In-home Supportive Services Public Authority Regarding a Complaint About Mismanagement of the Public Authority AD HOC

Recommendations 10

• R1

  Page 35
  None, as we believe there is no violation of AB 1682. 2021 Tehama Grand Jury Final Report 36 | P age ALLEGATION 2: “It is asserted that while an IHSS PA Advisory Board was in place, the Advisory Board folded for lack of management and lack of attention paid to it during the county's CAO assignment as Executive Director. It is a mandate of the program to continue to have an IHSS PA Advisory Board. The IHSS PA Advisory Board has not been treated as an appropriate Brown Act notice meeting with agendas, minutes, consistent times and dates, by laws, etc.”
• R2

  Page 36
  Meetings should be rescheduled as soon as they can be done safely per County and Public Health guidance, and the website updated
• R3

  Page 36
  None ALLEGATION 4: “It appears that the IHSS PA Advisory Board and IHSS PA Board of Directors meetings are possibly not properly noticed. IHSS PA Advisory Board meetings were not held for at least a couple of years under the County CAO. Also, when the IHSS PA Advisory Board was being reestablished, the Chair and Vice Chair complained that the meetings were 2021 Tehama Grand Jury Final Report 37 | P age either not held or inconsistent or planned at dates or times the IHSS PA Advisory Board members could not be there.”
• R4

  Page 37
  Meetings should be rescheduled as soon as they can be done safely per County and Public Health guidance, and the website updated
• R5

  Page 37
  None ALLEGATION 6: “The website (tehamacountyihsspa.com) has not been updated since March 19, 2020 No reports or financial updates are provided there. Only a few meeting minutes appear there.”
• R6

  Page 37
  Meetings should be rescheduled as soon as they can be done safely per County and Public Health guidance. 2021 Tehama Grand Jury Final Report 38 | P age ALLEGATION 7: “The MOU approved on 9/01/2020 is believed to be in violation of AB 1682. “Employees of the Public Authority shall not be employees of the county for any purpose.” The 9/01/2020 MOU has no end date and instead has the statement: “…shall commence upon July 1, 2020 and remain in full force and effect…” It is asserted that this MOU is flawed as any contractual agreement should have a reasonable end date (Most other Tehama County contracts are one to three years). This MOU also lacks a not to exceed spending amount for the contractual period. It is assumed that since a dollar amount was noted in the previous MOU that one could reasonably be expected here. It is believed that this MOU must be immediately redrawn and written to comply with the law. The MOU asserts “This MO shall not be amended, except in a writing that is executed by authorized representatives of both parties.” Both parties' consideration may not be appropriate.”
• R7

  Page 38
  None ALLEGATION 8: “The IHSS PA board of directors have failed in their obligations and responsibilities as they have not held the Chief Administrator and IHSS PA Executive Director, and now the existing Executive Director accountable to the intent of the mandate. They have approved minutes of the PA with no activity reported and they have not performed their obligation of oversight responsibility for the program.”
• R8

  Page 38
  None 2021 Tehama Grand Jury Final Report 39 | P age ALLEGATION 9: “It is asserted that a particular County employee … and other county employees have been working within the business of the IHSS PA, in spite of the AB 1682 language that intends for the IHSS PA to remain a separate entity.”
• R9

  Page 39
  None ALLEGATION 10: “Finally, a citizen… through multiple Public Record Act requests has identified problems, yet documents have been written to cover up issues.”
• R10

  Page 39
  None ALLEGATION 11: “When the Chief Administrator ceased being the PA Executive Director, it does not appear that his contract was adjusted to remove the additional compensation.”