Riverside County Grand Jury
2004-2005
From the annual report
The consolidated year-end volume. The individual investigations it contains are listed separately below.
📑 Year-End Report
The full consolidated volume; individual reports are listed below.
Individual reports (12)
Findings & Recommendations
11 findings
F1:
The Grand Jury reviewed a document in which a Code Enforcement Supervisor certified to the court under penalty of perjury, that all items listed in the Seizure Warrant had been removed from the owner’s property and disposed of lawfully. Grand Jury investigation revealed that in fact, all items listed were not removed and no hazardous materials were abated from the property.
F2:
Property owners may request a zoning change through the Planning Department to bring the property into compliance. The Grand Jury has found that the Planning Department allows these requests to remain in its Land Management System for months, and sometimes years, before being addressed. In several instances it was found that property abatement goes forward before the Planning Department addresses the zoning change requests.
F3:
When Code Enforcement schedules an abatement walk-through of a property with a licensed contractor, an inventory list of items to be removed is rarely supplied to the contractor. Without documentation, Code Enforcement cannot be certain that all items requested to be removed by the execution of Seizure Warrant were actually taken. 2
F4:
Testimony from several contractors revealed that Code Enforcement told them to take everything including salvageable materials to a waste disposal site. However, the standard purchase order that TLMA issues to contractors to remove debris, excessive outside storage, etc., clearly states, “All salvaged items shall be itemized in a list presented to the county. The value of the salvaged items shall offset the cost charged to the county for abatement.” Contractors are not reimbursing the county after removing salvageable materials from an abated property.
F5:
During an abatement case, eighty (80) tons of scrap metal were taken to a salvage yard and the contractor received a payment of $2,999.55 for the material. Similar cases have been discovered that total over $6,600. As of June 2005, no payments have been received by the county.
F6:
The property owner is not advised that monies reimbursed from salvageable materials may help offset the abatement costs.
F7:
When hazardous material is identified by Code Enforcement during a joint venture between county departments while executing an abatement order, no policy exists in the Code Enforcement Policy and Procedure Manual identifying the agency responsible to ensure the safe and lawful removal of the hazardous material.
F8:
The Code Enforcement process can take two to three years, sometimes longer, from the time of the original code violation until abatement has been accomplished.
F9:
The Grand Jury investigation revealed that Code Enforcement Officers have given conflicting advice to property owners regarding zoning changes.
F10:
In a particular case, the property owner was given an additional citation for items that were already specifically listed for removal in the execution of a Seizure Warrant.
F11:
Code Enforcement has an effective Vehicle Abatement Program that has a line item in the budget for salvage material. However, no budget line item exists for other salvageable materials to credit funds back to the county.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
Through Grand Jury interviews, it was discovered that eligible nurses and technicians are highly dissatisfied and frustrated with the denial of premium and/or special pay previously received, which has prompted them to file pay grievances with the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). Employee dissatisfaction has resulted from: a. Ambiguity in the MOU regarding premium and/or special pay. b. Constant changes in interpretation by Riverside County Human Resources personnel and SEIU Representatives regarding employees’ eligibility to receive premium and/or special pay. c. RCRMC Managers incorrectly advising employees of entitlement to premium and/or special pay. d. Past practices by RCRMC Managers who approved premium and/or special pay, which were not authorized in accordance with the MOU. e. Employees notified only one day prior to payday of the denial of premium and/or special pay.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Riverside County Human Resources Negotiation Team and SEIU Representatives revise, clarify and standardize those portions of the current MOU that pertain to premium and/or special pay compensation such as overtime, preceptor (supervised training), call-back and on-call pay for nurses and technicians.
F2:
RCRMC utilizes a manual time and attendance system. RCRMC Administrators cancelled installation of KRONOS (an electronic time and attendance system) that is used by 115 hospitals/ health care institutions in Southern California, including the Riverside County Department of Mental Health. According to Human Resources, funding was instead directed toward the installation of “People Soft” (a countywide personnel management system), which does not meet the needs of RCRMC. The complexity of time sheets containing multiple pay categories for nurses is evident on Attachments 1 and 2. Auditing of time sheets by the payroll staff to determine the correctness of pay in accordance with the MOU is a time- consuming and laborious task. Approximately twenty-five percent (25%) of the 1,700 manual time sheets processed each pay period have errors or discrepancies that must be resolved between the employees’ supervisors and payroll staff. 2
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
By January 2006, RCRMC and Human Resources Service Unit, submit a Form 11* to the Board of Supervisors to procure an electronic time and attendance system that will: • Increase productivity. • Reduce payroll processing labor cost. • Reduce time and pay category recording errors. • Reduce the potential for fraud.
