📋
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.
Shasta County Grand Jury
• 2015-2016
the regular agenda and engage in full discussion regarding any proposed responses
⚠️ 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 6 findings
F1
Page 62
The Shasta County Board of Supervisors discourages public awareness and open discussion of Grand Jury report responses by placing its official responses on its consent calendar.
F2
Page 62
The Shasta County Board of Supervisors has failed to publicly discuss its own Grand Jury report responses, choosing instead to fully rely on county staff recommendations without any public discussion of the basis of their agreement with the county staff
F3
Page 62
The City of Redding City Council discourages public awareness and open discussion of Grand Jury report responses by placing its official responses on its consent calendar.
F4
Page 62
The City of Redding City Council has failed to publicly discuss its own Grand Jury report responses, choosing instead to fully rely on city staff recommendations without any public discussion of the basis of their agreement with the city staff recommendations. COMMENDATIONS C1. The Grand Jury commends the City of Anderson City Council for encouraging public awareness and open discussion about Grand Jury report responses by placing its official responses on its regular calendar. C2. The Grand Jury commends the City of Shasta Lake City Council for encouraging public awareness and open discussion about Grand Jury report responses by placing its official responses on its regular calendar.
F5
Page 96
The total loss absorbed by the Water Agency for 2014 is projected to similarly occur for 201 5. Response. The Auditor-Controller agrees with the finding. Using water for which the Water Agency has no allocation can result in heavy fines. Because of the need to forecast water demand as well as purchase suffrcient water to prevent exceeding the legal allocation when negotiating a purchase contract, some excess water will be purchased, resulting in a loss to the Water Agency. 23
F6
Page 97
The same employee preparing the annual Water Agency billings to the CSA's is also approving billings for payment. This lack of segregation of duttes does not provide proper checks and balances to prevent errors Response. The Auditor-Controller disagrees wholly with the finding. After accounting personnel prepare annual billings they are reviewed and approved by Water Agency engineering staff.
Recommendations 9
-
R1Page 62The Grand Jury recommends the Shasta County Board of Supervisors places all Grand Jury report topics and responses on its regular calendar.
-
R2Page 62The Grand Jury recommends the Shasta County Board of Supervisors places its responses to this 2015/16 Grand Jury Report on its regular calendar for public discussion.
-
R3Page 62The Grand Jury recommends the City of Redding City Council places all Grand Jury report topics and responses on its regular calendar.
-
R4Page 62The Grand Jury recommends the City of Redding City Council places its responses to this 2015/16 Grand Jury Report on its regular calendar for public discussion. 53
-
R5Page 141The Grand Jury recommends the Auditor-Controller workwith the County Executive Officer to develop afraud hotline voicemail messaging system that ensures that all fraud hotline tnessages are simultaneously and tndependentlyforwarded to both the County Executive Officer and Auditor-Controller no later than August 31, 2016. Response. The recommendation will not be implemented. Califomia Government Code section 53087.6 permits Auditor-Controllers to maintain a whistleblower hotline to receive calls from persons who have information regarding possible violations by local government employees of state, federal, or local statutes, rules, or regulations. The calls are confidential and can provide information about employees from any department including the County Administrative office.
-
R6Page 115The Grand Jury recommends that Shasta LAFCO engage in cost saving efforts such as shared office space and personnel costs, shared insurance costs, reimbursement for costs from other agencies for providing them with assistance and turning to the California Association of Local Agency Formation Commissions for hosting its website no later the December 31,2016. Response: Shasta LAFCo agrees that it should constantly look for feasible means of performing its services in the most cost-effective way. Accordingly, it has in recent years engaged independent consultant services for the performance of Executive Officer functions, and to obtain related contract staff support, in a professional but cost-effective manner. LAFCo will continue to explore and implement other cost-effective opportunities for the performance of its services. This review has been incorporated into the Executive Officers FY 2016-17 Scope of Work as follows: The Executive Officer will prepare a shared services plan that includes cost savings proposals for shared office space, member organization assistance reimbursements, web site hosting, insurance and other operating costs. Present shared services plan to the commission at or before the December 2016 meeting. Current local web hosting services shall be continued as CALAFCO no longer offers website hosting services to individual LAFCos.
-
R7Page 115The Grand Jury recommends Shasta LAFCO updates it Policies and Procedures no later than March 31,2017. Response: Shasta LAFCO agrees that its Policies and Procedures need to be periodically updates, and intends to undertake such a review and update in FY 2016/17. This review has been incorporated into the Executive Officers FY 2016-17 Scope of Work as follows: The Executive Officer will review and where appropriate recommend policy and procedures updates for clear direction and consistent action in LAFCo operations and decision-making. Provi I de : P olicies t and Procedures Update at the February 2017 commission meeting. i ~rely ~ D-n1-W , ames Yarbr ugh, Chai n Shasta Local Formation Commission 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 Shasta County j,4 E'' OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR.CONTROLLER 1450 Court Street, Suite 238 BRIAN MUIR Redding, California 96001 -1 671 AUDITOR-CONTROLLER Phone (530) 225-5771 NOLDA SHORT ASST. AUDITOR-CONTROLLER Jwrc24,2016 The Honorable Gregory Gaul Presiding Judge, Shasta County Superior Court 1500 Court Street, Room 205 Redding, CA 96001 Re: Response of the Auditor-Controller to Fiscal Year 2015-2016 Grand Jury Report - Shasta County Sheriffs Office Dear Judge Gaul: The Auditor-Controller appreciates the dedication of the Grand Jurors as well as the courtesy and professionalism shown in completing their work.
-
R8Page 134The Grand Jury recommends the Auditor-Controller and the Sheriffs Of/ice ensure all Sheriff's Office trust account reconctliations occur monthly, with old outstanding items cleared, by December 31,2016. Response. The recommendation will be implemented by the Sheriff s Office, since County departments are responsible for reconciling to the ONESolution finance system. The Auditor- Controller will provide assistance as needed.
-
R9Page 134The Grand Jury recommends the Auditor-Controller initiates a plan by December 31, 2016, to conduct more frequent surprise audits of assets held as evidence. Response. The recommendation will not be implemented. The SherifPs Offrce has a system of internal controls in place that includes the audit of assets held as evidence. Sincerely Brian Muir Shasta County Auditor-Controller cc: Shasta County Board of Supervisors 61 62 63 64 65 66 Shasta County ,-4. OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR-CONTROLLER '1450 Court Street, Suite 238 BRIAN MUIR Reddlng, California 96001 -l 671 AUDITOR-CONTROLLER Phone (530) 225-5771 NOLDA SHORT ASST. AUDITOR-CONTROLLER Jr:r;,ie24,2016 The Honorable Gregory Gaul Presiding Judge, Shasta County Superior Court 1500 Court Street, Room 205 Redding, CA 96001 Re: Response of the Auditor-Controller to Fiscal Year 2015-2016 Grand Jury Report - Shasta County Joint Audit Committee Dear Judge Gaul: The Auditor-Controller appreciates the dedication of the Grand Jurors as well as the courtesy and professionalism shown in completing their work.