El Dorado County Grand Jury
• 2002-2003
• Agency Response
Complete Report(PDF, 8mb)
⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings and Recommendations 24 findings
F1
The undesignated reserve funds are approximately three times the annual operating revenues.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
GDPUD should adopt and publicize their policy for accumulating undesignated reserve funds as well as the planned use of the funds.
F2
Stumpy Meadows Reservoir is the only source of water for GDPUD.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
GDPUD should look into secondary water sources for the anticipated growth within the District.
F3
The district operates with no written personnel procedures or formal policies for employees and their evaluations.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
GDPUD should create a personnel policies and procedures manual. The manual should be updated periodically as required. 9
F4
The District has two CPAs. One is an employee, and the other is an hourly consultant.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4
There should only be one CPA. The time frame of the contract with the Consultant should be reduced and a termination date established.
F5
GDPUD uses an accounting software program called Multiple Operations Manager (M.O.M.), while the Consultant uses Solomon.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5
For efficiency purposes, there should be one accounting software program.
F6
The Grand Jury investigation revealed this was an isolated case.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6
GDPUD should increase treated water storage capacities in the event of equipment breakdown or extended drought cycles. Commendation Management is very proactive in seeking to meet the needs of its customers and appears interested in the overall well being of the community.
F7
The Undersheriff responded in a letter on October 9, 2002 that he was sick during the time in question.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7
The staff should be trained in the use of air packs. Response to R7: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is unreasonable. In addition to the statements provided in R6 above, there are inherent staffing and training problems associated with the decision to mandate detention staff to utilize Air Packs. In an issued paper prepared by the California State Sheriff’s Association on the use of Air Packs (issued April 18, 2002), it was learned that there are Fit Tests required for all staff assigned to use Air Packs, as well as a required medical evaluation. It states, “Persons assigned to 55 tasks that require the use of a respirator must be physically able to perform the work while using the respirator. Accordingly, employers have the responsibility of ensuring that employees are medically fit to tolerate the physical and psychological stress imposed by respirator use, as well as the physical stress originating from job and workplace conditions.” Further, it states, “Employees must be medically evaluated and found eligible to wear the respirator selected for their use prior to fit testing or first-time use of the respirator in the workplace.” A serious staffing and hiring issue would exist should existing staff fail to meet the physical and psychological mandates, and contract requirements would not allow the implementation of these new standards to existing employees. To meet the existing staffing, the Board of Corrections mandate of 1 staff per 10 minors in Juvenile Halls, at least 2 additional staff would need to be hired on each shift to utilize Air Packs, since our basic staffing would be needed to supervise the evacuated minors. During these already difficult fiscal times, the cost of Air Packs, additional staff, monthly mandated testing of equipment, additional physical and psychological requirements, and contractual conflicts, the use of Air Packs appears to be unreasonable.
F8
The Undersheriff’s medical records reviewed by this Grand Jury do not appear to substantiate his claim.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8
The City’s TOT remittance form should be changed to allow sufficient space to permit the rental agents to list the total number of units rented each day and for property owners to list the total number of days the unit was rented.
F9
A review by this Grand Jury of Sheriff’s Department sick leave records, between January 1999 and November 2002, revealed this apparent abuse of sick leave to be an isolated case. 26
Related Recommendations (1)
R9
Replace or modify the electric gate so it will automatically close after it has been opened. Response to R9: The recommendation has been implemented. The electric gate does automatically close when opened by a remote opener.
F10
In January 2003, the County Counsel filed suit against the Undersheriff in small claims court to recover monies owed pursuant to the limitations of said court. Response to F10: The Respondent agrees with the finding.
Related Recommendations (1)
R10
Replace larger DOT hydraulic lift with the appropriate lift for maintaining the fleet vehicles. Response to R10: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is unreasonable. While we concur that the larger hydraulic lift is not functional for Fleet Management’s needs, funding is not currently available and given the current fiscal outlook, it is unreasonable to replace this equipment at this time. Should funding become available in the future this recommendation will be included as part of the Fleet budget request.
F11
The District Attorney sent a letter to the Grand Jury misquoting Rule 5-300 of the California Rules of Professional Conduct for attorneys.