F3:
In early 2004, employees who were subject to progressive disciplinary procedures received an Administrative Investigation Letter from their supervisor. This letter was developed by the Riverside County Human Resources Department as a template for supervisors/directors to use when needed. The purpose of an Administrative Investigation Letter is to determine all relevant facts pertaining to an allegation of employee misconduct. Substantiation of the allegation of employee misconduct. Substantiation of the allegation(s) could result in appropriate disciplinary action against an employee, including termination. Through interviews conducted by the Grand Jury, employees who received this letter expressed concern that the tone was, “…intimidating, threatening and accusatory, does not identify specific allegations to be investigated, and does not advise that we are entitled to outside representation.” During this Grand Jury investigation the Human Resources Department has twice revised the original letter dated early 2004.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Human Resources Department/Employee Relations notify all county department supervisors/directors and SEIU representatives of the revised Administrative Investigation Letter to be used in future disciplinary procedures.
F4:
The current RCRMC process to verify a vacant budgeted nurse position and the authorization to fill it is complex and difficult. Frequently, this lengthy process can take several weeks and, as a result, ready and willing applicants seek employment elsewhere due to the hiring delays.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Human Resources Department and the RCRMC Nurse Administration implement, by August 2005, an Electronic Signature Transmission System** to accelerate the hiring of qualified nurse candidates. The Grand Jury investigation revealed that much of the system is already in place; therefore, the approximate cost according to Human Resources to complete implementation would be about $4,800.
F5:
RCRMC has no allocated budget for advertising nurse positions.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
RCRMC allocate funds for the purpose of advertising for nurse recruitment. *A Form 11 is a standard request form used for all requests for Board of Supervisors action. **An Electronic Signature Transmission System automates the manual paper process for hiring authorization and approval. 4
F6:
When advertisement is authorized by the Administration for nurse recruitment, only the local newspaper is used; therefore, few applications are received.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
In view of the nationwide nursing shortage, RCRMC must expand recruitment to include advertisement in professional nursing magazines/journals, out-of-county newspapers with large circulations, and the Internet.
F7:
Through Grand Jury interviews and observations, it was discovered that managers and first-line supervisory staff at RCRMC are unaware of the chain of command to seek guidance and/or report incidents that could lead to liability. 3
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
RCRMC new employee orientation must include instruction explaining the process of accessing the established lines of authority for guidance, and reporting incidents that could lead to liability if not properly addressed. Report Delivered: 06/27/05 Report Public: 06/29/05 Report Response Due: 09/26/05 5 Attachment #1 6 Attachment #2 7
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
Through Grand Jury interviews, it was discovered that eligible nurses and technicians are highly dissatisfied and frustrated with the denial of premium and/or special pay previously received, which has prompted them to file pay grievances with the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). Employee dissatisfaction has resulted from: a. Ambiguity in the MOU regarding premium and/or special pay. b. Constant changes in interpretation by Riverside County Human Resources personnel and SEIU Representatives regarding employees’ eligibility to receive premium and/or special pay. c. RCRMC Managers incorrectly advising employees of entitlement to premium and/or special pay. d. Past practices by RCRMC Managers who approved premium and/or special pay, which were not authorized in accordance with the MOU. e. Employees notified only one day prior to payday of the denial of premium and/or special pay.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Riverside County Human Resources Negotiation Team and SEIU Representatives revise, clarify and standardize those portions of the current MOU that pertain to premium and/or special pay compensation such as overtime, preceptor (supervised training), call-back and on-call pay for nurses and technicians.
F2:
RCRMC utilizes a manual time and attendance system. RCRMC Administrators cancelled installation of KRONOS (an electronic time and attendance system) that is used by 115 hospitals/ health care institutions in Southern California, including the Riverside County Department of Mental Health. According to Human Resources, funding was instead directed toward the installation of “People Soft” (a countywide personnel management system), which does not meet the needs of RCRMC. The complexity of time sheets containing multiple pay categories for nurses is evident on Attachments 1 and 2. Auditing of time sheets by the payroll staff to determine the correctness of pay in accordance with the MOU is a time- consuming and laborious task. Approximately twenty-five percent (25%) of the 1,700 manual time sheets processed each pay period have errors or discrepancies that must be resolved between the employees’ supervisors and payroll staff. 2
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
By January 2006, RCRMC and Human Resources Service Unit, submit a Form 11* to the Board of Supervisors to procure an electronic time and attendance system that will: • Increase productivity. • Reduce payroll processing labor cost. • Reduce time and pay category recording errors. • Reduce the potential for fraud.
