Mendocino County Grand Jury
• 2006-2007
• Agency Response
Response to:
LAFCO
ARE YOU Getting What YOU PAY For?*
⚠️ Aviso de traducción: Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Note: Missing finding numbers detected: F19
Findings and Recommendations 30 findings
F1
The BOS is paid commute mileage to and from their principal residences. Response (Auditor-Controller): The Auditor agrees with the finding.
No recommendations for this finding
F2
All Supervisors defined the term "reimbursement" as being repaid money previously spent. Response (Auditor-Controller): The Auditor agrees with the finding.
No recommendations for this finding
F3
All Supervisors indicated that they clearly understood the meaning of Travel Policy §A(2)(d). Response (Auditor-Controller): The Auditor agrees with the finding
No recommendations for this finding
F4
The Grand Jury found claims for reimbursement in the following areas: Cell phones; · Telephone and long distance charges;
No recommendations for this finding
F5
As many as three BOS members said they commute to Ukiah two to three times a week. Response (Auditor-Controller): The Auditor agrees with the finding.
No recommendations for this finding
F6
All BOS members are allocated $144.96 monthly stipend for use of their personal vehicle in addition to 48.5¢ per mile for driving to work and approved County functions. County reimbursed commute mileage charges range from $100-$1,000+ per month per supervisor. Response (Auditor-Controller): The Auditor agrees with the finding.
No recommendations for this finding
F7
Supervisors also receive a stipend of $25.00 per month for "County road inspection". Response (Auditor-Controller): The Auditor agrees with the finding.
No recommendations for this finding
F8
The Grand Jury heard testimony from two Supervisors that "driving to all meetings", regardless of the meeting's purpose, qualifies for a valid mileage claim. Response (Auditor-Controller): The Auditor disagrees wholly or partially with the Finding. I don't disagree that the Grand Jury determined the finding, but I disagree with the concept noted in the finding. Supervisors should only be reimbursed for mileage incurred for official County business.
No recommendations for this finding
F9
Testimony revealed that some Supervisors have a casual and loosely defined understanding of what is considered to be "official County business", resulting in substantive travel policy abuse. Response (Auditor-Controller): The Auditor neither agrees nor disagrees with the finding. I have no direct knowledge of the testimony heard.
No recommendations for this finding
F10
Two Supervisors believe that any special event, which could include social functions, is considered to be County business and therefore billable to the County. ARE YOU GETTING WHAT YOU PAY FOR? A Report on the Board of Supervisors Travel Policy June 7, 2007 Response (Auditor-Controller): The Auditor disagrees wholly or partially with the Finding. I don't disagree that the Grand Jury determined the finding, but I disagree with the concept noted in the finding. Supervisors should only be reimbursed for mileage incurred for official County business.
No recommendations for this finding
F11
Three Supervisors stated they do not charge mileage when attending special events and/or social occasions. Response (Auditor-Controller): The Auditor neither agrees nor disagrees with the finding. I have no direct knowledge of the testimony heard.
No recommendations for this finding
F12
Three Supervisors said official weekend meetings are rare. Response (Auditor-Controller): The Auditor neither agrees nor disagrees with the finding. I have no direct knowledge of the testimony heard.
No recommendations for this finding
F13
A sample of in-County travel reports for a period of 26 weeks, 1/1/2006 to 6/30/2006, showed the following: Two Supervisors had 0 weekend travel days. One Supervisor had 1 weekend travel day. One Supervisor had 5 weekend travel days. One Supervisor had 20 weekend travel days.
No recommendations for this finding
F14
Four Supervisors believe they should only be paid for mileage they have driven on County business. Response (Auditor-Controller): The Auditor neither agrees nor disagrees with the finding. I have no direct knowledge of the testimony heard, but I do agree with the concept.
No recommendations for this finding
F15
According to testimony relative to travel policy §A(2)(d), four Supervisors believe that if no actual miles are driven and no expense is incurred for lodging then no reimbursement is due. Response (Auditor-Controller): The Auditor neither agrees nor disagrees with the finding. I have no direct knowledge of the testimony heard. I do agree with the concept. ARE YOU GETTING WHAT YOU PAY FOR? A Report on the Board of Supervisors Travel Policy June 7, 2007
No recommendations for this finding
F16
Current mileage reimbursement is 48.5¢ per mile and is also the maximum rate the IRS currently allows. Response (Auditor-Controller): The Auditor agrees with the finding.
No recommendations for this finding
F17
Three Supervisors stated that the current mileage reimbursement rate is adequate and two supervisors felt the current mileage rate was not adequate. Response (Auditor-Controller): The Auditor neither agrees nor disagrees with the finding. I have no direct knowledge of the testimony heard.
