office receives substantially less attention than the Placerville staff and irregular on-site visits.
CL4

The employee survey conducted for this audit showed that communications between management and staff is not perceived positively by most Department employees. Specifically, most line staff believe upper management is unresponsive to their needs and that staff has no ability to influence matters above them within the Department. A widely held belief of CPS staff is that Department policies and procedures provide inadequate guidance for job tasks. Analysis of the Department's policies and procedures manual found that complete formal policies do not exist for some key aspects of CPS, such as grievances and clerical duties and responsibilities, and. that existing policies and procedures are presented inconsistently and without key information such as the date the policy became effective. Many of the existing policies are old Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation 47 (cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9) Section 5: Communications and outdated. Our analysis found that child removal policies were written prior to the implementation of CWS/CMS, and the manual makes no reference to the program. Many employees expressed frustration at the level of training, especially relating to clerical support and new hires. Child Protective Services does not have written formal policies governing grievance procedures. Even where information was presented in the actions taken by the Department, the standard response or evidence of ample investigations could not be consistently documented.

Commendations 184

CM1

Long Range Strategic Planning and the Budget........................................... 1
CM2

Capital Projects........................................................................................... 10
CM3

Budget Timing, Information and Analysis................................................. 22
CM4

Internal Service Funds ................................................................................ 29 (cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9) Introduction Purpose and Methods The FY 2001-02 El Dorado County Grand Jury retained the Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation to conduct a review of the County's budget process. The objectives of the review were to review the process and its key milestones to determine: • if the finally adopted budget reflects policies, goals and objectives established by the Board of Supervisors; • if the process of creating the budget is efficient and involves sufficient analysis to identify the most cost-effective use of resources; • if the process establishes management accountability; and • if information provided to the Board of Supervisors at budget time and throughout the year facilitates rational budgetary decision-making. To accomplish this, the following methods were employed. Interviews were conducted with key parties involved in the process including each member of the Board of Supervisors, the Interim Chief Administrative Officer, the Auditor-Controller and selected department heads and budget officers. Numerous budget-related documents were reviewed including: • the County budget instructions for FY 2001-02 and 2002-03 prepared by the Chief Administrative Office • the proposed FY 2001-02 budget and workplan document • Budget Addenda documents for FY 2001-02 • the final budgets for FY 2001-02, Mid-Year Budget Status Reports and presentation materials presented to the Board of Supervisors for FY 2000-01 and 2001-02 • the independently prepared financial statements for the County for FY 2000-01 (the most recent year available while this project was underway) • various budget related documents including budget request forms and ad hoc reports available from the county's financial information systems • capital project monitoring documents used by the General Services and Transportation departments County procedures were compared to State law and regulations governing the budget process and comparisons were made to practices in selected other counties. The review was conducted between March and April 2002. Overview of County budget For FY 2001-02 El Dorado County has budgeted $250,073,563 in revenues and uses. On the expenditure side, this consists of $246,321,223 in specific budgeted costs for the various County departments and $3,752,340 in appropriated contingencies. On the revenue side, the $250 million is comprised of 11 sources such as property taxes, licenses Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation (cid:9) Introduction and permits, intergovernmental revenue and carryover funds from the previous year (fund balance). Exhibit 1.1 shows budgeted revenues of $220,669,990 for FY 2001-02, by source. The difference between the $220,669,990 shown and the total $250,073,563 in budgeted revenues is $29,403,573 in fund balance carried forward from FY 2000-01. Exhibit 1.1 Budgeted Revenues for FY 2001-02 El Dorado County Source Amount % Total Current Secured Property Taxes $32,054,017 14.5% Current Unsecured Property Taxes 899,767 0.4% Other Taxes 13,354,928 6.1% Total Taxes 46,308,712 21.0% Licenses and Permits 7,755,097 3.5% Fines, Forfeitures and Penalties 2,423,749 1.1 Use of Money & Property 1,847,731 0.8% Intergovernmental Revenue: State 70,983,076 32.2% Federal 28,777,865 13.0% Other 500,559 0.2% Charges for Services 42,833,880 19.4% Miscellaneous Revenues 2,386,600 1.1% Other Financing Sources 16,852,721 7.6% Residual Equity Transfers - Total $220,669,990 100.0% Source: Final Budgets for FY 2001-02; El Dorado County Auditor-Controller As shown in Exhibit 1.1, the State is the primary source of revenue for the County. Following that are property and other taxes, charges for services (development impact fees, planning and building fees, mental health service fees, and others), and Federal funds. Exhibit 1.2 shows budgeted expenditures for FY 2001-02, by function. As can be seen in the table, public protection comprises the largest share of the County's budgeted expenditures with general government and public ways and facilities second and third in magnitude. The County's contingency appropriation of $3,752,340 is also shown. This contingency amounts to 2.4 percent of total budgeted General Fund expenditures. Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation Introduction Exhibit 1.2 Budgeted Expenditures for FY 2001-02, by Function El Dorado County Function Amount % Total General Government $60,467,389 24.2% Public Protection 67,826,132 27.1% Public Ways and Facilities 44,005,027 17.6% Health and Sanitation 31,695,872 12.7% Public Assistance 39,033,680 15.6% Education 2,398,404 1.0% Recreation & Cultural Services 894,719 0.4% TOTAL $246,321,223 - Contingency Appropriation $3,752,340 1.5% TOTAL BUDGETED $250,073,563 100.0% Source: Final Budgets for FY 2001-02; El Dorado County Auditor-Controller Another way of viewing the County's budget is by fund, as presented in Exhibit 1.3. The table shows that most of the County budget is comprised of the General Fund and the Roads-Transportation Fund (80.2 percent of the total budget). All funds except the General Fund are restricted legally to certain purposes. The Board of Supervisors has discretion over the uses of the General Fund only. The Board has authority over the amounts appropriated for various uses such as salaries, professional services, supplies, etc within the other funds, but only for the purpose for which the fund is legally designated. General Fund monies on the other hand can be appropriated to any department or for any purpose within the County structure. Exhibit 1.3 Budgeted FY 2001-02 Expenditures and Revenues by Fund, El Dorado County Fund Amount % Total General $157,249,680 62.9% Roads-Transportation 41,367,152 16.5% Health Department 19,719,350 7.9% Mental Health Services 10,463,260 4.2% Community Services 8,026,027 3.2% Accumulated Capital Outlay 5,403,519 2.2% Erosion Control 4,413,840 1.8% County Road District Fund 2,617,875 1.0% Tobacco Settlement 487,860 0.2% Planning: EIR Development Fees 300,000 0.1% Special Aviation 20,000 0.008% Fish and Game 5,000 0.002% TOTAL $250,073,563 100.0% Source: Final Budgets for FY 2001-02; El Dorado County Auditor-Controller Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation Introduction It should be noted that a significant portion of the General Fund is actually used to match State, federal and other external funding so the Board does not actually have full discretion over all of General Fund monies. As in all counties, much of the El Dorado County budget process is governed by State law and regulations and follows a sequence of events for the most part repeated each year. The California Government Code contains a number of deadlines that govern the County's budget process and timetable. Highlights of these requirements include the following: Estimates of revenues and expenditures are to be provided to the County's auditor or administrative officer by June 10 of each year (§ 29040) A tabulated version of the estimated revenues and expenditures, or a budget, is to be provided to the Board of Supervisors by June 30 of each year (§ 29062) The Board of Supervisors shall act on the budget by July 20 of each year (§ 29063) Copies of the budget shall be prepared and made available to the public by August 10 of each year (§29065) The Board of Supervisors shall notice the public on or before August 10 of each year of public hearings on the proposed budget (§29066) On or before August 20 of each year public budget hearings must commence. (§29080) The budget must be adopted by the Board of Supervisors by August 30 of each year (§29088) Unfortunately, these timing requirements do not coincide with the State budget cycle so some budget decisions have to be prepared without benefit of the finally adopted State budget. El Dorado County has designed its budget process to enable it to meet these State mandated deadlines. The County's process includes: Some departments begin preparation of their revenue estimates and program plans starting in the fall Budget instructions prepared by the Chief Administrative Officer are provided to all departments in February Completed department budget requests are provided to the Chief Administrative Officer by April The Auditor-controller prepares estimates of non-departmental revenues in April and May Chief Administrative Office staff reviews the budget requests during April and May The Chief Administrative Officer's proposed budget is transmitted to the Board of Supervisors by June 15 The Board of Supervisors accepts the proposed budget in June Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation iv Introduction Budget addenda requests are prepared by departments and submitted to the Chief Administrative Office in early August Budget addenda reports and documents are submitted to the Board of Supervisors in August Budget addenda hearings take place in September
CM5