F3:
In early 2004, employees who were subject to progressive disciplinary procedures received an Administrative Investigation Letter from their supervisor. This letter was developed by the Riverside County Human Resources Department as a template for supervisors/directors to use when needed. The purpose of an Administrative Investigation Letter is to determine all relevant facts pertaining to an allegation of employee misconduct. Substantiation of the allegation of employee misconduct. Substantiation of the allegation(s) could result in appropriate disciplinary action against an employee, including termination. Through interviews conducted by the Grand Jury, employees who received this letter expressed concern that the tone was, “…intimidating, threatening and accusatory, does not identify specific allegations to be investigated, and does not advise that we are entitled to outside representation.” During this Grand Jury investigation the Human Resources Department has twice revised the original letter dated early 2004.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Human Resources Department/Employee Relations notify all county department supervisors/directors and SEIU representatives of the revised Administrative Investigation Letter to be used in future disciplinary procedures.
F4:
The current RCRMC process to verify a vacant budgeted nurse position and the authorization to fill it is complex and difficult. Frequently, this lengthy process can take several weeks and, as a result, ready and willing applicants seek employment elsewhere due to the hiring delays.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Human Resources Department and the RCRMC Nurse Administration implement, by August 2005, an Electronic Signature Transmission System** to accelerate the hiring of qualified nurse candidates. The Grand Jury investigation revealed that much of the system is already in place; therefore, the approximate cost according to Human Resources to complete implementation would be about $4,800.
F5:
RCRMC has no allocated budget for advertising nurse positions.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
RCRMC allocate funds for the purpose of advertising for nurse recruitment. *A Form 11 is a standard request form used for all requests for Board of Supervisors action. **An Electronic Signature Transmission System automates the manual paper process for hiring authorization and approval. 4
F6:
When advertisement is authorized by the Administration for nurse recruitment, only the local newspaper is used; therefore, few applications are received.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
In view of the nationwide nursing shortage, RCRMC must expand recruitment to include advertisement in professional nursing magazines/journals, out-of-county newspapers with large circulations, and the Internet.
F7:
Through Grand Jury interviews and observations, it was discovered that managers and first-line supervisory staff at RCRMC are unaware of the chain of command to seek guidance and/or report incidents that could lead to liability. 3
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
RCRMC new employee orientation must include instruction explaining the process of accessing the established lines of authority for guidance, and reporting incidents that could lead to liability if not properly addressed. Report Delivered: 06/27/05 Report Public: 06/29/05 Report Response Due: 09/26/05 5 Attachment #1 6 Attachment #2 7
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
The TVUSD Board of Education is unaware and does not fully understand the application of the laws pertaining to CPRA and, therefore, relies on legal counsel in this regard.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The TVUSD Board of Education, follow Section 6250-6270 of the CPRA in releasing information to parents, teachers, staff and the general public in regard to the overall operation of the school district.
F2:
The TVUSD Board of Education described the operation of the district as its “Culture,” which through our interviews was defined as “The way we do things around here.” 1
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The TVUSD Board of Education review district policies, rules and regulations to ensure that the accepted principles that govern the conduct of the educational and professional requirements of certificated and classified employees comply with the district’s quality work standards and its “Core Values.” 2
F3:
Our investigation revealed that the Board of Education has not updated policies and procedures that would prohibit discriminatory practices when an employee files a grievance against their supervisors, testify in court or opposes board policies.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The TVUSD Board of Education update policies and procedures to prohibit retaliation and intimidation by administrators, staff or department directors against any district employee who complains, testifies or participates in a district grievance process.
F4:
Investigation revealed that one employee had not received a performance evaluation in eleven (11) years.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
TVUSD Human Resources Department review all employee records to ensure that all employees receive performance evaluations as required.
F5:
The TVUSD Board of Education disclosed that there had been incidents of misuse of District computers in which employees accessed inappropriate material.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The TVUSD Board of Education develop policies and procedures for the monitoring of computers, to include appropriate and corrective actions for improper and unauthorized use by employees.
F6:
The TVUSD Board of Education and Management are unaware of the proper procedures for mandated reporting.*
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
The TVUSD Board of Education must ensure that the Superintendent or designee shall provide training regarding mandated reporting duties. In the event that mandatory training is not provided, the Superintendent or designee shall report to the California Department of Education the reasons that such training is not provided as required by Penal Code 11165.7.