No recommendations for this finding
F18
The Clerk of the Board processes and authorizes all BOS reimbursement claims and forwards them to the Auditor's Office for payment. Response (Auditor-Controller): The Auditor agrees with the finding. The Clerk of the Board is directly subordinate to the BOS and is an at-will employee. This is the only case in the County where a subordinate is vested with the power to authorize personal expenses submitted by a superior. Response (Auditor-Controller): The Auditor agrees with the finding.
No recommendations for this finding
F20
The Auditor's Office requires a lodging receipt to determine the lesser cost to the County, when making a claim under §A(2)(d). Response (Auditor-Controller): The Auditor agrees with the finding.
No recommendations for this finding
F21
The Grand Jury found that in filling out in-County travel forms, most Supervisors did not consistently indicate destination, agency involved, and purpose of meeting. Response (Auditor-Controller): The Auditor neither agrees nor disagrees with the finding. I do not have direct knowledge of the testimony heard in its entirety.
No recommendations for this finding
F22
Individual Supervisors defined "official County business" as ranging from casual conversations with a constituent to scheduled business meetings with government agencies. ARE YOU GETTING WHAT YOU PAY FOR? A Report on the Board of Supervisors Travel Policy June 7, 2007 Response (Auditor-Controller): The Auditor disagrees wholly or partially with the Finding. I don't disagree that the Grand Jury determined the finding, but I disagree with the concept noted in the finding. Supervisors should only be reimbursed for mileage incurred for official County business. No reimbursement claim should be made for 'casual conversations with constituents.'
No recommendations for this finding
F23
Discussion of the BOS travel policy/budget has been described as controversial and difficult for the Supervisors. Response (Auditor-Controller): The Auditor agrees with the finding.
No recommendations for this finding
F24
The Grand Jury heard testimony that two Supervisors would prefer a stipend in lieu of in-County mileage; an acceptable stipend policy would also be difficult to formulate. Response (Auditor-Controller): The Auditor neither agrees nor disagrees with the finding. I do not have direct knowledge of the testimony heard in its entirety.
No recommendations for this finding
F25
A stipend is fully taxable and will bring increased payroll taxes and retirement (8%) costs to both the County and Supervisors. In return, each Supervisor would receive a larger retirement and Social Security benefit. Response (Auditor-Controller): The Auditor agrees with the finding.
No recommendations for this finding
F26
All BOS members have access to County-issued credit cards. Response (Auditor-Controller): The Auditor agrees with the finding.
No recommendations for this finding
F27
BOS travel claim form (Form No. A/C - 06) is required to be signed, certifying that "under penalty of perjury that the within claim and the items as therein set out are true and correct." Response (Auditor-Controller): The Auditor agrees with the finding.
No recommendations for this finding
F28
Some Supervisors incorrectly applied the BOS "Travel & Meal Policy". Examples include: · Staying at a private residence in Ukiah while charging for round trips from home to Ukiah; • Signing the travel claim form when such non-existent trips were listed; ARE YOU GETTING WHAT YOU PAY FOR? A Report on the Board of Supervisors Travel Policy June 7, 2007 · Using travel claims for non-existent trips to offset other expenses incurred as a Supervisor;
No recommendations for this finding
F29
There is an average of 22 working days in each month of the year. Response (Auditor-Controller): The Auditor agrees with the finding. ARE YOU GETTING WHAT YOU PAY FOR? A Report on the Board of Supervisors Travel Policy June 7, 2007
No recommendations for this finding
F30
In the month of June 2006, a Supervisor claimed 22 round trips between their residence and Ukiah. Response (Auditor-Controller): The Auditor neither agrees nor disagrees with the finding. I do not have direct knowledge of the testimony heard in its entirety.
No recommendations for this finding
F31
The State Statute used by Grand Juries for recovering monies due the County is California Penal Code §932. Response (Auditor-Controller): The Auditor agrees with the finding.
No recommendations for this finding
Comments 1
-
CO1The BOS should consider removing the "paid commute miles to work" feature now in current travel policy. This unusual perk is not given to other County employees and is certainly not given to the average citizen who commutes to work daily. The BOS should consider replacing all in-County mileage charges, commute miles included, with a flat mileage stipend similar to what is given other elected officials, department heads, and the CEO. The $145 "vehicle stipend" and the $25 "road inspection" fee, should be folded into the flat mileage stipend. Eliminating the "commute to work" feature would remove the need for a separate travel policy for BOS members. This egalitarian gesture would be well received by both the public and County employees. RESPONSE REQUIRED Mendocino County Board of Supervisors (All Findings; All Recommendations) Mendocino County Chief Executive Office (All Findings; All Recommendations) RESPONSE REQUESTED Mendocino County Auditor-Controllers Office (All Findings; All Recommendations)
* This report's PDF did not contain easily extractable text and required Optical Character Recognition (OCR) for analysis. There may be minor errors in the extracted findings and recommendations due to OCR limitations with scanned documents.