Merced County Grand Jury P. O. Box 2034

Recommendations 19

• R1

  Page 58
  The Board of Trustees publicly acknowledges to the citizens of the Delhi district that the actions of the five participating members violated the Brown Act.
• R2

  Page 58
  The Merced County District Attorney meet with the Delhi Unified School District Board of Trustees regarding the purpose the Brown Act as it pertains to the conduct of Board meetings and Roberts Rules of Order procedures.
• R3

  Page 58
  Official minutes should include a chain of accountability and accuracy by including name and/or initials of person actually recording and typing records.
• R4

  Page 58
  Public records, including website, should be revised to update information including agendas, meetings, and notification of meeting time and place.
• R5

  Page 58
  Trustees follow the same format, using Brown Act and Roberts Rules guidelines, to categorize meetings, have consistent agenda formats, and accurate minutes, all approved in a timely manner.
• R6

  Page 58
  Board and Superintendent meet to review and discuss relationship and/or duties as defined by law.
• R7

  Page 58
  Actions taken at October 25, 2005 meeting (originally closed, then opened by request), be null & void
• R8

  Page 58
  This matter is referred to the Merced County District Attorney for possible action.
• R9

  Page 58
  During this investigation the complainant filed another complaint, this time naming the superintendent. Because of time constraints, it is advised the new complaint (Grand Jury # 05-06-25) be forwarded to the next grand jury (2006-2007) for further investigation. It is also recommended that this and subsequent reports and actions related to both complaints and/or allegations be included and referenced to each other for clarification and appropriate action. CITY OF ATWATER COUNCIL BENEFITS GRAND JURY COMPLAINT #05-06-19 COMPLAINT: The complaint concerns the recent action taken March of 2005 to allow Atwater City Council Members and their covered dependents to continue on the Health Plan at their own expense after they no longer serve on the Council. The complainant was concerned that the addition of aged non-employees would affect the pool of participants and thus create a liability for the City by increasing the cost. BACKGROUND: The City of Atwater participates in a State Wide Health Plan under the Public Employees Plan. The pool of covered lives consists of over 1.4 million participants. In March of 2005, the City Manager set forth a Resolution 2018-05 authorizing retention of benefits to City Council members. The background identified that this was already a practice of Atwater. The resolution was to formalize an existing practice. METHOD OF INVESTIGATION: 4/12/06 Interview with complainant. The complainant had two concerns. The City had no authority to grant former Council member’s benefits of any kind into perpetuity after they leave office. That contributions to the employee medical plans will be increased based on the adverse affect of the age retirees on the insurance pool as a whole, thus becoming an increase to the city. He had no complaint regarding the procedure. His sole concern appeared to be the financial impact on the City. 4/12/06 Interview with Atwater City Manager and the Atwater Director of Finance. The City Manager indicated the practice had been in effect prior to his tenure. There was no resolution in place authorizing this practice. He offered resolution 2018-05 to the Atwater City Council on March 14, 2005 for approval. This action did not create a change in policy or practice but rather a transparency to the community of the practice. The committee reviewed: The Resolution 2018-05 I, indicated that there was no fiscal impact to the City based on this action and that the health benefits for the retiree would not be paid by the City of Atwater but rather 100% by the participant. California Government Code 365.16(a) allows the City Council to be provided with the same benefits currently provided to the employees. The Cal Pers Health Benefit Summary, 2006. The cost of monthly premiums to contracting agencies. ANALYSIS: In reviewing the California Government Code 36516(a) the committee determined that the Atwater City Council was within their rights to grant this benefit to the council at retirement because it did not exceed the benefits allowed to active employees. The only concern that the committee noted was that there was no five-year service requirement contained in the Resolution 2018-05. However, we clearly did not find any violation. The committee found that based on the size of the health participant pool (CAL PERS) and the fact that the former council members are responsible and required to pay 100% of the contribution, there is no financial impact to the City of Atwater.
• R10-11
  Iris Garrett Juvenile Justice Correctional Center Mandated Inspection
• R13-21
  Merced County Main Jail
• R22-23
  Dos Palos Police Dept
• R25-26
  Atwater Police Dept, Merced Co Public Defenders Office,
• R32-33
  Merced College Office of Instruction #05-06-09 34
• R37-38
  Los Banos Cemetery District
• R43-49
  Merced Co Human Services Agency #05-06-15
• R52-53
  Delhi Unified School Board of Trustees #05-06-18
• R59-60
  Merced Police Department
• R65-66
  Delhi Unified School District