Related Recommendations (1)
R11
Annual performance evaluations should be completed. Response to R11: The recommendation has been implemented. The prior Grand Jury recommendation to implement performance evaluations was negotiated with the respective union representatives and has been implemented. The Director of Human Resources notified all County Department Heads on or about October 17, 2002 to implement the annual performance evaluation process along with instructions and training on how to do the evaluations. Human Resources sends notice to each department two months before an evaluation is due. This notice contains a list of the employees for whom a performance evaluation will need to be completed.
F12
Sworn testimony by the District Attorney and other witnesses conflicts in important and significant details.
Related Recommendations (1)
R12
The dining room ceiling should be replaced. Response to R12: The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future. General Services has scheduled the dining room ceiling for replacement. The work will be completed
F13
Portions of the District Attorney’s testimony and documentation were found to be lacking in truth and veracity.
Related Recommendations (1)
R13
The dining room storage area fire extinguisher should be made accessible. Response to R13: The recommendation has been implemented. The fire extinguisher in the dining room storage area has been made accessible
F14
The City Council is not adequately informed regarding the delinquent TOTs.
Related Recommendations (1)
R14
All kitchen food handlers should wear hair nets/hats. Response to R14: The recommendation has been implemented. The department policy has been for all food handlers to wear hair nets/hats. Due to this finding Community Services has re-affirmed the policy, with no exceptions, to all staff involved in food handling.
F15
Of the five rental agencies audited for this investigation, the Investigator estimated that nearly $100,000 underpayment of TOT occurred in 2002.
Related Recommendations (1)
R15
The kitchen hand sink should be re-caulked. Response to R15: The recommendation has been implemented. The kitchen sink has been re-caulked.
F16
It was further estimated that over $224,000 was underpaid by all rental agencies in 2002.
Related Recommendations (1)
R16
The stairwell to the basement should be cleaned and maintained on a regular basis. Response to R16: The recommendation has been implemented. General Services will have custodial staff clean periodically and maintain on a regular basis.
F17
Individual homeowners, as distinct from agencies, may have underpaid an additional TOT of approximately $85,000.
Related Recommendations (1)
R17
The basement clutter should be addressed. Response to R17: The recommendation has been implemented. Community Services has cleared the clutter. Limited storage space and extensive storage needs make this an on-going concern. Community Services will research the storage needs of its various programs to determine if records retention is still required and to ascertain if other methods of storage such as microfiche, computer disks, etc. can be utilized. In addition, Community Services will work with General Services Records Management section to remove as many files as possible to central storage areas.
F18
This year the City hired an individual to audit the motels and hotels regarding payment of TOT.
Related Recommendations (1)
R18
The broken pottery kiln transite heat shield should be replaced. Response to R18: The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future. Community Services will inspect the heat shield and repair or replace it
F19
In one period, from August 2002 to March 2003, this person found uncollected tax amounting to over $375,000.
No recommendations for this finding
F20
Motels, hotels, vacation homes, and rental agencies are responsible to pay their TOTs owed on an honor system.
No recommendations for this finding
F21
Although the City has stringent methods of dealing with delinquent TOTs, the prevailing method used is to put a lien on the property.
No recommendations for this finding
F22
There are no written guidelines as to the definition of “rent” as expressed in Chapter 28A-3 of the City Code.
No recommendations for this finding
F23
Some agencies and motels pay TOT on all revenue generated by the rental of the room, and others do not.
No recommendations for this finding
F24
On several occasions, this committee requested the El Dorado County Auditor-Controller for assistance to investigate the initial complaint filed. The requests were denied.
No recommendations for this finding
Commendations 154
-
CM1GDPUD CPA (Consultant) for the period of 1976 to present;
-
CM2Two GDPUD board members;
-
CM3The prior GDPUD General Manager;
-
CM4The Current Auditor;
-
CM5The El Dorado County Auditor-Controller. The Grand Jury also reviewed:
-
CM6The June 1, 1998, AICPA Code for independence as to audit services;
-
CM7The accounting records of GDPUD;
-
CM8The reports prepared by the in-house CPA;
-
CM9The annual audits for the fiscal years 1995 through 1998.