Members of the Grand Jury were given a comprehensive tour of the jail by the Administrative Sergeant.
CM6

Members of the Criminal Justice Committee had a post-tour meeting with the Jail Commander.
CM7

The following written materials were reviewed by the Committee and discussed with the Jail Commander:
CM8

Policy and Procedures Manual;
CM9

Inmate Orientation booklet;
CM10

Job Description Manual;
CM11

Statistical Reports regarding Inmate Population;
CM12

Board of Corrections Inspection Report.
CM13

Grand Jury Reports for 1998/99, 1999/00, and 2000/01 were reviewed.
CM14

Members of the Grand Jury inspected the facility on September 19, 2001.
CM15

Members of the Criminal Justice Committee inspected the facility on three additional occasions.
CM16

The Chief Probation Officer made a formal presentation to the Grand Jury. The following documents were reviewed:
CM17

The future plan for juvenile beds as presented to the Board of Supervisors (BOS);
CM18

Title 15, Code of California Regulations (CCR), State Board of Corrections;
CM19

South Lake Tahoe Juvenile Hall building plans;
CM20

Detention Survey submitted monthly by Probation Department;
CM21

Board of Corrections Inspection Report;
CM22

Public Health Report;
CM23

Fire Marshal Inspection Report (August 20, 2001);
CM24

Building Department Annual Inspection (August 29, 2001);
CM25

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Commission Inspection Report (August 20, 2001);
CM26

Environmental Management Inspection Report (September 5, 2001);
CM27

Needs Assessment, 2000, Suzie Cohen and Associates;
CM28

Grand Jury Reports, 1998/1999, 1999/2000, and 2000/2001;
CM29

County budget; and 23
CM30

Superior Court Order imposing population cap on Juvenile Hall. The following persons were interviewed:
CM31

Chief Probation Officer;
CM32

Chief Deputy Probation Officer in charge of Juvenile Hall;
CM33

City of Placerville Fire Marshal; and
CM34

Chairman of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Commission.
CM35

Inmate Orientation Handbook;
CM36

Policies and Procedures Manual;
CM37

California Department of Corrections (DOC) Quarterly Reports issued October 1, 2001; and
CM38

Grand Jury Reports for 1998/1999, 1999 /2000, and 2000/2001.
CM39

Two teachers, one male and one female, both with 15 years experience in the Hall;
CM40

