El Dorado County Grand Jury • 2002-2003 • Agency Response

Joeharn,cpa Auditor-Controller Office of Auditor-controller*

Published: August 29, 2003 5 pages
View Original PDF

Note: Missing finding numbers detected: F8, F9, F10, F11, F12, F13, F14, F15, F16, F17, F18, F19, F20, F21, F22, F23

Findings and Recommendations 8 findings

F1
to the Auditor-Controller. Auditor-Controller's Response I disagree wholly with the finding. The complainant was frustrated with the County Counsel because the County was exerting attorney/client privilege over the information contained on the Remy, Thomas, and Moose invoices related to the general plan litigation.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
and with accurate information. Auditor-Controller's Response I agree with the recommendation. The recommendation was implemented nine years ago. How the Grand Jury determined the need to include this recommendation is a mystery. The Grand Jury has not identified one instance where the Auditor-Controller's Office has failed to comply with a Public Record Act request in a timely manner and with accurate information. The Auditor-Controller should not attempt to shift responsibility to other departments.
F2
The Public Record Act request was submitted in February 1999 but the complaint was made in February 2002, this request had not been satisfactorily answered. Auditor-Controller's Response I disagree wholly with the finding. The finding states that "this request had not been satisfactorily answered." Actually, the information provided by the Auditor-Controller to the complainant exceeded the requirements of the California Public Records Act. The complainant was a party to a law suit and seeking a judgement in excess of $1,300,000 from the County. Since the complainant was involved in significant litigation with the County that was directly related to her California Public Records Act request I sought and received the advice of the County Counsel before my responses were delivered to the complainant. The Auditor-Controller mailed responses to the complainant in February and March 1999, and December 2001. On December 31, 2001, the Auditor-Controller furnished an accounting spreadsheet to the
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
Auditor-Controller's Response I agree with the recommendation. The recommendation was implemented nine years ago. How the Grand Jury determined the need to include this recommendation is a mystery. The California Public Records Act does not require the County to distribute records that are attorney/client privileged. The complainant, who was party to a $1,300,000 law suit against the County, was disappointed with County Counsel's determination that certain records related to the law suit were attorney/client privileged. City of South Lake Tahoe Transient Occupancy Tax On several occasions this committee requested the El Dorado County Auditor-Controller
F3
complainant showing all payments made to The Firm, but never identified a payment associated with The Firm's start date of summer of 1995. Auditor-Controller's Response I agree with the finding. The relevance of the finding is not apparent. The California Public Records Act does not require the County to identify payments to individuals that are suing the County for $1,300,000. Since my three responses to this individual's information request exceeded the requirements of the California Public Records Act. Honorable Jerald Lasarow El Dorado County Superior Court RE: Responses to Grand Jury Report August 29, 2003 The Auditor-Controller should respond to Public Record Act requests in a timely manner
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
County Counsel and the Auditor-Controller should communicate on matters impacting the future of the County legally and financially with review and execution by the Chief Administrative Officer and the Board of Supervisors. Auditor-Controller's Response I agree with the recommendation. However, I believe that neither the County Counsel nor I have the authority to implement this recommendation. The County Counsel may be aware of attorney-client privileged information that is related to a significant financial matter that is upcoming. At this time, to the best of my knowledge, the County Counsel has not been authorized to share this type of information with me. In order for the County Counsel to share attorney-client privileged information with me, he would need authorization from the Board of Supervisors.
F4
understand the technical scope of the work. Auditor-Controller's Response I disagree partially with the finding. It is my opinion, that for many years, the Human Resources Department certified a number of unqualified individuals as eligible for financial management and professional level accounting positions. The past few years, however, in general, the results of recruitments have produced better qualified candidates. Honorable Jerald Lasarow El Dorado County Superior Court RE: Responses to Grand Jury Report August 29, 2003 The Auditor-Controller knew of the alleged trust account deficit since 1995; obviously
Related Recommendations (1)
R4
all issues that have a major financial impact on the County. Auditor-Controller's Response I do not have the authority to implement this recommendation. Former members of the Board of Supervisors, the County Counsel, the former Human Resources Director, and various former CAOs have opposed including the Auditor-Controller in most major financial decisions. In various closed sessions, former Supervisors committed the County to new retirement benefits that will cost the County tens of millions of dollars without any input from the Auditor-Controller. To this day, I am unaware of any meaningful financial analysis that was conducted by any staff member to explain how these benefits were to be paid for. I am willing to implement this recommendation if the Board of Supervisors grants me the authority to do so. Honorable Jerald Lasarow El Dorado County Superior Court RE: Responses to Grand Jury Report August 29, 2003 County Fiscal Issues/Procedures Required funding for CalPERS has dramatically increased due to legislative formulae.
F5
prior to requesting the Board of Supervisors to authorize covering the account deficit from General Fund monies ($958,000). Auditor-Controller's Response I disagree wholly with the finding. In 1996, 1997, 1998, and 1999,1 received written assurances from the Director of Social Services that he would direct his staff to work towards the reconciliation of the trust funds in question. Until early 2001, I was unaware that any of the trust funds contained unreconcilable negative differences. Since February, 2001, this matter has been brought to the Board's attention on many occasions. The Board of Supervisors reviewed and agreed to transfer allocated monies during
No recommendations for this finding
F6
2002/2003 for the deficit trust funds without a full investigation by the Auditor-Controller. Auditor-Controller's Response I disagree wholly with the finding. Hundreds of hours were spent investigating these trust funds in an attempt to reconcile them. Further, prior to the transferring the monies to recognize the $958,000 deficit balance problem, the County's independent CPA firm and the GAO's Office agreed with the recommendation. All but the Department of Social Services have deficit trust funds that are now accounted
No recommendations for this finding
F7
for and balanced. Auditor-Controller's Response I disagree wholly with the finding. A number of County Departments have trust funds that are not balanced or accounted for. None of the "problems" are of the magnitude of the problems at the Department of Social Services.
No recommendations for this finding
F24
for assistance to investigate the initial complaint filed. The requests were denied. Auditor-Controller's Response I disagree partially with the finding and I disagree fully with what the finding intends to imply. At a meeting with the Grand Jury on January 27, 2003, I offered to make an on site revenue review of at least one property management firm of the Grand Jury's choosing that manages vacation rentals within the unincorporated area of the County. I followed this offer up with a letter confirming my offer to "audit" a property management firm. Further, I told individual members of the Grand Jury that they should consider requesting the County Tax Collector perform the requested "TOT audit" because her office has experience conducting the County's "TOT audits". Conflict of Interest/Employee Evaluations The Auditor-Controller should be held accountable for reviewing all financial aspects for
No recommendations for this finding

* This report's PDF did not contain easily extractable text and required Optical Character Recognition (OCR) for analysis. There may be minor errors in the extracted findings and recommendations due to OCR limitations with scanned documents.