Score: +7 (16/6/9)
Trinity County Grand Jury • 2016-2017

Far2016-2017-001

Published: June 02, 2017
View Original PDF

Findings and Recommendations 12 findings

F1
The County Auditor requested clarification from Gallina, LLP, the County's external auditors, to ensure IRS compliance regarding fringe benefits provided to some employees, including County vehicle usage.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
and general services personnel, to explain the term "home" and whether it encompasses a commute to and from if "home" is outside of the county;
F2
On December 21, 2016 the County Auditor issued a memorandum to County department heads, BOS and CAO-CC providing clarification of taxable fringe benefits with regard to vehicle usage effective with the January, 2017 pay period.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
County Code Chapter 2.56.070.C- Emergency situations and authorization for the use of county vehicles states "The immediate family of county employees who are assigned vehicles are not permitted to ride in county vehicles except with the prior approval of the county administrative officer". When an employee of the County is using their own vehicle for County business, in the process of County business, or on the way to their regular place of County business, specify if and when it is allowable for the immediate family of county employees to be permitted to ride in a personal vehicle. (Ord. 1234 §1, 1999; Ord.11 83 §3(part), 1993; Ord. 350-1 §1,1976; Ord.350 §4,1975) Enforce adherence to County Vehicle Usage Procedures and encompassing Ordinances
F3
The BOS provided a $10,000 vehicle allowance/stipend to a County employee based on a Staff Report that did not include complete information necessary for the BOS to make an informed decision.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
and Codes through training and memorandums and at annual employee evaluations. Ensure all County employees using personal vehicles for County business submit proof
F4
County Ordinance 2.56.040 may not be beneficial to the County budget as currently written in its explanation of vehicle use.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4
of insurance pursuant to County Policy 2002-02(P) at annual employee evaluations or when employees who use personal vehicles for County business, in the process of County business, or on the way to their regular place of County business change the status of ownership of the vehicle used.
F5
The BOS is not adhering to the terms of the January, 16, 2015 contract agreement with Prentice & Epperson LLP with regard to developing specific criteria needed to review and evaluate the performance of "Firm," the definition of which is Prentice & Epperson LLP as County Counsel.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5
Promptly complete the Classification and Compensation Study.
F6
The BOS is not adhering to the terms of the January 16, 2015 contract agreement and its subsequent amendments in regard to an annual open session review and evaluation of the contract agreement with Prentice & Epperson LLP.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6
Publish the Classification and Compensation Study and make it available to the public. Develop a plan of action to implement the results of the Classification and Compensation
F7
The BOS did not adhere to Government Code Section 31000 when a contract agreement with Prentice & Epperson LLP assigning County Counsel to perform additional duties in the absence of a CAO was entered into.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7
Study. Treat the recruitment and hiring of a competent, experienced CAO as a priority. To that
F8
The BOS contracted with Prentice & Epperson LLP designating County Counsel to perform additional duties in the absence of a CAO without establishing an expiration date.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8
end, offer a competitive compensation package. Develop a procedure/policy that ensures contract renewals are timely and in accordance
F9
The BOS did not create an alternative plan in the instance a CAO is not recruited.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9
with contracted work, and confirms contracts are reviewed monthly by the department implementing the contract. Develop specific criteria needed to review and evaluate the performance of "Firm", the
F10
The CAO position qualifications presented to applicants are not uniform nor in alignment with County Code 2.08.020.
Related Recommendations (1)
R10
definition of which is Prentice & Epperson LLP as County Counsel. Provide professional qualifications for the appointment of CAO-CC as described in
F11
The County's contract agreement with Cooperative Personnel Services for the recruitment of a CAO is current and ending only when a CAO qualified applicant is made an offer and the offer is accepted.
Related Recommendations (1)
R11
Government Code Section 31000. Establish uniformity between County Code 2.08.020 and the position description of
F12
BOS amended the original contract agreement with Koff and Associates four times after the contract agreement had expired.
Related Recommendations (1)
R12
County Administrative Officer. COMMENDATION The Grand Jury appreciates the cooperation and responsiveness of all County employees interviewed. It is apparent that despite significant workloads and in some circumstances limited staffing levels, the citizens of Trinity County are fortunate to have dedicated employees willing to go the extra mile to ensure effective ongoing county operations.

Commendations 1

Agency Responses 4

Government agencies' official responses to this report's findings and recommendations. Click on a response to see the structured breakdown.