Deputy Probation Counselor; and
CM41

Supervising Probation Officer. The Committee reviewed a myriad of educational materials used by the teachers and students, and the 2000/2001 Grand Jury Report.
CM42

Central Sierra ROP Policies relating to recruitment, hiring, and certification procedures, adopted January 6, 1983;
CM43

Central Sierra ROP Vacancy Postings at EDUHSD between September 15, 1999, and September 25, 2001, for various positions;
CM44

State of California Designated Subjects Vocational Education Teaching Credentials Regulations effective May 10, 1995;
CM45

Central Sierra ROP Staff Check List, Fall 2001;
CM46

Memorandum from EDUHSD Assistant Superintendent dated October 1, 2001, with attachments on Hiring Procedures for Trades and Industry Positions in the EDUHSD;
CM47

EDUHSD Purchase Order Records for Central Sierra ROP "Help Wanted" Advertisements in the Placerville Mountain-Democrat Newspaper between September 7, 1999, and January 30, 2001;
CM48

"Seven Ways to Form an ROC/P" with Education Code References;
CM49

Minutes of Central Sierra ROP Board Meetings as follows: 34
CM50

September 12, 2001; and
CM51

Central Sierra ROP Board Agenda and attached information for the Regular Meeting on March 7, 2002;
CM52

List of Central Sierra ROP Board Members from March 1995 through March 2001;
CM53

Central Sierra ROP Participation Agreements dated March 17, 1995, for coordination of responsibilities and duties between the El Dorado County Board of Education/Office of Education (EDCOE) and the EDUHSD, the Black Oak Mine Unified School District (BOMUSD), and the Lake Tahoe Unified School District (LTUSD);
CM54

Report for Central Sierra ROC/P End of Year Close, dated September 12, 2001;
CM55

El Dorado High School Master Schedule 2001/2002 dated October 11, 2001, for teaching assignments and class periods;
CM56

EDUHSD Annual Notice to Parents/Guardian for 2001/2002 School Year; and
CM57

Mountain Democrat Newspaper Article dated May 15, 2002. The following persons were interviewed:
CM58

Coordinator for ROP, now called the Director of Career Preparation, in EDUHSD;
CM59

Assistant Superintendent/Director of Personnel at EDUHSD;
CM60

Assistant Superintendent of EDCOE;
CM61

The Complainant; and
CM62

By telephone, a teacher in the EDUHSD.
CM63

It had observed a widespread lack of accountability in connection with the performance of the duties required of county employees.
CM64

Some department heads, division heads and supervisors were attentive to the problem, while others were not.
CM65

Lack of accountability for non-performance has a negative effect upon county efficiency.
CM66

Many employees performed "above and beyond" the requirements of their positions.
CM67

Outstanding performance was often unrecognized and uncompensated, although it was of substantial benefit to the County.
CM68

Employees who do not meet performance standards cause considerable expense to the County. The Grand Jury promised that it would continue to investigate and inquire into issues of accountability (and/or lack thereof) within county government, and that it would disseminate a more comprehensive Final Report on the subject at the end of its term. This is the Government & Administration Committee's portion of that Report. It is divided into three separate segments, each of which is presented by a separate subcommittee of the Committee, as follows:
CM69

Subcommittee on the Department of General Services;
CM70

Subcommittee on Personnel; and
CM71

Subcommittee on Government Structure. The Subcommittee on Government Structure is presenting two separate reports. One is preliminary and addresses the way directives of the Board of Supervisors are (or are not) communicated to affected departments, employees and to the public. The other follows up on the Board’s responses (or lack of response) to four “dated final reports” issued by the Grand Jury during the course of its term. 42 Scope of the Investigation Members of the Grand Jury reviewed:
CM72

The County's Charter (Charter);
CM73

The County's Ordinance Code (Ordinance Code);
CM74

Various Board Resolutions, specifically including (but not limited to) the Compensation Administration Resolution (No. 227-84), the Personnel Management Resolution (No. 228-84), the Employer-Employee Relations Resolution (No. 10-83) as amended (No. 112-86), and others;
CM75

Agendas, agenda packets and conformed agendas (minutes) of various meetings of the Board;
CM76

The Board's manual of policies and procedures;
CM77

Various departmental manuals of policies and procedures;
CM78

Numerous internal memoranda, both intra- and inter-departmental in nature;
CM79

The County's Personnel Policy No. 3, Management Evaluation Program, adopted February 2, 1988 and revised December 1, 1989;
CM80

Job descriptions for various positions within the County;
CM81

The County's Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the General, Professional, and Supervisory Bargaining Units of Public Employees Local Union No. 1 (Local No. 1), for the period from July 1, 1999 through June 30, 2003;
CM82

The County's MOU with the Trades & Crafts Bargaining Unit of Operating Engineers Local Union No. 3 (Local #3, Trades & Crafts), for the period from November 21, 2000 through September 30, 2003;
CM83

The County's MOU with the Probation Bargaining Unit of Operating Engineers Local Union No. 3 (Local #3, Probation), for the period from July 1, 1999 through June 30, 2004, plus the Letter of Understanding amendment thereto dated September 19, 1999, plus a further amendment thereto dated November 2000;
CM84

The County's MOU with the Corrections Bargaining Unit of Operating Engineers Local Union No. 3 (Local #3, Corrections), for the period from January 1, 2001 through December 31, 2004;
CM85

