Members of the Board Dan Thotheroh Jeff Griffiths

"There is a countywide need for people to serve as EMTs." COUNTY RESPONSE: Agree.

"The county or state does not have a mandated responsibility to provide ambulance service in the absence of volunteer services." COUNTY RESPONSE: Agree.

"The Public Guardian is authorized by law to petition the Court for reasonable fees for its services just as would a private attorney." COUNTY RESPONSE: Agree.

"There is now and has been a Court Ordered fee schedule in place for the Public Guardian to seek fees for its services in Conservatorship estates which have assets to pay for those services." COUNTY RESPONSE: Agree.

"The Public Guardian is legally obligated to file periodic accountings with the Court to report on the services rendered and the beginning and ending amounts of both cash and non-cash assets of the estate and all income and expenses in the accounting period. At this time, it is the practice to also request fees for the services of the Public Guardian and the County Counsel for acting as the PG's attorney in filing the petition. In Inyo County, the practice is to file these petitions every two years." COUNTY RESPONSE: Agree. The Public Guardian submits fees for court approval on behalf of the office of Public Guardian and County Counsel, when it acts as attorney for the Public Guardian.

"The Public Guardian has consistently failed to ask for the fees justified by the Court-ordered Public Guardian fees schedule then in effect." COUNTY RESPONSE: Disagree partially. The Public Guardian, as shown in the Grand Jury Report and in other records available to the Board of Supervisors, has not "consistently" failed to ask for fees justified by the fee schedule but rather has very often filed for reimbursement at the minimum levels, which may well have been appropriate in a lot of those cases involving indigent or fixed-income conservatees. However, the Board agrees that the Public Guardian has sometimes chosen not to seek sufficient fees to recoup the County's costs associated with providing services, in cases where seeking higher reimbursement levels would not cause hardship to larger estates and where the compensation would be considered "just and reasonable" for the services provided. [INYO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS GRAND JURY RESPONSE] 2017-2018

"There is presently a good system of oversight to be sure that the Public Guardian is giving good care to the conservatees." COUNTY RESPONSE: Agree.

"There is no system of oversight presently in place in Inyo County to be sure that the Public Guardian is seeking reasonable fees for its services for the benefit of the County tax payers [sic]." COUNTY RESPONSE: Disagree wholly. The sole authority to approve or deny the Public Guardian's fee requests lies with Superior Court, which considers a number of factors when weighing its decision. The Court Ordered fee schedule states, "Pursuant to Probate Code §§ 2623, 2640, and 2942, the Public Guardian shall petition for not more than these fees for such services. In determining whether fees are just and reasonable for a particular estate, the Court shall, among other factors, take into consideration the actual costs of the services provided, the amount of the estate involved, the special value of services provided in relation to the estate, and whether the compensation requested might impose an economic hardship on the estate." While the Grand Jury notes that the Court is more likely to lower a request for fees than raise one, this system for oversight nonetheless exists. It should also be pointed out that as a duly-elected public official, the Public Guardian has a personal responsibility to seek the most just and reasonable fees on behalf of both the estates and taxpayers she serves, and the Board of Supervisors cannot dictate what the Public Guardian files for reimbursement to the Court. It is also worth noting the existence of a Court-appointed attorney for the conservatee and a Court-appointed investigator, who are arguably also part of the system of oversight under state law.

"The reasonable value of the services performed by the Public Guardian as conservator of the conservatee is to be measured at least in part, under both past fee schedules and the newly ordered fee schedule, by the amount of time devoted by the Public Guardian in taking care of the physical, medical and financial needs and concerns of the conservatee." COUNTY RESPONSE: Agree.

"The Public Guardian's office has not, at least in recent years, kept track of the time devoted to taking care of its conservatees." COUNTY RESPONSE: Agree.

"Keeping track of the time spent is not a difficult or time-consuming task and several computer programs are available for the purpose." COUNTY RESPONSE: Agree.

"Only a minimal effort is required to compute the appropriate fee for the Public Guardian using the fee schedule. It is not difficult in larger estates to multiply months of service times the $200 per month allowed in the schedule." COUNTY RESPONSE: Disagree partially. The Board of Supervisors assumes there might be certain other factors and nuances involved in the calculation of conservatorship fees and cannot qualify the amount of effort needed if this is the case. This does not appear difficult to do if based on the fee schedule alone; however, in every case, the Court must determine whether the compensation sought is just and reasonable, taking into consideration various factors including the actual costs of the services provided. (See Penal Code Section 2942(b).) 2017-2018 [INYO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS GRAND JURY RESPONSE]

"While the first priority of the Public Guardian is taking care of the conservatees, the county taxpayers deserve to be reasonably compensated for the services rendered at their expense where there are sufficient assets in the conservatorship to do so." COUNTY RESPONSE: Agree.

"The Public Guardian is consistently late, often very late, in filing its accounting and reports with the Court." COUNTY RESPONSE: Agree.

"A system of oversight to insure [sic] timely filings is not working well." COUNTY RESPONSE: Disagree partially. The Board is not convinced that the lack of timely filings in prior years was due to an oversight system not working well, but rather believes that there were other contributing factors (some of which should be addressed prospectively by the additional personnel and software included in the Fiscal Year 2018-2019 Board-Approved Budget, as discussed more fully below).