El Dorado County Grand Jury • 2009-2010

El Dorado County Grand Jury 2009-2010 Special District Websites

Published: June 21, 2010 10 pages
View Original PDF

Findings and Recommendations 7 findings

F1
An initial survey of websites established ten categories of information that were especially important to reveal critical data concerning governance and operations. These categories of information include:  The purpose or mission of the district  Location and address  Geographic boundaries of the district  Contact person and means to contact them  Board members and how to contact them  Board member terms of office  District budget  Meeting dates  Meeting agendas, and  Minutes of the meeting.
No recommendations for this finding
F2
Results of a survey conducted in mid-February 2010 revealed the following information about the special districts above the established minimum population and budgetary thresholds:  34 percent of these special districts had no website;  34 percent did not publish any usable information about meeting dates;  57 percent did not publish a meeting agenda;  71 percent did not publish the minutes of any meeting;  48 percent published no meaningful information about the budget for the district;  43 percent did not publish any information about individual board member terms of office.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1
Each special district should carefully consider creating and maintaining a website for the benefit of their constituents, especially those districts like those surveyed with populations of 2,500 or more and annual budget of at least $250,000. Websites would be a considerably more accessible and useful tool for the average citizen than the “summary sheets” for special districts currently posted on the LAFCO website and partially updated on an annual basis. Websites also have more “ownership” for the provider, causing them to be more concerned about the accuracy and currency of published information.
R2
Special districts should include the categories of information referenced in Finding number one and surveyed in this report on their websites.
F3
There is currently no law requiring special districts to establish or maintain websites containing minimal types of information about the district, even in areas where Internet access is not an issue. Investigation revealed there would need to be a state law to require any level of published data on the Internet by special districts.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
The El Dorado County Director of Information Technologies should actively encourage the development and improvement of Internet access throughout the County, especially to areas where such access is poor or non-existent.
F4
LAFCO in El Dorado County is not required to annually survey and publish what information it voluntarily provides through its own website. Interviews with LAFCO revealed dissatisfaction with the level and currency of information provided by some special districts through the voluntary process now in place. During our investigation it was suggested that special districts should publish where information is posted in local communities and when and where meetings are held. It became clear that websites also have more “ownership” for the provider, causing them to be more concerned about the accuracy and currency of published information.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1
Each special district should carefully consider creating and maintaining a website for the benefit of their constituents, especially those districts like those surveyed with populations of 2,500 or more and annual budget of at least $250,000. Websites would be a considerably more accessible and useful tool for the average citizen than the “summary sheets” for special districts currently posted on the LAFCO website and partially updated on an annual basis. Websites also have more “ownership” for the provider, causing them to be more concerned about the accuracy and currency of published information.
R4
Special districts and the County should establish links on the El Dorado County website and/or on other websites more commonly known to and accessed by citizens of the County. RESPONSES Responses to both Findings and Recommendations in this report are required in accordance with California Penal Code §933 and §933.05. Address responses to: The Honorable Suzanne N. Kingsbury, Presiding Judge of the El Dorado County Superior Court, 1354 Johnson Blvd., South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150. The following entities must respond to the Findings and Recommendations in this report:  Each special district operating in El Dorado County as shown on the LAFCO website directory as of February 2010, with a population of 2,500 or more, and an annual budget of at least $250,000;  The Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) for El Dorado County; and  The Director of the El Dorado County Department of Information Technologies  All Special Districts in El Dorado County are invited to respond to the
F5
This investigation conclusively revealed that the Department of Information Technologies of El Dorado County has assisted various special districts to establish and maintain their websites. More recent examples of such special districts include: LAFCO, the El Dorado Irrigation District, and the local Transportation Commission. Even the County Chamber of Commerce has utilized the services provided by the El Dorado County Department of Information Technologies. Services are initiated through a contractual agreement or memorandum of understanding. The minimal cost of such services is billed to the client.
No recommendations for this finding
F6
It is estimated that eight to sixteen hours is needed to develop and publish a website containing the minimum types of information in this survey, in addition to further types of information the special district may choose to publish. This equates to an approximate cost of $1,000.
No recommendations for this finding
F7
The Grand Jury considered objections to any requirement being imposed on special districts to publish key information about governance and operations on the Internet. Those objections were lack of time, budget, cost of establishing and maintaining a website, and the alleged lack of citizen use. Every citizen should have the means to access information about their government and hold public officials accountable.
No recommendations for this finding

No Responses Found 21

Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.

Cameron Park Community Services District Special District
County Service Area No. 10 (El Dorado) Special District
County Service Area No. 7 (El Dorado) Special District
Diamond Springs/El Dorado Fire Protection District Fire District
El Dorado County County
El Dorado County Fire Protection District Fire District
El Dorado County Office of Education Agency
El Dorado County Resource Conservation District Conservation District
El Dorado Hills Community Services District Special District
El Dorado Irrigation District Special District
Garden Valley Fire Protection District Fire District
Georgetown Divide Public Utility District Special District
Georgetown Fire Protection District Fire District
Happy Homestead Cemetery District Special District
Lake Valley Fire Protection District Fire District
Meeks Bay Fire Protection District Fire District
Mosquito Fire Protection District Fire District
Pioneer Fire Protection District Fire District
Rescue Fire Protection District Fire District
South Tahoe Public Utility District Special District
Tahoe Resource Conservation District Conservation District