The County's MOU with the Deputy Sheriffs' Association Law Enforcement Unit (DSA, Law Enforcement), for the period from December 20, 2000 through December 31, 2007;
CM86

The County's MOU with the DSA, Correctional Unit (DSA, Correctional), for the period from December 20, 2000 through December 31, 2007;
CM87

The County's Salary and Benefits Resolution for Unrepresented Employees, as amended by Resolution 261-2000 on December 12, 2000;
CM88

The 00/01 Grand Jury’s Report on Employee Evaluations, and the Board's Response thereto;
CM89

The County's 2001-2002 Proposed Budget and Workplan (Budget/Workplan); 43
CM90

The 2001-2002 Budget for the County;
CM91

The Board's Responses to the 01/02 Grand Jury's dated Final Reports of October 4, 2001, January 16, 2002 and January 23, 2002;
CM92

The Sheriff's Response to the 01/02 Grand Jury's dated Final Report of October 10, 2001;
CM93

The County's Purchasing Ordinance;
CM94

The Reports of the Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation, the Grand Jury's Consultant, on its reviews of the Child Protective Services division of the Department of Social Services and of the County's Budget Process; and
CM95

Various redacted personnel files. Members of the Committee and its subcommittees, and other members of the Grand Jury, interviewed numerous current and former county employees, including the Interim Chief Administrative Officer, the County Counsel, the Director and two former Assistant Directors of the Department of Human Resources, various other department heads, division heads, managers, supervisors, and clerical and field workers. They also interviewed several officers, directors, responsible employees and other members of Local No. 1 and of the DSA. Some of the most revealing information that the Grand Jury was able to obtain came from rank-and-file employees of the County. Members of the Grand Jury also attended numerous regular meetings of the Board, and several Board "workshops," several countywide training sessions, and reviewed various newspaper articles pertaining to the issue of accountability. 44 GOVERNMENT & ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE Department of General Services Reason for the Report The Grand Jury investigates various departments of El Dorado County government to determine whether or not the Board of Supervisors (the Board):
CM96

Adopts governance policies which identify clear levels of accountability;
CM97

Selects qualified department directors to direct operations according to written departmental policies and procedures;
CM98

Provides adequate oversight of department directors; and
CM99

Provides adequate funding for the operation of specific departments. The 2001/2002 Grand Jury conducted such an investigation of the Department of General Services (DGS) to determine whether the Board is fulfilling its above-described responsibilities and to evaluate problems that are apparent within DGS. DGS serves a unique role in county government DGS provides to all county departments direct management of support services and resources that are critical to their operations, as well as dirct services to the public at large. DGS, with a staff of approximately 90 employees, is organized in six divisions: Facilities Services, Support Services (Central Stores and Purchasing), Communications & Transportation (Vehicle Fleet Services), Airports, Parks & Grounds, Fiscal and Administration Services, and Real Property Planning and Administration. DGS has a broad range of responsibilities for management of resources and provision of services to other county departments and the public. These include cemeteries, airports, river rafting permits, radio and telephone communications, fleet vehicles, purchasing, property leasing, equipment leasing, printing, park development, recreation programs, real estate acquisitions, grounds maintenance, cable television franchise contracts, museums, etc. The DGS Director has presented a plan for reorganization. This plan includes revising the job description and then filling the position of Assistant Director, realigning divisions, and reassigning responsibilities for division managers. The Director is also transferring division equipment, budget, and responsibilities to other departments. The purpose of this reorganization is to increase accountability for use of the division resources and operations. To her credit, the Director is pursuing improved organizational strategies addressing many of the findings contained in this report. 45
CM100

Sections 933 and 933.05 of the California Penal Code;
CM101

Section 703 of the El Dorado County Charter;
CM102

Policy No. A-11 of the El Dorado County Board of Supervisors ("Board");
CM103

Final Report of the Previous Grand Jury;
CM104

Responses of public entities other than the County of El Dorado ("County") to that Final Report;
CM105

Responses of the County's elected department heads to that Final Report;
CM106

Draft Response of the Board to that Final Report, as disclosed in the Board's agenda packet for its September 18, 2001 regular meeting;
CM107

Undated, unaddressed, unsigned letter-memorandum commenting on the contents of that Draft Response;
CM108

Motion adopted by the Board at its September 18, 2001 regular meeting, directing further study of the Draft Response in light of that letter-memorandum;
CM109

Memorandum from the El Dorado County Counsel ("County Counsel") to the Board, dated November 1, 2001;
CM110

Conformed Agenda of the regular meeting of the Board on November 6, 2001; and
CM111

Letter dated December 17, 2001, to the Honorable Suzanne Kingsbury, Presiding Judge of the El Dorado County Superior Court ("Presiding Judge"), from Penny Humphreys, Chair, Board of Supervisors. The Grand Jury also considered reports of discussions which occurred at a meeting on October 5, 2001, between the Foreman and one member of the Grand Jury, the County's 74 Interim Chief Administrative Officer ("CAO"), County Counsel, and a board committee consisting of two of its members. Members of the Grand Jury also attended the regular meetings of the Board on September 18, October 16, and November 6, 2001, at which there were agenda items addressing the subject of the Board’s Response to the Previous Grand Jury’s Final Report. Members of the Grand Jury also attended a special workshop meeting conducted by the Board, dealing with the subject of its Response to the Final Report of the Previous Grand Jury, on November 5, 2001.
CM112

that "it is the intention of the [Board] to implement" the Grand Jury's
CM113

that "the CAO should return to the Board with a recommended third party and scope of work no later than February 12, 2002;" and
CM114

