Contra Costa County Grand Jury • 2010-2011 • Agency Response

Contra Costa County Grand Jury Report No. 1105 Ethics and Transparency Issues in Contra Costa County Lafco: Some

Published: January 01, 2006 30 pages
View Original PDF

Findings and Recommendations 6 findings

F1
Some LAFCO members committed ethical breaches by indicating that they spoke on behalf of LAFCO and the Mayors’ Conference on matters not before LAFCO. Response: The respondent disagrees with the finding. Commissioners Allen and Schroder indicated they did not intend to imply that their letter reflected the views of the Commission, and that impression could have been avoided if the letter specifically stated that the views expressed were the personal opinions of the authors and did not represent the views of LAFCO. In July 2010, the Commission approved revisions to strengthen its policies dealing with Commissioner Representation. With regard to the Mayors’ Conference, we cannot comment.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
All LAFCO members, including the public member, should receive regular training per AB 1234*, on the LAFCO Commissioners Handbook with particular focus on LAFCO’s mission statement and ethics, as well as the Updated Commissioner Representation policy (1.4 Rules and Procedures – Section F.5). Response: With regard to AB 1234 training (Gov. Code Section 53234 et seq.), the recommendation requires further analysis. Contra Costa LAFCO is composed of County, City, Special District and Public members. Currently, the County, City and Special District LAFCO members receive training per AB 1234 through their respective elected offices. LAFCOs are not specifically included in the provisions of AB 1234, and the decision to require the LAFCO public members to receive training is at the discretion of each individual LAFCO. Currently, Contra Costa LAFCO has no policy requiring its public members to receive training per AB 1234. We agree that this training is valuable. The issue will be considered by the Commission at a future LAFCO meeting. With regard to training on the Contra Costa LAFCO Commissioner Handbook with particular focus on LAFCO’s mission statement, ethics and Commissioner representation, this recommendation has been implemented. Contra Costa LAFCO regularly reviews and updates the Commissioner Handbook. Updates are presented to the Commission at least annually, and sometimes more frequently. The Commissioner Contra Costa County 2011‐2012 Grand Jury Report 1201 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury Handbook was last updated in July 2010, at which time the policy relating to Commissioner Representation was enhanced. As part of these regular updates, the Commissioners must review the Handbook. Also, this summer LAFCO will conduct a strategic workshop focusing on LAFCO’s unique role/mission and timely issues.
F2
Certain other LAFCO members weighed in inappropriately on the statements. Response: The respondent disagrees with the finding. Members of federal, state and local agencies retain their right to free speech when they take office. However, when someone holds a public office, it benefits the officer and the public to make it clear when personal views, as opposed to the views of the organization, are being expressed.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
LAFCO should promptly consider appropriate action when a violation of its policies occurs. Response: The recommendation has been implemented. LAFCO deals promptly with issues relating to violation of its policies. NEPOTISM ALIVE IN CEMETERY DISTRICT
F3
At a minimum, these improprieties created the appearance of nepotism. Response: Disagree. The Board of Supervisors’ decision to appoint a separate Supervisor to oversee the interview and nomination process and the District III Supervisor’s recusal were undertaken specifically to ensure that the appearance of nepotism did not occur. Contra Costa County 2011‐2012 Grand Jury Report 1201 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
An annual report for the KCMF should be issued, and a County- linked website should be established to clarify mission, application and selection process and requirements. Response: The recommendation has been implemented. On May 24, 2011, the Board of Supervisors adopted several policies, as recommended by the Finance Committee, governing the use of Keller Canyon Mitigation funds (Attachment D). Section II(E) of the policy requires that an Annual Report be filed with the Board of Supervisors no later than September 30th of each year for the prior fiscal year. Section II(A) of the policy requires that information regarding the KCMF grant process be posted on the District V and County websites.
F4
The formation of an outside, impartial panel to interview and select an applicant was appropriate. Response: Agree
Related Recommendations (1)
R4
The BOS should consider re-establishing the Finance Committee oversight of grant awards. Response: The recommendation will not be implemented. The Finance Committee reviewed the KCMF grant process and made policy enhancement recommendations to the Board of Supervisors. The recommendations were approved by the Board of Supervisors on May 24, 2011 (Attachment D) and have been implemented.
F5
The adoption of a County anti-nepotism policy was proper. Response: Agree
Related Recommendations (1)
R5
The BOS should ensure that all County mitigation funds, or similar funds under the control of a single Supervisor, receive proper supervision. Response: The recommendation has been implemented. In December 2008, the Board of Supervisors referred the issue of County Special Revenue Funds to the Internal Operations Committee for review and potential establishment of a protocol for allocating funding from such funds. After several months of study, the IOC referred a draft Special Revenue Policy to the Finance Committee for review in August 2009. In December 2009, the Board of Supervisors approved a policy statement affirming that responsibility for administration of Special Revenue funds was to remain with the Supervisor of the District in which the revenue was generated (Attachment H). Contra Costa County 2011‐2012 Grand Jury Report 1201 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury OVERALL FINDING
F6
Due to a lack of publicly available information about the KCMF, not all non- profit organizations, nor the public, are aware of the fund, its mission, and its processes, and thus are unable to benefit from it. Response: Partially Disagree. The Board of Supervisors makes an appropriation of KCMF funds during the annual budget process. In addition, prior to policy enhancements to the KCMF allocation process approved by the Board of Supervisors on May 24, 2011 (Attachment D), the District V Supervisor would submit an allocation plan to the Board of Supervisors each fiscal year for approval. A copy of the 2010/11 allocation plan, as approved by the Board of Supervisors, is included for reference (Attachment E).
No recommendations for this finding