📋
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 • 2008-2009

Shasta Mosquito Abatement District: Just compensation or just a gift?

24 pages
View PDF View Full Original

Findings 17 findings

F1 Page 10
Although the credit card abuse allegations were confirmed, the abuse was due to carelessness on the part of the employee and not due to intentional fraud.
F2 Page 10
The SMVCD manager failed to apply appropriate disciplinary actions against the employee for the misuse of the SMVCD credit card.
F3 Page 10
The district’s grievance procedure was not f ollowed when the e mployee alleged a hostile work environment existed.
F4 Page 10
A majority of the trustees stated to the Grand Jury that because of a fear of a lawsuit fro m the employee they agreed to pay $15,000 toward the legal fees of the e mployee who had m isused the SMVCD credit card. One trustee told the Grand Jury that the board of trustees w anted to “s mooth things over,” and another trustee said that the board wanted to “make it go away.”
F5 Page 10
The Grand Jury finds that before the manager received the 13.5 percent raise, the additional $2,000 a month for four months, and the lump sum wage payment of $29,000, his wages had been in line with those of managers in other mosquito abatement districts in Northern California.
F6 Page 10
The Grand Jury finds that the SMVCD manager was an “at-will” em ployee; that is, the m anager could be terminated without cause and without the specially negotiated retirement package. The Grand Jury found that the board of trustees used taxpa yers’ money to entice the manager into retirement by granting extra wage increases and payments, paying for a leave of absence am ounting to more than $40,000, and allowing the manager to remain as an employee while using accrued vacation time until retirement on June 30, 2009, in spite of the manager’s “at-will” status.
F7 Page 10
The wage increas es and the lum p sum wage pay ment were negotiated in order to increase the manager’s retirement compensation, since the manager’s retirement co mpensation is based upon a percentage of the highest amount of wages earned by the manager prior to retirement.
F8 Page 10
The Grand Jury finds that the board of trus tees reimbursed the manager $38,000 of the $45,0 00 legal fees the manager incurred during the manager’s personal conflicts with the spouse of an SMVCD employee.
F9 Page 10
The board of trustees reimbursed the manager $6,900 for lumber which the manager regarded as his own without proof of ownership, condition or its original cost.
F10 Page 10
Without a receipt or adequate proof of ownership the board of trustees paid the manager $675 f or lava rock (based upon current costs) that sat on SMVCD property for years. 10
F11 Page 11
The Grand Jury finds that it is in disagreement with the judgment of the SMVCD Board of Trustees in approving the Retirement Agreement and Mutual Release negotiated between the SMVCD manager and the trustees.
F12 Page 11
The board of trustees violated the Brown Act (Government Code, § 54950 et seq.) by circulating a document outside of a board of trustees meeting to gather trustees’ signatures. The document authorized the $2,000-per-month pay increase to the manager for four months.
F13 Page 11
The board of trustees violated the Brown Act by having a sign-in sheet placed at the entrance to the room in which meetings were held without clearly stating that signing the sheet was voluntary and that all persons could attend a m eeting regardless of whether or not the person signed it.
F14 Page 11
At the meetings attended by the Grand Jury the SMVCD President of the Board of Trustees f ailed to control the meetings, in that he allowed constant interruptions by the district’s manager.
F15 Page 11
Regarding appointments to the board of trustees, there is no process in place for screening applicants, and there is no accountability in place for poor representation by trustees.
F16 Page 11
The SMVCD Personnel Manual contains no po licy or procedure for em ployee performance evaluations, and the SMVCD employees interviewed by the Gra nd Jury indicated that no evaluations have been conducted.
F17 Page 11
For many years the manager stored personal property on SMVCD premises. On March 17, 2009, the board of trustees adopted a resolution (Resolution 2009-01) prohibiting the storage of employees’ personal property on SMVCD grounds.

Recommendations 6