that "the review and report should be completed no later than April 15, 2002, and the report should be made available to the public and the Grand Jury." (Emphasis supplied.) F7: In its Response to Recommendation R4 of the October 4 Report, the Board represented that "a definite timeline is set by these responses to ensure that the work will be completed in a timely and appropriate manner." F8: The foregoing responses have merged and/or melded the Board's responses to two separate issues raised in the Grand Jury's reports. One issue is the procedural issue of follow-up. The other issue is the substantive issue of whether the position of CAO should be converted into a position of CEO. The latter issue is discussed below, in the Grand Jury's Reply to the Board's Response to the Grand Jury's Dated Final Report of January 23, 2002 (January 23 Report). It does not appear, however, that the Board has established a procedure for following up on the implementation of its 93 responses to Grand Jury Reports generally, as opposed to having furnished an ad hoc response to the January 23 Report. Findings re Dated Final Report of October 10, 2002 F9: The Grand Jury issued a Dated Final Report, dated as of October 10, 2001 (October 10 Report). The subject of that Report involved the County Jail at South Lake Tahoe. Responses were requested from the El Dorado County Sheriff and from the Board. F10: The October 10 Report contained two Recommendations for construction repair and/or maintenance work, one of which was needed to correct a hazardous condition which created a potential liability for the County. The Grand Jury "strongly recommended" that that particular project "be completed before winter of 2001/2002." F11: On December 7, 2001, the Sheriff transmitted his Response to the October 10 Report to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court, who in turn furnished that Response to the Grand Jury. No similar Response by the Board, however, has been furnished either to the Presiding Judge or to the Grand Jury. F12: Construction repair and maintenance projects are under the control of the Facilities Services Division of the County's Department of General Services (DGS), not the Sheriff's Department. This Grand Jury has reported elsewhere on the performance of DGS, including its Facilities Services Division. The Grand Jury is informed and believes that DGS has implemented a temporary repair of the hazardous condition and is in the process of taking steps to effect a permanent repair. It is disappointing to the Grand Jury, however, that the Board itself (as opposed to the Sheriff) has not seen fit to communicate a response to the Grand Jury's recommendation on the subject. Findings re Dated Final Report of January 16, 2002 F13: The Grand Jury issued a Dated Final Report, dated as of January 16, 2002 (January 16 Report). The subject of that Report involved a review of the County's procedures pursuant to which the Board responds to Grand Jury Reports generally. F14: In several of its findings in the January 16 Report, in an effort at politeness, the Grand Jury prefaced its substantive findings with the statement "In the Grand Jury's view" or words of similar import. See, e.g., Findings F45, F49 and F51, and see also Findings F17 and F18 ("It was the view of the Previous Grand Jury, and is the view of this Grand Jury"). The Board, in responding to those findings, evaded the substance of the findings by agreeing that the statements represented the views of the Grand Juries, without either agreeing or disagreeing with the substance of the findings. F15: Responses of the type described in the preceding finding, while literally correct, exhibit a type of "gamesmanship" which makes it difficult to give credence to the 94 statement, prepared by county staff and adopted by the Board in its Response to Finding F15 of the October 4 Report, that the Board "disagree[s] that the Board or the Chief Administrative Officer's Office regards the work of … Grand Juries as a nuisance." F16: Responses of the type described in the two preceding findings appear to have been made selectively on the basis of some criteria unknown to the Grand Jury. It appears that when it has served the interests of the persons drafting the Board's responses, or the Board in adopting those responses, the Board has adopted and issued responses which reach the substance of Grand Jury Findings and Recommendations, even where they:
CM115

are expressed as "the views of" the Grand Jury, see, e.g., Board Responses to Finding F3 of the January 23 Report ("generally agrees with the main thrust of the finding"); or
CM116

contain obvious clerical or ministerial errors, see, e.g., Findings F27 and F42 of the January 16 Report. F17: The Board, in its Response to Recommendation R3, states that "[t]he time within which the final responses of elected department heads are to be filed is established by statute." While that is true, the statute does not say that elected department heads must take 60 days to file their responses; it says that such responses shall be submitted within 60 days. See California Penal Code §933(c). This is consistent with the Board's direction to the ICAO "to incorporate into the Study consideration of a change to Policy A-11 that would simply encourage elected department heads to expedite their review of Grand Jury final reports and to file their responses as early as is reasonably feasible." It is also consistent with the fact that, where grand jury findings or recommendations "address[] budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the board of supervisors [sic] shall respond if requested by the grand jury, … ." See California Penal Code §933.05(c). It is inconsistent, however, with the Board's Response that the "recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted." The Board cannot meaningfully respond to such budgetary and/or personnel findings or recommendations if the agency or elected department heads do not give the Board the relevant information in sufficient time for the Board to respond. F18: The Board, in its Response to Recommendation R12, has properly articulated a distinction between "policies and procedures" and "more or less 'formal' practices." In moving forward with the study which the Board has directed the ICAO and the County Counsel to conduct, both "policies and procedures" and "all practices of the County" should be included. 95 Findings re Dated Final Report of January 23, 2002 F19: As indicated above in Finding F8, the Grand Jury issued a Dated Final Report, dated as of January 23, 2002 (January 23 Report). The subject of that Report involved the scope of authority of the County's Chief Administrative Officer (CAO), and a general recommendation that the occupant of that position be empowered to act more like a Chief Executive Officer ("CEO"), in various specified regards. F20: On January 15, 2002, prior to the January 23 Report and pursuant to the
CM117

