El Dorado County Grand Jury
• 2009-2010
El Dorado County Grand Jury 2009-2010 Garden Valley Fire Protection District Case No. Gj 09-015 Reason for Report Legal
⚠️ 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 12 findings
F1
The current Fire Chief initiated many changes: Redirecting operating funds to have a fully staffed fire engine available to Garden Valley residents 2417. This enhanced the District's emergency response from Basic Life Support to Advanced Life Support. This should improve the District's emergency response in the future; The District's finances were returned to the El Dorado County Auditor/ Controller's Office for processing and oversight; Longstanding personnel issues were addressed; Residency requirements for ICMT members were changed. All members are required to live within 100 miles of the District.
No recommendations for this finding
F2
The Board of Directors and Fire Chief have demonstrated a lack of practical knowledge with respect to human resource matters. It is unclear what background check process the District conducts prior to hiring new employees. There is no standard policy for screening employee candidates.
Related Recommendations (2)
R3
The District should immediately initiate training sessions in Human Resource Management and employee relations for the Board of Directors, Fire Chief, and senior management.
R4
Hiring practices need to be consistent and legal to ensure that all employee candidates are properly screened and interviewed prior to an offer of employment.
F3
The Grand Jury could not clearly determine when the District's Personnel Policy Manual was last updated. There are critical discrepancies between the Board of Directors written policies and the provisions of the Fire Chiefs contract. The Grand Jury found that the Fire Chief exceeds the authority granted in his contract which is in conflict with the District's written policy.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
The Board of Directors, Fire Chief, and senior management need to focus on updating the District's written policies and procedures. All personnel should become educated on the provisions of the Firefighters Procedural Bill of Rights. The District's practices must be consistent with written policies and procedures.
F4
It was determined that the District's Board of Directors, Fire Chief and senior management lack the knowledge of current progressive discipline standards and the provisions of the recently enacted Firefighters Procedural Bill of Rights (California Government Code §§3250-3262).
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
The Board of Directors, Fire Chief, and senior management need to focus on updating the District's written policies and procedures. All personnel should become educated on the provisions of the Firefighters Procedural Bill of Rights. The District's practices must be consistent with written policies and procedures.
F5
Previous Boards of Directors and Fire Chiefs did not effectively address inappropriate personnel conduct. Presently, there are no clear guidelines for senior management to follow when confronting an employee discipline issue.
No recommendations for this finding
F6
The personnel disciplinary process at the District, at times, lacks an appropriate check and balance system. Generally, the Fire Chief investigates, recommends discipline, and initiates the disciplinary process up to and including termination. The Personnel Policy Manual states "The District (Board of Directors) reserves the right to hire, transfer, promote, reprimand, suspend, terminate, and maintain the discipline and efficiency of its employees." Currently this authority rests with the Board of Directors and has not been delegated to the Fire Chief.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
The authority of the Board of Directors and the Fire Chief needs to be clear. The current written authority to hire, fire, suspend, and discipline currently rests with the Board of Directors. The Board may delegate some of these authorities and duties to the Fire Chief.
F7
The Garden Valley Fire Protection District operates a special response team initially designated the All Risk Team, which has recently been renamed the Incident Command Management Team (ICMT). Personnel comprising the ICMT are mostly retired U.S. Forest Service firefighters. Upon request from a state or federal authority, the ICMT members respond to disasters or emergencies that are beyond the standard mutual aid agreements. They generally respond to forest fires and serve in an administrative capacity.
No recommendations for this finding
F8
The Grand Jury found the Fire Chief and an Assistant Fire Chief have been assigned to ICMT emergencies outside of the District at the same time. Their decision to participate in an ICMT response is discretionary. The Fire Chief and Assistant Chief participate in ICMT out of the District without the written approval of the Board of Directors. This causes a conflict of interest and creates an unnecessary risk to the residents of the District.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5
The District's Fire Chief and Assistant Chief should obtain the written approval of the Board of Directors before deploying on an Incident Command Management Team.
F9
The ICMT members are paid after the District receives reimbursement from the requesting agency. The District receives an administrative fee in addition to the total reimbursement for deploying ICMT personnel. In addition to providing a public safety service, the ICMT generated income is a revenue enhancer for the GVFPD. With the cancellation of El Dorado County's "Aid to Fire" budget augmentation, the ICMT administrative fee revenue has been critical to maintaining the level of emergency services in the District.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7
The ICMT generated revenue should not be considered a permanent funding source for future budgets.
F10
District compensation discrepancies existed during the period March - November 2007 and July - August 2008 with the salary payments of two command officers. After extensive review by the District's Accountant in the fall of 2009, these discrepancies were resolved. These problems occurred due to ineffective communication between the El Dorado County's Auditor/Controller's Office and the District.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8
District personnel and the El Dorado County Auditor/Controller's Office should improve their communication on financial issues. RESPONSES Response(s) to Findings and Recommendations in this report are required in accordance with California Penal Code §933.05. Address response(s) to: The Honorable Suzanne N. Kingsbury, Presiding Judge of the El Dorado County Superior Court, 1354 Johnson Boulevard, South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150. CLOSING REMARKS In recent years, the Garden Valley Fire Protection District has undergone intensive public and legal scrutiny. The Board of Directors cannot publicly comment on ongoing personnel investigations and litigation, so they are an easy target for criticism. The majority of the criticism rests with actions and inactions that had occurred prior to the current Board of Directors and Fire Chief. The Grand Jury found the Board of Directors, Fire Chief, and senior management to be extremely cooperative with all our requests for documentary evidence and interviews. The current administration has actively dealt with employee issues. They have improved the emergency response for the District from Basic Life Support to Advanced Life Support. The Board of Directors, Fire Chief, and senior management appear to be taking the District in the right direction, but need to keep their momentum moving forward.
F11
The E1 Dorado County Auditor/Controller advised the Grand Jury of a $10,000 difference in GVFPD's Special Districts Financial Transactions Report to the California State Controller for FYE June 30, 2008. Information was presented, including copies of bank statements, which showed this $10,000 should not have been recorded as cash on deposit; The District's Accountant submitted the State Report for FYE June 30, 2009 showing a $9,999 Prior Period Adjustment; The District's contracted auditor who issued an Unqualified Opinion Audit Report, for the period July 1, 2007 through June 30, 2008, did not disclose this $10,000 difference in his report. He did not require the District to place corrective adjustments to its accounting records even though he had custody of the Report to the State Controller for the FYE June 30, 2008; The District's contracted auditor, who is a California Licensed Certified Public Accountant, failed to fully cooperate with the Grand Jury; The District's Accountant completed a detailed audit of the District's accounting records for the FY July 1, 2007 through June 30, 2008, and disclosed several errors and made corrective entries to the District's books to resolve this difference.
No recommendations for this finding
F12
It was determined that an employee was allowed to reside for years on GVFPD property at no cost and without a written agreement containing health, safety, tax and other appropriate provisions. This presents a potential liability to the District and its taxpayers.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6
District employees should not be permitted to reside on District property. This excludes staffing or other fire related duties.
No Responses Found 1
Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.
Garden Valley Fire Protection District
Fire District