📋
Extracted from Consolidated Report

This investigation was originally published as part of a larger consolidated report containing multiple investigations. View the consolidated PDF for the complete document.

San Mateo County Grand Jury • 2013-2014

Partly Cloudy with a Chance of Information: Investigating the Transparency of Independent Special Districts’ Websites

Published: June 30, 2015 60 pages
View PDF View Full Original

Findings 8 findings

F1 Page 96
Some districts aremisinformedabout therelativeaffordabilityofprofessionally created websites. Response: Disagree. The report suggests that a website could cost as little as $1,000 to $9,000. It is noteworthy that $9,000 is suggested to be affordable when that amount constitutes approxlrnatelv 16% of the RCD's annual operating base, an amount that is already insufficient for operatIng needs. RCD staffhasdone agreat deal ofresearchaboutaffordableweb designoptions. Some ofthe most inexpensive options would enable the RCD to provide the list of documents recommended In the report but would not accomplish other needs and goals of the district for the website, including providing program information, products, and services to our constituents; communicating our vision, and sharing spatial andotherdata in auser-friendlyformat. Thereport doesnot fullyconsiderthe true costof revamping the web page, Including the cost of staff time to develop messages and content, securing images, maintenance, etcetera. Suggesting a website costs as low as $1,000 is akin to claiming that housing in the Bay Area is affordable because a supplier will sell the lumber for $10,000. In reality, there are many more costs to building and owning a home as there are with developing and maintaining a website.
F2 Page 52
Special districts lack trained in- Disagree with finding because most recording house staff to regularly update website secretaries should have those web maintenance information. skills
F3 Page 52
Privacy concerns of Boards of Disagree with finding because anyone who runs for Directors or Commissioners result in a office should know that the public should be able to lack of readily accessible contact contact them with their concerns. information.
F4 Page 52
Not all special districts recognize Disagree with this finding. This district has little the benefits of transparency delivered knowledge about other district websites’ content. through district websites.
F5 Page 52
No County independent special Disagree with finding. district has completed the District of It is better that each special district incorporate the 19 Distinction program offered by Special SDLF transparency action items into its Policies and Districts Leadership Foundation Procedures so that those 19 action items are embedded (SDLF). into the district’s operations.
F6 Page 52
No independent special district in Disagree with finding. the County has yet earned the SDLF It is better that each special district incorporate the 19 Transparency Certificate of SDLF transparency action items into its Policies and Excellence.12 Procedures so that those 19 transparency items are embedded into the district’s operations.
F7 Page 52
Only 2 of 23 independent special Agree with finding. districts in the County have achieved SDLF Recognition in Special District Governance.
F8 Page 52
No general manager or top Disagree with your finding because our district management official of any County does not have a GM. independent special district has received SDLF's Special District Administrator Certification. LTCWD 126 Lake Road, Portola Valley, CA 94028, (650) 851-8347

Recommendations 7