Napa County Grand Jury
• 2008-2009
American Canyon Firefighters Incentive Payments: The Cost of Lack of Transparency*
⚠️ 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 29 findings
F1
Between 2003 and 2007, eleven ACFPD firefighters applied for and received educational incentive payments based on life experience online degrees from Almeda University.
No recommendations for this finding
F2
At the outset, the then Fire Chief mistakenly relied on the California State Fire Marshal and did not exercise independent judgment to determine whether the Almeda degrees met the requirements for educational incentive payments. 3. $36,000 in educational incentive payments was made to certain ACFPD firefighters on the basis of Almeda University degrees from February 2003 to May 2008 when the District terminated the payments with the concurrence of the firefighters and the Firefighter's Union, Local 1186.
No recommendations for this finding
F3
Page 20
The City of American Canyon and the Fire Protection District create policies and procedures to insure that any future contractual obligations are developed through a Request for Proposals in order to provide for quality and a cost effective means of acquiring such services.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
The City of American Canyon and the Fire Protection District create policies and procedures to insure that any future contractual obligations are developed through a Request for Proposals in order to provide for quality and a cost effective means of acquiring such services.
F4
The Almeda University degrees on which approval of educational incentive payments were based did not meet the incentive pay intent of the labor agreement (Memorandum of Understanding).
No recommendations for this finding
F5
Oversight and approval authority were bestowed by the District Board solely upon the Fire Chief.
No recommendations for this finding
F6
As he was retiring, the then Fire Chief told the incoming Chief that the issue of incentive payments needed to be addressed in the Union negotiations after the 2002 and 2007 labor agreement expired.
No recommendations for this finding
F7
Prior to the receipt of an untraceable email in March 2008, no action was taken by the District to question these educational incentive payments based upon degrees acquired from Almeda University.
No recommendations for this finding
F8
Between 2005 and 2007, there was publicity, both nationally and within the State of California, of the use by safety employees of online life experience degrees to obtain extra compensation from public employers.
No recommendations for this finding
F9
When this issue came to light in the spring of 2008, the District, the Union, and the firefighters agreed to terminate such educational incentive payments and negotiated changes in the labor MOU in an attempt to assure the requirements for educational incentive pay did not permit unaccredited, non-educational degrees.
No recommendations for this finding
F10
In June 2008, the District without first discussing the matter with the former Fire Chief, retained a Sacramento law firm ("McDonough firm") chosen by the District's General Counsel to conduct an investigation of the educational incentive payments issue.
No recommendations for this finding
F11
Contrary to the untraceable email, the McDonough firm investigation determined that the then Fire Chief did not obtain an online life experience degree and received no incentive payments for such a degree.
No recommendations for this finding
F12
The accusations against the former Fire Chief in the Firefighters' Local 1186 letter to the District proved to be unfounded and the Passafuime report so opined.
No recommendations for this finding
F13
The McDonough firm also opined the incentive payments based on these degrees did not comply with the educational incentive pay requirements of the Labor Agreement (MOU) and should not have been approved.
No recommendations for this finding
F14
The District made the McDonough firm reports public in June 2008.
No recommendations for this finding
F15
The McDonough firm investigation and report cost the District $4,332.
No recommendations for this finding
F16
In July 2008, the District also retained a Scotts Valley law firm (Dawson Firm), selected by the District General Counsel, to conduct a second investigation.
No recommendations for this finding
F17
The Dawson firm submitted its report of investigation (the Passafuime report) to the District in September 2008.
No recommendations for this finding
F18
The District withheld the Passafuime report from the public for twenty-three weeks and finally released a redacted version on February 23, 2009.
No recommendations for this finding
F19
The Passafuime report adds little, if any, new facts not already known from the McDonough firm report and the newspaper accounts.
No recommendations for this finding
F20
The Dawson/Passafuime firm investigation and report cost the District $43,623.
No recommendations for this finding
F21
The NVR sued the District to get the Passafuime report made public before a redacted version was finally released.
No recommendations for this finding
F22
Virtually all of the District Board's discussions and decisions regarding the educational incentive payments were in closed session out of the public's view.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1
The City of American Canyon and the Fire Protection District strive to create more transparency in the people's business.
R4
The City of American Canyon and the Fire Protection District review, modify, or change policy to insure public access to governmental representatives and vital information that is necessary for the public welfare. REQUEST FOR RESPONSES The 2008-2009 Grand Jury requests responses from:
F23
One of the District's stated goals published on its website is "transparency."
Related Recommendations (2)
R1
The City of American Canyon and the Fire Protection District strive to create more transparency in the people's business.
R4
The City of American Canyon and the Fire Protection District review, modify, or change policy to insure public access to governmental representatives and vital information that is necessary for the public welfare. REQUEST FOR RESPONSES The 2008-2009 Grand Jury requests responses from:
F24
In February 2009, the active firefighters who had received incentive payments on the basis of Almeda degrees agreed, pursuant to a settlement agreement between the District, the Union and the firefighters, to reimburse the District for the payments they received. These firefighters will pay back the District approximately $36,000.
No recommendations for this finding
F25
The District refused to disclose or make that settlement agreement public.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1
The City of American Canyon and the Fire Protection District strive to create more transparency in the people's business.
R4
The City of American Canyon and the Fire Protection District review, modify, or change policy to insure public access to governmental representatives and vital information that is necessary for the public welfare. REQUEST FOR RESPONSES The 2008-2009 Grand Jury requests responses from:
F26
The District has spent approximately $130,000 in legal fees on the educational incentive payments matter. With costs continuing to be incurred, the final cost is yet to be determined.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
The City of American Canyon and the Fire Protection District develop a process to control legal expenses and evaluate the costs and benefits of employing a full-time city attorney to advise and represent the City and the District.
F27
Fees and costs paid so far to the McDonough and Dawson firms for their investigation, to the Berliner-Cohen firm to defend the NVR lawsuit, and to the District General Counsel make up this $130,000 (See Appendix).
No recommendations for this finding
F28
The American Canyon 2008-2009 budget for all legal services is approximately $400,000.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
The City of American Canyon and the Fire Protection District develop a process to control legal expenses and evaluate the costs and benefits of employing a full-time city attorney to advise and represent the City and the District.
F29
The City of American Canyon and the Fire Protection District contract with an attorney in private practice with offices in Palo Alto and Los Angeles to be its City Attorney and District General Counsel. Neither the City of American Canyon nor the District has a City Attorney or District Counsel who is an employee of the City or District.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
The City of American Canyon and the Fire Protection District develop a process to control legal expenses and evaluate the costs and benefits of employing a full-time city attorney to advise and represent the City and the District.
Agency Responses 1
Government agencies' official responses to this report's findings and recommendations. Click on a response to see the structured breakdown.
No Responses Found 2
Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.
Napa County
County
Napa County District Attorney
Elected County Office
* 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.