-
CM10The former County Sheriff (Sheriff);
-
CM11The former Undersheriff (Undersheriff);
-
CM12Employees of El Dorado County Sheriff’s Department;
-
CM13Employees of El Dorado County Department of Human Resources;
-
CM14Employees of El Dorado County Risk Management. The Grand Jury also reviewed:
-
CM15Citizen complaint #00/01-C-021 alleging abuse of sick leave by the Undersheriff;
-
CM16Grand Jury Report 2000/2001 regarding complaint #00/01-C-021;
-
CM17The Sheriff’s response to the Grand Jury Report 2000/2001;
-
CM18Appropriate payroll documents;
-
CM19All sick leave records of Sheriff’s Department personnel who terminated service between January 1, 1999 and November 2002;
-
CM20Correspondence between Sheriff and former Undersheriff regarding abuse of sick leave ;
-
CM21Various memoranda regarding principals involved;
-
CM22Policies for the County and Memoranda of Understandings (MOUs) relating to sick leave;
-
CM23Medical records of the former Undersheriff.
-
CM24The El Dorado County District Attorney;
-
CM25The District Attorney’s “girlfriend;”
-
CM26Attorneys currently and formerly associated with the District Attorney’s Office;
-
CM27Several Judicial Officers;
-
CM28A Deputy Sheriff of El Dorado County;
-
CM29Current and former El Dorado County Employees;
-
CM30Director of Human Resources for El Dorado County;
-
CM31Auditor-Controller for El Dorado County;
-
CM32A representative of one of the El Dorado County employee unions. The Grand Jury also reviewed:
-
CM33Numerous Court documents relating to Complainant and District Attorney’s girlfriend (hereinafter referred to as “Friend”);
-
CM34Various Court Orders of the El Dorado Superior and Municipal Courts Transcripts of Superior Court proceedings;
-
CM35Police and Sheriff’s reports pertaining to Complainant, “Friend,” and “Friend’s” son;
-
CM36Various memoranda from the District Attorney;
-
CM37El Dorado County timesheets, payroll and expense records of the “Friend;”
-
CM38Criminal Court records of “Friend’s” son;
-
CM39Letters to and from the California Judicial Council;
-
CM40Letter to and from the California State Bar;
-
CM41California Rules of Professional Conduct - State Bar Act; 28
-
CM42Applicable Penal Code Sections ;
-
CM43Applicable Government Code Sections;
-
CM44Applicable Business and Professions Codes Sections;
-
CM45Professionalism a Sourcebook of Ethics and Civil Liability Principals for Prosecutors by The Ethics Committee of the California District Attorneys Association;
-
CM46Recusal of District Attorneys – Attorney General Publications;
-
CM47District Attorney Department Handbook;
-
CM48Grand Jury Reports for years 1999/2000, 2000/2001 and 2001/2002;
-
CM49Additional information supplied by the District Attorney to “clarify” his previous testimony;
-
CM50Additional information supplied by the District Attorney’s “Friend” to “clarify” her previous testimony;
-
CM51Reviewed transcripts of District Attorney and “Friend’s “ testimony.
-
CM52Inmate Orientation Handbook
-
CM53Staff and Inmates written reviews of meals
-
CM54Performance evaluations of inmates
-
CM55Grand Jury Reports for 2000/2001 and 2001/2002
-
CM56Visited Latrobe School;
-
CM57Visited Miller Hill School;
-
CM58Interviewed the Secretary and three teachers.
-
CM59Interviewed the Superintendent and the Principal;
-
CM60Toured the school grounds;
-
CM61Visited the special science laboratory and several classes including an 8th grade math class;
-
CM62Reviewed the Grand Jury report for 2001/2002.
-
CM63Interviewed the Principal;
-
CM64Toured the facility.
-
CM65Director, Department of Human Resources, El Dorado County;
-
CM66Manager, Procurement and Contracts, Department of General Services, El Dorado County. The Grand Jury also reviewed the following items:
-
CM67A memo from the Director of Human Resources regarding fitness-for duty examinations;
-
CM68Statistics of fitness for duty 2000/01 and 2001/02;
-
CM69Purchase Order for doctor’s services;
-
CM70County’s policies and procedures regarding purchases and contracts;
-
CM71Total Purchase Order List for every Department from Fiscal Year 2001-02 through 2002- 03;
-
CM72General Services Department memos issued to all County Departments regarding confirming purchase orders, purchasing procedures, and new contracts.
