⚠️ 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 6 findings
F1
The county has a large fleet of 777 licensed vehicles; 132 are driven to employees’ homes for overnight parking and personal commuting.
No recommendations for this finding
F2
The County has a policy adopted by the Board of Supervisors in July 2008, which further clarifies the delegated approval and assignment of take-home vehicles in the Sheriff’s Department and the District Attorney’s Office. All other county departments must seek approval from the County Administrative Officer.
No recommendations for this finding
F3
The policy and required process to be used by the Sheriff and the District Attorney in the assignment of take-home vehicles does not have a check and balance review process beyond the department. Although the District Attorney argues strongly to preserve his independence in these decisions, there is potential for lax oversight in the assignment of those vehicles.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
The Board of Supervisors should modify the current Rules for Use of Vehicles on County Business (July 2008) to insure that a system of “check and balance” exists in the justification for take-home vehicle assignments. B A
F4
There is significant cost in take-home vehicle use. The total annual cost for all such vehicles is estimated to exceed $1,000,000 of which the commuting miles are a significant portion. There are opportunities for savings with more rigorous justification for the assignment and use of these vehicles.
No recommendations for this finding
F5
There is additional County liability exposure in the assignment of take-home vehicles.
No recommendations for this finding
F6
The justifications for take-home use presented to the Grand Jury for the Sheriff and District Attorney take-home vehicles were minimal and the Grand Jury found them to be inadequate. 5
No recommendations for this finding
Additional Recommendations 2
These recommendations are not explicitly linked to specific findings.
-
R1The San Luis Obispo District Attorney
-
R3This expanded analysis should be done annually and submitted for public review at a meeting of the Board of Supervisors, being sensitive to the undercover nature of some of those vehicle assignments.B A
Conclusions 1
-
CL1The justifications as submitted to the Grand Jury for take-home vehicles are brief and insufficient. The Grand Jury looked for but did not find information indicating there is satisfactory monitoring of take-home vehicle use. There is potential for lax oversight in 4 the assignment and use of those vehicles. The cost associated with take-home vehicle use is significant and there is the opportunity for cost savings with better analysis in the assignment of those vehicles and in better monitoring of their use.
No Responses Found 3
Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.
San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors
Elected County Office
San Luis Obispo County District Attorney
Elected County Office
San Luis Obispo County Sheriff
Elected County Office