It "has not yet completed its review of this matter;" and
CM118

It "has [not] reached a final determination on the extent to which such authority should be vested in the CAO." F24: In that same Response, the Board stated that "the CAO, in conjunction with County Counsel, is directed to compile the available information which has been marshaled in the court of the Board's study of this matter, including any additional information deemed relevant, as well as a delineation of possible areas of delegation of authority 96 to the CAO along with analysis of the steps required to implement the alternative courses of action. The study shall be completed and returned to the Board within six months of the publication of the Grand Jury's report." (Emphasis supplied.) Similar comments were made in the Board's Response to Recommendation R2. The term of this Grand Jury will expire prior to that six-month return date. F25: In Recommendation R3 of the January 23 Report, the Grand Jury recommended that the Director of Human Resources be directed to draft a revised job description for the CAO position. The Board responded to that Recommendation on April 16, 2002, by stating:
CM119

that it "has directed staff to work with County consultants to develop and present to the Board a new job description for the CAO reflecting increased authority to the extent feasible without amendments to the County Charter" (Emphasis supplied.);
CM120

that "[f]inalization of the job description will require the results of the studies being conducted under the responses to R1 and R2"; and
CM121

that "[t]he job description will be presented to the Board not later than the studies referenced above," i.e., "within six months of the publication of the Grand Jury's report." F26: Statements in the Board's April 16 Response to the January 23 Report that the Board "has directed" that a job description be developed and presented, on the one hand, and that County staff "is directed" by that Response to compile available information for purposes of a subsequent report to the Board, are mutually inconsistent. F27: The Board received, and placed on its April 30, 2002, agenda, a recommendation from its consultant Don Peterson concerning a proposed job description to be used in connection with recruitment procedures for a new CAO. That recommendation, while substantially similar in tone and content to the Grand Jury's January 23
CM122

South Lake Tahoe Mental Health Clinic on two occasions;
CM123

Barton Memorial Hospital in South Lake Tahoe;
CM124

Tahoe Manor Residential Care (Tahoe Manor) in South Lake Tahoe;
CM125

El Dorado County Jail at South Lake Tahoe;
CM126

DMH Psychiatric Health Facility (PHF) in Placerville; and
CM127

El Dorado County Juvenile Hall in Placerville on several occasions. Members of the Grand Jury attended a Jail Diversion Seminar in South Lake Tahoe. The following documents were reviewed:
CM128

The County’s 2001-2002 Proposed Budget and Workplan (2001-2001 Budget/Workplan);
CM129

County contract with Tahoe Manor;
CM130

Letter from California Department of Social Services (CDSS) regarding Tahoe Manor;
CM131

Copy of complaint to CDSS regarding Tahoe Manor;
CM132

Complaint Investigation Report, CDSS, regarding Tahoe Manor; 99
CM133

Facility Evaluation Reports, CDSS, regarding Tahoe Manor dated April 24, 2001, and April 14, 2000;
CM134

CDSS Denial of Request for Dementia Waiver for Tahoe Manor dated October 16, 2000;
CM135

County Environmental Management Report for Tahoe Manor dated December 13, 2001;
CM136

County Contract with Barton Memorial Hospital;
CM137

Report by Barton Memorial Hospital titled “Response Time of Mental Health Crises Workers;”
CM138

Minutes for Meetings of the Mental Health Commission, South Lake Tahoe for the past 12 months;
CM139

Letter and Report from the Program Manager regarding unmet needs for South Lake Tahoe Mental Health Clinic dated April 17, 2002;
CM140

DMH Program Costs and Services Statistical Analysis comparing workloads and costs in the month of January 2001 to the month of January 2002;
CM141

Document listing grant funding efforts from 1987 to present;
CM142

Correspondence from Superior Court Judge pertaining to mental health issues at South Lake Tahoe;
CM143

Barton Memorial Hospital Report "Indicator Profiles on Mental Health Services in Emergency Room"
CM144

Last DMH performance evaluation for Clinic Program Manager dated October 18, 1991;
CM145

National Association for Mentally Ill (NAMI) documents "Homeless and Incarcerated: Untreated Mentally Ill";
CM146

Time Study by DMH on psychiatric emergency services from October 16, 2000, to November 22, 2000;
CM147

Clinic Program Summaries;
CM148

Organization Chart for the Clinic;
CM149

Letter from concerned parent about the Clinic;
CM150

NAMI report to Board of Supervisors " Proposal for Improving Mental Health System" dated August 22, 2001;
CM151

Job Description for the DMH Deputy Director;
CM152

DMH Report to the Board of Supervisors titled Facility and Space Needs Assessment, dated December 2000;
CM153

Letter from DMH Director on "Space Needs in South Lake Tahoe Mental Health Clinic" dated September 3, 1999;
CM154

Summary of correspondence to acquire additional clinic space in South Lake Tahoe written by the Clinic Program Manager between January 23, 2000, and March 25, 2002;
CM155

NAMI correspondence "Emergency Crisis Hot Line Service Compared to Other California Counties"; and
CM156

Various pieces of correspondence relating to contracts and complaints. 100 The following persons were interviewed:
CM157