-
CM73City Attorney, City of South Lake Tahoe;
-
CM74Two current City Council members, City of South Lake Tahoe;
-
CM75Senior Accounting Technician, City of South Lake Tahoe;
-
CM76Former City Council member, City of South Lake Tahoe;
-
CM77County Counsel, El Dorado County;
-
CM78Chief Assistant District Attorney, El Dorado County;
-
CM79Auditor-Controller, El Dorado County;
-
CM80Former City Manager;
-
CM81Former Accounting Manager, City of South Lake Tahoe;
-
CM82Revenue Supervisor, City of South Lake Tahoe;
-
CM83Private Investigator/Auditor, contracted by the 2002-03 Grand Jury. The Grand Jury also reviewed the following items:
-
CM84South Lake Tahoe City Occupancy/Lodging Code Sections (Chapter 28A et seq.);
-
CM85City of South Lake Tahoe Policy and Procedures regarding TOTs;
-
CM86Transient Occupancy Tax Code, El Dorado County, California;
-
CM87City of South Lake Tahoe & Lodging Association clarification of TOT;
-
CM88Transient Occupancy Tax Ordinance, Douglas County, Nevada;
-
CM89Videotapes of the City of South Lake Tahoe Council Meeting discussing TOTs;
-
CM90Transient Occupancy Tax Report Form;
-
CM91Audit report by the Private Investigator/Auditor;
-
CM92City of SLT Ordinance Amending Vacation Home Rentals ;
-
CM93A letter attempting to define SLT City Code 28A-3, which defines “rent,” written by an attorney who represents two of the rental agencies; 89
-
CM94A legal opinion from County Counsel defining “rent” as it pertains to El Dorado County’s Code.
-
CM95President of the Homeowners Coalition for Mobile Home Parks in El Dorado County and other witnesses;
-
CM96Chief Assistant District Attorney;
-
CM97Deputy District Attorney;
-
CM98Investigator with the District Attorney’s Office;
-
CM99Senior Administrative Analyst, District Attorney’s Office. The Grand Jury also reviewed the following items:
-
CM100The citizen’s complaint;
-
CM101The files of the Homeowners Coalition for Mobile Home Parks, which set forth 26 complaints against El Dorado County mobile home park owners;
-
CM102A criminal complaint against a mobile home park owner;
-
CM103The District Attorney’s office procedures;
-
CM104The case management system used by the District Attorney (DAMION);
-
CM105All of the minutes of the Mobile Home Task Force meetings;
-
CM106Mobile Home Task Force Report to the Board of Supervisors, dated February 2003;
-
CM107Relevant California Code sections relating to mobile homes and senior abuse.
-
CM108The Director of the Department of Human Resources;
-
CM109The Interim Chief Administrative Officer (CAO);
-
CM110Members of the Board of Supervisors individually;
-
CM111Various El Dorado County employees regarding performance evaluations. The Grand Jury reviewed the following items:
-
CM112El Dorado County Charter (Charter);
-
CM113County Policies and Procedures;
-
CM114Various Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs).
-
CM115Supervisor Board Member, District 5, El Dorado County;
-
CM116A former City Council member, City of South Lake Tahoe. The Grand Jury also reviewed the following items:
-
CM117City of South Lake Tahoe Ordinance No. 924 and No. 925;
-
CM118November 22, 2002, Measure Z Notice was sent to all motel, hotel and vacation home owners;
-
CM119December 3, 2002 Press Release “Measure Z Takes Effect December 5”;
-
CM120December 10, 2002 Staff Report to City Council members from the City Attorney re. Implementation of Measure Z;
-
CM121December 11, 2002 Measure Z Amended Notice sent to all motel, hotels and vacation home owners ;
-
CM122Tapes of City of South Lake Tahoe Council Meetings from the Office of the City Clerk regarding the estimated TOT revenue loss for Measure Z.
-
CM123County Counsel, El Dorado County ;
-
CM124Chief Administrative Officer (CAO);
-
CM125Sheriff, El Dorado County;
-
CM126All five members of the Board of Supervisors, individually. The Grand Jury also reviewed the following items:
-
CM127Contract between the Board of Supervisors and the CAO;
-
CM128El Dorado County Charter;
-
CM129Interoffice memo regarding policies and procedures. Background: The complainant alleged that the CAO contract violated the County Charter since the contract did not specify the contract administrator. The allegation is of questionable merit since much as this issue could have been easily resolved with a short addendum to the contract specifying the Board of Supervisors as the contract administrator. The complainant further has a difference of opinion with the contract concerning severance pay and hours of leave that were negotiated. The complainant was not a party to the contract and these conditions were agreed upon unanimously by the Board of Supervisors prior to the approval of the contract. The complainant also specifies several differences of a financial nature concerning salary, leave compensation, and the deferred compensation plan provided in the contract. In addition the contract 130 makes mention of the PERS contributions which the County agreed to pay. The Board of Supervisors in negotiating the contract had the benefit of an outside firm with general knowledge of emoluments, benefits, and remuneration granted to other public officials in similar positions within the State of California. In interviews with Board members, the Committee accepts that both parties negotiated this contract in good faith. While the committee may differ with the details of any contract, there appears to be no basis to the charge that the Board of Supervisors acted inappropriately. Finally the complainant alleges that fingerprints of the CAO were not received in a timely matter. As a matter of fact, the fingerprints had to be taken four different times, through no fault of the applicant, and the requirement has been satisfied.
