Finance Committee Clearlake Chamber of Commerce

Recommendations 8

• R1
  The Oversight Committee does not have authority to direct daily operations. The Grand Jury strongly recommends the Committee assume a more positive role in the monitoring and implementation of the recommendations of the Auditors.
• R2
  The 2003-2004 Grand Jury agrees with the current and past findings of Smith & Newell and strongly recommends the Department make suggested changes.
• R3
  Reconcile this shortfall if it has not been addressed to date. Rethink low interest or short-term investments of the County Operating budget of the reported $137,000,000 for the purpose of finding more revenue. Consider how much is paid annually to the investment counselor and how long that counselor has been retained by the County. Require Requests for Proposal (RFP) from local investment experts.
• R4
  The Grand Jury fails to see why such an important piece of equipment, requested by the Treasurer/Tax Collector, has not been purchased and why was the request made three different years and forgotten? Requests from other County departments have been denied for lack of funds when $30,000. has been approved for the Treasurer/Tax Collector’s office and not spent. When County money is budgeted for a specific, necessary, requested item, that money should be used to enhance the profitability and efficiency of the requesting department, and ultimately the County.
• R5
  The lost interest on monies paid to the County is incalculable and inexcusable. Deposits should be made http://www.co.lake.ca.us/generalinformation/grandjury/report0304/taxcollector.html (3 of 5)4/17/2007 3:06:48 PM daily, as is the practice in business and Government. A Bank Courier should be dispatched daily to the Treasurer/Tax Collectors department.
• R6
  A Request for Proposal (R.F.P.) is sent to other banks to engage their services. The transition to another banking institution may incur initial costs but eventually will prove cost effective.
• R7
  Regularly scheduled training should be planned to include individual instruction. Policies and procedures relative for each position in the department should also be included.
• R8
  Further tax sales should be held, with the added possibility of Internet sales in conjunction with other Counties. ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATION: The 2003/2004 Grand Jury recommends further observance of the Treasurer/Tax Collector’s office by the 2004/2005 Grand Jury. REMARKS: Office morale is exceptionally good with staff cohesive, friendly, considerate and willing to help each http://www.co.lake.ca.us/generalinformation/grandjury/report0304/taxcollector.html (4 of 5)4/17/2007 3:06:48 PM other. Budgeting problems hinders efficiency while obtaining funds to increase the size of the staff is an unknown. The Grand Jury commends this staff of dedicated people for their hard work. RESPONSE REQUESTED: Treasurer/Tax Collector Lake County Board of Supervisors http://www.co.lake.ca.us/generalinformation/grandjury/report0304/taxcollector.html (5 of 5)4/17/2007 3:06:48 PM 2003/2004 Grand Jury Report LAKE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT FINANCE COMMITTEE Clearlake Chamber of Commerce PURPOSE: In response to a citizen’s complaint regarding mismanagement and potential monetary fraud by a Clearlake Chamber of Commerce official, the Finance Committee conducted an investigation into the funding of the Chamber of Commerce by the City of Clearlake and questioned the appropriateness of the funding of the Redevelopment Agency. BACKGROUND: Since July 25, 1996 allocation of funding to the Chamber has been determined annually at the discretion of the City Council during their budgeting process. The City of Clearlake and the Redevelopment Agency each budgeted $20,000 for the year 2003, providing the Chamber of Commerce with operating capital. Following rumors of mismanagement, the City of Clearlake, as guardians of the public money, had the duty of demanding an accounting of the use of the allocated funds. An audit was requested and due to be delivered to the City by March 14, 2003, with the provision that the City would withhold any monies still owed to the Chamber if the audit was not received. The audit was not forthcoming. The amount withheld by the City of Clearlake and the Redevelopment Agency totaled $10,000. In July 2003, the City Council adopted the 2003-2004 budget with funding for the Chamber. The funding budgeted was for the Chamber of Commerce or another entity who would provide tourism and business promotions. This background information indicated the complaint was out of the jurisdiction of the Grand Jury and better handled through the District Attorney’s office. However, based on California Community Redevelopment Law, other issues were discovered by the Finance Committee that warranted review. COMMITTEE ACTION: The Finance Committee interviewed senior level staff from the City of Clearlake and the Clearlake City Council, officials of Lake County Government, conducted telephone and internet interviews with http://www.co.lake.ca.us/generalinformation/grandjury/report0304/chamber.html (1 of 3)4/17/2007 3:06:49 PM attorneys versed in California Community Redevelopment Law, reviewed California Redevelopment Law Manual, reviewed 1999-2000 Grand Jury report documents and numerous news articles regarding Redevelopment Agency funding to the Clearlake Chamber of Commerce.