El Dorado County Grand Jury • 2010-2011 • Agency Response

Final Draft Response to the

Published: September 13, 2011 71 pages
View Original PDF

Findings and Recommendations 14 findings

F1 Page 10
According to sworn testimony given to the Grand Jury, EDCSO Internal Affairs audited the degrees of EIP recipients in 2002 and found one individual with a degree from Hamilton University. This individual did not appear to warrant EIP. Internal Affairs reports directly to the Under-sheriff and does not conduct investigations without direction from or approval by the Under-sheriff or Sheriff. Testimony indicated that when approached by Internal Affairs, the Under-sheriff ordered Internal Affairs to cease any further investigation. However, when Internal Affairs was interviewed by the District Attorney’s investigator, this audit was said to have been conducted in 2008.
No recommendations for this finding
F2 Page 10
A simple Web search provided information that Hamilton University was operated by a convicted felon. Hamilton University changed its name to Richardson University and relocated to the Bahamas after Hamilton University was shut down by authorities. Response to Finding 2: The respondent agrees with the finding.
No recommendations for this finding
F3 Page 10
In 2010, the issue of questionable degrees resurfaced. An Internal Affairs investigation revealed three individuals with diplomas from Hamilton or Richardson University and two other individuals with degrees from other questionable institutions. Internal Affairs turned the matter over to the District Attorney’s office to determine if criminal charges should be brought against these five sworn personnel. Internal Affairs did not obtain statements from the accused officers before turning the matter over to the District Attorney.
No recommendations for this finding
F4 Page 10
The District Attorney’s Office spent eight months investigating the issue but has elected not to prosecute any of the individuals involved, due to a lack of sufficient evidence.  Four of the accused deputies declined to provide statements to the District Attorney’s Office.  The District Attorney’s investigation revealed that the five officers in question received a total of $166,459.72 in additional pay after the EDCSO Commanders approved their application for EIP. 10  The investigation revealed that the “four year degrees” were approved by EDCSO Commanders even though they were obtained in as little as four weeks of coursework.
No recommendations for this finding
F5 Page 11
EDCSO Internal Affairs delayed any administrative investigation while the District Attorney’s investigation was ongoing. During this time, two of the individuals in question retired and the other three have remained employed.
No recommendations for this finding
F6 Page 11
The Modified, Last, Best and Final offer for the EDCSO Deputy Sheriffs Association, Law Enforcement Unit and the El Dorado County Law Enforcement Manager’s Association are the two labor agreements currently in force between El Dorado County and the sworn personnel of the Sheriff’s Office. Both agreements are subject to renegotiation. Response to Finding 6: The respondent agrees with the finding.
No recommendations for this finding
F7 Page 11
Both labor agreements provide incentives for longevity pay, POST Certificate Awards and Educational Incentive Pay. POST incentives are available as an alternative to longevity pay and these two incentives may not be combined. However, EIP may be combined with either POST incentives or longevity pay. A Captain, for example, receiving the maximum benefit for EIP and longevity pay could receive nearly $32,000 in additional pay. Response to Finding 7: The respondent agrees with the finding.
No recommendations for this finding
F8 Page 11
In 2010, the County paid in excess of $300,000 in EIP to EDCSO personnel. At the current rate, this incentive program will cost the County in excess of $3,000,000 over the next ten years. Response to Finding 8: The respondent agrees with the finding.
No recommendations for this finding
F9 Page 11
Neither labor agreement provides a standard for evaluating the legitimacy of college degrees and diplomas. The language of the agreements does not specify either “accredited colleges” or “State approved” colleges as a means of identifying legitimate institutions. Response to Finding 9: The respondent agrees with the finding. The new MOU with the Deputy Sheriff’s Association contains the following language: Eligible employees…shall receive a 5% Education Incentive Differential for the possession of a four-year college degree (Bachelor of Arts and/or Bachelor of Sciences degree) from an accredited University and/or College as recognized by the United States Department of Education for Postsecondary Institutions and Programs and/or another authorized source as approved by the appointing authority in writing and submitted to Human Resources for verification. The educational incentive is not cumulative. Any and all submittals for additional pay in regard to this section is subject o periodic review for validation of, accreditation of institution and any employee may be subject to full re-payment of any funds received and/or subject to discipline if the degree the employee submitted is found to be invalid as defined above. The Law Enforcement Manager Association has signed a tentative agreement with the County and this language is expected to be incorporated into the new MOU.
No recommendations for this finding
F10 Page 12
Two deputies, two sergeants and one lieutenant received degrees from unaccredited institutions that are being investigated by the U.S. Attorney General as “diploma mills.” All five of these individuals applied for and received EIP. Applications were approved by EDCSO Commanders. Response to Finding 10: The respondent agrees with the finding.
No recommendations for this finding
F11 Page 12
There is no requirement for personnel applying for EIP to provide a duplicate diploma and/or sealed transcripts to the El Dorado County Human Resource Department for independent verification. Response to Finding 11: The respondent agrees with the finding.
No recommendations for this finding
F12 Page 12
The District Attorney’s investigation confirmed that the five employees investigated were the only then current sworn personnel receiving EIP based upon degrees issued by questionable institutions. Response to Finding 12: The respondent agrees with the finding.
Related Recommendations (1)
R12-10
Page 41
(12/10)  El Dorado County Department of Mental Health Psychiatric Emergency Service Policies and Procedures - West Slope, dated 1-20-08 (1/11)  El Dorado County Western Slope Agencies, MOU, Policy and Procedures Regarding Detention of Persons Pursuant to WIC §5150 Agreement #833-M0810, dated 6-08 (1/11)  California Department of Mental Health to El Dorado County Health Services Department, Mental Health Division, Re: Notice of Completed Review with Deficiencies, dated 11-11-10 (1/11)  California Health Services Department, Mental Health Division Correspondence from Director to County of El Dorado Grand Jury, dated 3-31-2011 (3/11) FINDINGS MENTAL HEALTH 1. A major causal factor in the March 2010 incident was the fact that previous to March 2010, attention to detail and awareness of the agencies involved in the care and observations of 5150 patients had lapsed. Response to Finding 1: The respondent disagrees wholly with the finding. The involvement of agencies in the care and observation of 5150 patients has always been and remains a priority of the Mental Health Division. The Mental Health Division has always enjoyed a strong working relationship with its partners and has continually interacted with those partners to ensure that the protocols and procedures regarding the care and observation of 5150 patients are appropriate. Each agency including law enforcement, hospital staff and employees of the Mental Health Division, is aware of its responsibilities for the care and observation of 5150 patients. 2. The March 2010 incident shed light on the oversight of the agencies that relate to 5150 patients. Response to Finding 2: The respondent agrees with the finding. The treating hospital is not a county agency but rather is a private entity. As a private entity, the oversight of the hospital is vested with a state agency. MARSHALL MEDICAL CENTER SECURITY 41
F13 Page 12
Other local law enforcement agencies offer EIP and POST but the incentives cannot be combined, are currently limited to a maximum benefit of 10% of base salary, and are not available to command rank (Lieutenants and above). Response to Finding 13: The respondent agrees with the finding.
No recommendations for this finding
F14 Page 12
The EDCSO reviewed the training files of 79 sworn personnel in 2010 to determine the legitimacy of college degrees. However, there were an additional 18 Correctional Officers receiving EIP who were not included in that review.
No recommendations for this finding