-
CM130Visited the facility on February 25, 2003;
-
CM131Was briefed on the operations of the fuel dispensers, computerized fueling system (Gas Boy) and the vehicle repair facilities by the Fleet Maintenance Supervisor;
-
CM132Interviewed the Special Services Department Head Fleet Maintenance Manager;
-
CM133Interviewed the Fleet Maintenance Superintendent;
-
CM134Interviewed the Fleet Maintenance Accountant.
-
CM135Made an unannounced visit to the offices of the District Attorney, Placerville, including the District Attorney Annex and Victim/Witness Assistance Program on December 5, 2002;
-
CM136Were given an extensive tour of the facilities and grounds by the Chief Assistant District Attorney;
-
CM137Were briefed on the District Attorney operations;
-
CM138Inspected the buildings and grounds;
-
CM139Reviewed previous Grand Jury reports for year’s 1999/2000, 2000/2001 and 2001/2002.
-
CM140Made an unannounced visit to the Library and General Services Complex on January 16, 2003;
-
CM141Were guided on an extensive tour of the facilities by the Administrative Technician, Store Keeper II, Assistant Coordinator, and Library Director;
-
CM142Inspected the facilities for cleanliness, neatness, and compliance to safety regulations;
-
CM143Reviewed previous Grand Jury reports for year’s 1999/2000, 2000/2001 and 2001/2002 and found no findings or recommendations pertaining to this building.
-
CM144Made unannounced visits to the Superior Court – Cameron Park on December 12, 2002 and March 24, 2003;
-
CM145Toured the facilities and grounds with the Clerk and the Bailiff ;
-
CM146Was briefed on the various judicial operations of the facility;
-
CM147Inspected the building and grounds;
-
CM148Spoke informally with various staff members;
-
CM149Reviewed previous Grand Jury reports and found no findings or recommendations for year’s 1999/2000, 2000/2001 and 2001/2002.
-
CM150Visited the School on January 31, 2003;
-
CM151Were given on an extensive tour of the School by the Superintendent;
-
CM152Reviewed various school plans, including emergency procedures, funding, and staffing;
-
CM153Reviewed Grand Jury reports for 2000/2001 and 2001/2002 and found no findings or
-
CM154The Teaching Principal/Superintendent has obtained numerous grants to improve this unique school. He and his staff provide excellent opportunities for their students. 66 Responses to Findings F1 and F2 Indian Diggings School Teaching Principal/Superintendent Response to Recommendation R1 Indian Diggings School Teaching Principal/Superintendent 67 Indian Diggings School District 6020 Omo Ranch Rd. Somerset, CA 95684 . (530)620-6546 To: Presiding Judge of the Superior Court (El Dorado County) From: J. Rusty Vardy Subject: Response to Grand Jury’s Final Report of 2002-2003 July 7, 2003 Dear Honorable Judge James Wagoner, This letter serves as the official response of Indian Diggings School District to the 2002- 2003 Grand Jury Report for El Dorado County. I wish to compliment the members of the Grand Jury for their thorough review at Indian Diggings School. We were able to use some of the time they were here as an opportunity for students to learn about local government accountability. It was a positive experience for both our students and district as a whole. Recommendation of the Grand Jury: F2: The elevator for disabled is not in working condition. RI: The elevator should be repaired. Response: Indian Diggings School District will contact a company capable of repairing our elevator and have the elevator repaired within 90 days from this date (7/7/03). The person responsible for carrying out this duty is J. Rusty Vardy. Teaching Principal/Superintendent. Once again, thank you for your visit and findings. Best wishes for a successful conclusion to the Grand Jury Report process. Sincerely Rusty Vardy Teaching Principal/Superintendent