DMH Deputy Director;
CM158

Clinic Program Manager;
CM159

Clinic Adult Day Treatment Program staff;
CM160

Clinic Adult and Emergency Services staff;
CM161

Clinic Children’s Services staff;
CM162

Clinic Administration staff;
CM163

DMH Patient’s Rights Advocate;
CM164

Mentally ill jail inmate;
CM165

Social Worker, Barton Memorial Hospital;
CM166

NAMI, South Lake Tahoe, President and three members; and
CM167

Edwin Markham School 6-8 Placerville Union School District;
CM168

Buckeye School K-6 Buckeye Union School District;
CM169

William Brooks School K-6 Buckeye Union School District;
CM170

Camino School K-8 Camino Union School District;
CM171

El Dorado High School 9-12 El Dorado Union High School District;
CM172

Oak Ridge High School 9-12 El Dorado Union High School District;
CM173

Gold Oak School K-5 Gold Oak Union School District;
CM174

Pleasant Valley School 6-8 Gold Oak Union School District;
CM175

Charles Brown School K-5 Mother Lode Union School District;
CM176

Indian Creek School K-5 Mother Lode Union School District; and
CM177

Pinewood School K-4 Pollock Pines School District.
CM178

Introduction .................................................................................................. 1
CM179

Lack of Standardized Assessment Tools.................................................... 10
CM180

Performance Measures ............................................................................... 23
CM181

Supervision ................................................................................................. 35
CM182

Communications ......................................................................................... 41 (cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)
CM183

Timeliness and effectiveness of follow up services after dependency is ordered.
CM184

The Grand Jury commends county personnel for their creative means of maintaining records as best they can with what they have available. The Grand Jury was impressed by the fact that an employee in the Tax Collector’s Office, from memory, could take the investigating members immediately to each item indicated on the Inventory Report. Responses Required for Findings F1 through F6 El Dorado County Board of Supervisors Responses Required for Recommendations R1 through R3 El Dorado County Board of Supervisors 5 AUDIT & FINANCE COMMITTEE Independent Management Audit During the course of its investigations, the 2001/2002 El Dorado County Grand Jury concluded that there were several aspects of county government that deserved a more in- depth investigation than the Grand Jury was equipped to undertake. Accordingly, with financing approved by the Board of Supervisors (Board), the Grand Jury retained the Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation (HMRAC) to investigate and report on issues as directed by the Grand Jury. One of these issues was a review of the County’s budget process (Budget Process). The HMRAC report on the Budget Process is contained in its entirety within the Audit & Finance Committee section of the 2001/2002 Grand Jury’s Final Report. The Grand Jury carefully reviewed and considered both the factual findings and the recommendations contained therein, unanimously concurs with those findings and recommendations, and adopts them as its own. Responses Required for All HMRAC Findings El Dorado County Board of Supervisors Responses Required for All HMRAC Recommendations El Dorado County Board of Supervisors

