Score: +6
(6/2/0)
Orange County Grand Jury
• 2010-2011
Compensation Survey of Orange County Water and Sanitation Districts Compensation Survey of Orange County Water and
⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings and Recommendations 2 findings
F1
District websites often do not provide easy public access to compensation and financial data of the district, if available at all.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
Provide in an easily accessible format on the district’s website, data on compensation for the board of directors and general manager, as well as current budget and financial reports.
F2
District websites were sometimes not updated to reflect public meeting changes or cancellations. RECOMMENDATIONS: In accordance with California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, the 2010-2011 Grand Jury requires responses from the agencies affected by the findings presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based upon its Compensation Survey of Orange County Water and Sanitation Districts, the 2010-2011 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following two recommendations:
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
Maintain and update agendas, minutes, meeting schedules and location on the district’s website. REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS: The California Penal Code Section 933(c) requires any public agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, to comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the agency. Such comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report (filed with the Clerk of the Court); except that in the case of a report containing findings and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected County official (e.g. District Attorney, Sheriff, etc.), such comment shall be made to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors. Furthermore, California Penal Code Section 933.05(a), (b), (c), details, as follows, the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made: (a) As to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor. (b) As to each grand jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor. (c) If a finding or recommendation of the grand jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if requested by the grand jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those budgetary or personnel matters over which it has some decision making authority. The response of the elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department. Comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with the Penal Code Section 933.05 are required from the Boards of Directors of the following agencies: Responding Agency Findings Recommendations Costa Mesa Sanitary District East Orange County Water Dist. El Toro Water District Irvine Ranch Water District Laguna Beach County Water Dist. Mesa Consolidated Water District Midway Sanitary District Moulton Niguel Water District Municipal Water District of O.C. Orange County Sanitation District F.1 and F.2 R.1 and R.2 Orange County Water District Rossmoor/Los Alamitos Area S.D. Santa Margarita Water District Serrano Water District South Coast Water District Sunset Beach Sanitary District Trabuco Canyon Water District Yorba Linda Water District
Agency Responses 9
Government agencies' official responses to this report's findings and recommendations. Click on a response to see the structured breakdown.
No Responses Found 9
Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.
East Orange County Water District
Special District
Irvine Ranch Water District
Special District
Laguna Beach County Water District
Special District
Midway City Sanitary District (Orange)
Special District
Moulton-Niguel Water District
Special District
Municipal Water District of Orange County
Special District
Orange County Sanitation District
Special District
Santa Margarita Water District
Special District
Yorba Linda Water District
Special District