Comments 1

CO1

states "that the CAO and other senior staff members do spend considerable time providing review, oversight and drafting for all Grand Jury responses." (Emphasis in original.) The Grand Jury does not necessarily disagree with this statement as an accurate representation of present practice. Depending upon the meaning of the term "other senior staffmembers," however, the Grand Jury may disagree that this is the way the process should operate. In the Grand Jury's view, it is the division heads and managers who have the most hands-on 19 (cid:9) operational knowledge of the matters which are the subjects of grand jury reports, and it is they who should have the primary responsibility for the preparation of proposed responses to factual findings in those reports, with the department heads, the CAO's office, and perhaps County Counsel having only minimal editorial oversight responsibility with regard to such findings. Moreover, Board Policy A-11 requires that the original proposed responses of the department heads, as well as the Draft Response of the CAO, be presented to the members of the Board, but this policy has not been followed in practice. d. "The issue, therefore, is whether the Board should engage in a practice of ongoing updates and amendments to Grand Jury responses when relevant new information comes to light. County Counsel does not recommend adopting this practice, because it would turn the annual Grand Jury process into an ongoing, evolutionary dialogue with no finality. As a practical matter, Grand Jury Reports and responses necessarily reflect snapshots in time." (Page 10) The December 17 Letter (page 7) states that "the fundamental issue is whether the Board should engage in a practice of ongoing updates and amendments to Grand Jury responses when relevant new information comes to light. We respectfully decline to adopt this practice, because it would turn the annual Grand Jury process into an ongoing, evolutionary dialogue with no finality. As a practical matter, Grand Jury Reports and responses necessarily reflect snapshots in time." The Grand Jury does not assert that "the annual Grand Jury process" should involve "an ongoing, evolutionary dialogue with no finality," but, precisely because Responses "necessarily reflect snapshots in time," they should accurately reflect the facts as of the point in time at which they are adopted by the Board, and not at some undefined prior point. In the example referenced in the previous paragraph, the Draft Response was agendized for action to be taken on September 18, but new information was available to the public at least by September 13, and was possibly available to at least some of the members of the Board prior to that date. 20 (cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9) Additionally, the December 17 Letter (page 9) refers to a subcommittee which "will be reporting back to the Board on December 11." On December 11, however, as indicated in Findings F40-e and F46, the Board took action on the subject of closed session record-keeping, but that action was not reflected in the December 17 Letter. It appears, from the dates set forth on pages 2 through 9 of the December 17 Letter, that that letter may actually have been produced on November 21, 2001. The "snapshot in time" approach should have focused on information available as of the proposed Response adoption date, September 18, and on the date of transmittal of the December 17 letter to the Presiding Judge, respectively, and not some undefined prior date or dates. Aside from "the annual Grand Jury process," the Grand Jury believes that "an ongoing, evolutionary dialogue" between the Board and the Grand Jury is a desirable thing. e. "[T]he Grand Jury's convenience needs to be weighed against the chilling effect of a tape recorder's presence in closed session discussions ... ." (Page 12) That statement was not included in the December 17 Letter. As indicated above, however, the December 17 Letter (page 9) does recite that the Board "is still weighing the issue of closed-session record keeping," and that a "subcommittee will be reporting back to the Board on December 11." The Grand Jury does not believe that its efforts to obtain the most accurate information possible in pursuing its statutorily authorized and/or mandated investigations are matters of mere "convenience," as indicated by County Counsel. The Grand Jury is heartened, however, by the Board's actions in (a) directing the establishment of a subcommittee to inquire into the issue of record keeping at closed sessions, and (b) adopting, on December 11 as Agenda Item No. 67, a Resolution establishing that, henceforth, 21 (cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9) (i) County Counsel would take limited notes [i.e., motions and votes] of actions taken in Closed Session, (ii) those notes would be circulated to and initialed by the Board members indicating their concurrence, and (iii) the initialed notes would then be delivered to the Board's Clerk for safekeeping. Response to F40: Respondent agrees with the finding. The portions of the November 1 memorandum and the December 17 letter are accurately quoted in F40. The remainder of F40 constitutes statements of the views of the Grand Jury. Respondent has no information indicating that these do not reflect the views of the Grand Jury and therefore accepts the finding as an accurate reflection of the Grand Jury's v iews. The positions taken by the County Counsel are set forth in the November 1 memorandum and are cited by the Grand Jury. F40 does not call for a substantive response to the views expressed by the Grand Jury. Any such response would be lengthy and might be considered argumentative. Therefore, no such response is made. To the extent the Respondent's po sition on any of these issues is relevant to explain a response to any recommendation made by the Grand Jury in this report, that information will be provided in response to any such recommendation. There is one exception that deals with a procedural matter. Paragraph (a) of F40 partially quotes the November 1 memorandum as saying "[C ]ommunication of the Board's position to the Grand Jury may be by letter rather than amendment to the formal responses in order to avoid further delay." The Grand Jury interprets that statement to refer to the Board's response to the Grand Jury's fin al report and disagrees with it. However, the full sentence from which the quote is extracted reads, "In light of the time constraints involved, it is suggested that as to those items zvhere the responses in gtcestion are factzcally correct but may raise issues concerning the phrasing and legally sufficient, 22 (cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9) or' attitude" of the response, communication of the Board's position to the Grand Jury may be by letter rather than amendment to the formal responses in order to avoid further delay." (Emphasis added.) Read in full, this sentence clearly advises the Board that any changes required to make the formal responses accurate or legally sufficient should be made as amendments to those responses. In fact, certain changes were made and the final response was. forwarded to the Presiding Judge on November 7, 2001. The December 17, 2001, letter to the Presiding Judge was in response to issues raised in the undated letter, which constituted public comment on the Board's pro posed responses. The December 17 letter contained information the Board did not feel was required in the formal response to the previous Grand Jury's repo rt. It was not intended as a substitute for the formal response, but rather as an additional communication expressing opinions of the Board which the Board hoped would foster an improved relationship with the Grand fury. In that context, the Board believes that the letter was an appropriate form of communication. At its regular meeting of November 6, 2001, the Board: (i) Adopted the Response to the Previous Grand Jury Report as originally recommended by staff, subject to a rewriting of the response to Recommendation R1 on page 8 of the Draft Response, the specifics of which were to be developed by staff and brought back to the Board for approval; (ii) Appointed two of its members as a subcommittee to work on possible solutions to the issue of record keeping of closed sessions and to report back to the Board by December 11, 2001; (iii) Directed the CAO to establish a methodology to ensure that departments follow up on those recommendations for which the Board's Response states that follow up will occur; and (iv) Directed County Counsel to prepare, for signature by the Board's Chair, a letter to the Grand Jury transmitting the 23 (cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9) responses to "Generic Objections" as set forth on pages 2-5 of the . November 1 Memo, including clarifications proposed in the County Counsel's November 1 Memo to specific concerns numbers 2, 3, 4, 7B, 7D and 7E. The Board's action on this point did not specify any date by which the letter to be completed. . Response to F41: Respondent agrees with the finding. F42. The Board's action of November 6, 2001, was not a response to the eighty-four (84) specific items contained in the Previous Grand Jury's Final Report as had been anticipated by the Grand Jury following the Board's Motion and action of September 18, 2001 (See Findings F27 and F28). Response to F42: Respondent agrees with the finding. The Board's ac tion of November 6, 2001, did not contain an item-by- item action on each of the 84 findings and recommendations contained in the two page list that had been provided on September 17, 2001. Respondent has no information to the contrary and therefore assumes that the Grand Jury did anticipate such an item-by-item action after the September 18[25], 2001, motion. Nevertheless, the Board took its action after extensive deliberation, including its subcommittee's m eeting with grand jurors on October 5, 2001, and believes its action was appropriate. As stated in the response to F40, the Board's ac tion was in response to public comments, separate from and in addition to finalizing a formal report to the Grand Jury. The Board of Supervisors believes the form of its response was appropriate in that context. F43. The matters discussed irl the "Specific Concerns" portion of --_ -the November 1 Memo specifically identify eleven (11) [out of 60 listed on September 18] Findings, and seven (7) [out of 24 listed on September 18] Recommendations for specific response. Some other Findings and Recommendations may also have been 24 (cid:9) intended for response,but they are not specifically identified by number or page in the November 1 Memo. Response to F43: finding. Respondent agrees that the November 1 memo specifically mentions only a limited number of the 84 findings and