F7:
Financial records revealed that a department revolving fund (Petty Cash) had been used by an employee for personal business. Board Policy has not been revised since March 20, 1990. *A mandated reporter is commanded by authority to report required information as specified by school district policy.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
The TVUSD Board of Education review and update Board Policy 3314.2, “District Revolving Fund,” to ensure that all funds are audited regularly and that bonding provisions are in place as per Education Code 42801. Report Delivered: 06/29/05 Report Public: 07/01/05 Report Response Due: 09/27/05 3
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
Our investigation revealed that “unpermitted” surface mining has been conducted intermittently on a particular property as early as 1984. Aerial photographs provided by Riverside County Flood Control taken in 1984, 1990, 1995 and 2000 confirm that mining continued during the entire period. a. The first citations on this property were issued April 6, 1994, including one for illegal surface mining. b. On August 17, 1995, the Office of County Counsel signed an agreement with the property owner that a surface mining permit would be required in order to continue operations. c. On March 18, 1996, an application was filed with the Riverside County Planning Department by the property owner. A permit was never issued because the applicant did not satisfy the requirements outlined in SMARA. d. From 1994 to present, multiple citations have been issued to the owner for lack of permits for motocross test tracks, buildings, grading, a landfill, model airplane paved runway and carports. e. On May 14, 2002 a meeting was held in a County Board of Supervisor’s Office with the property owner, a Deputy County Counsel, a Legislative Assistant to a Riverside County Board of Supervisor, and representatives from Planning and Code Enforcement. The purpose of the meeting was to update and clarify the requirements for the owner to legally continue operations. On September 25, 2002, a Planning Department employee representative hand-delivered detailed requirements to the property owner, which when implemented would bring the property into compliance. **Material overlying a useful mineral deposit. 2 f. From 2002 to June 2, 2005 the property owner has continued to operate without proper permits. Investigation by the Grand Jury revealed the Office of County Counsel has not enforced compliance as stated in the requirements given to the owner on September 25, 2002. g. A grading expert in surface mining estimated that over 30,000 cubic yards of overburden** have been removed from the site. h. During a Grand Jury interview a Code Enforcement Officer was directed by a Supervisor in Code Enforcement in 2002 to “Lay off the case.”
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Office of County Counsel must expedite cases in Code Enforcement and Planning as established by Board of Supervisors’ Policy A-57 (Attachment 1). When the Office of County Counsel negotiates an agreement with the property owner, staff must follow through to ensure that the terms of the agreement are strictly enforced.
F2:
County Counsel does not have an electronic link to cases currently open in Code Enforcement and the Planning Department.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Office of County Counsel implement an electronic link from Code Enforcement and Planning Department to its office to provide oversight for legal enforcement on cases that have continued for an extended period of time. 3
F3:
Properties, which have been improved, but remain unpermitted, continue to be assessed at a lower tax rate, thus depriving the County of Riverside of increased tax revenue.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Office of County Counsel must identify and bring into compliance improved properties that remain unpermitted and have not been reassessed. Assessment at a higher value will generate more tax revenue to the County of Riverside.
F4:
A review was conducted of random case files of properties that had been abated without the benefit of a lawful Seizure Warrant. A correspondence was discovered in which a Deputy County Counsel was advising a Code Enforcement Officer how to prevent the property owner from learning what happened and how to carry out further damage control options.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The primary duty of the Office of County Counsel is to provide legal advice to the County and its agencies. They must also exercise their responsibility to third parties as set forth in the California Rules of Professional Conduct. Report Delivered: 06/27/05 Report Public: 06/29/05 Report Response Due: 09/26/05 4 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA BOARD OF SUPERVISORS POLICY Subject: Policy Number Page REVIEW OF UNAUTHORIZED BUSINESSES A-57 1 of 1 OBJECTIVE: To provide policy guidelines for development departments to ensure the timely review of application materials for commercial and industrial uses which have been identified by the Code Enforcement Division of the Department of Building & Safety as operating without the required County approvals. POLICY: With the exception of commercial or industrial uses which qualify for Fast Track Processing pursuant to Board Policy A-32, all unauthorized uses which apply for County approval will be reviewed by the Unauthorized Business Review Team, which will consist of a representative from the Planning Department, Department of Building & Safety, and, when the unauthorized use is located in a Redevelopment Area, the Economic Development Agency. With the exception of the time line mentioned later in this policy and the “Team” identified for the case processing, these applications will follow the standard County procedure for case processing. All unauthorized businesses will be required to file an application for the appropriate County permit and pay all applicable fees. Any application for approval of an unauthorized business which is not accompanied by the applicable fee (or supplemental deposit) will be taken forward to the appropriate review body for immediate denial, after which the use will be subject to enforcement action pursuant to Board Policy F-5. TIMELINES: All applications filed pursuant to this policy will be brought forward for hearing to the appropriate hearing body within six months of the initial application (except for those cases which are delinquent in paying the required fee) whether or not the applicant has supplied all of the necessary information or studies. The submittal of complete information and all necessary studies is the responsibility of the applicant, and a lack of necessary data will not prevent any case processed by the Unauthorized Business Review Team from being processed in accordance with these policy guidelines. Reference: Minute Order 3.23 dated 4/23/02 ATTACHMENT 1 5
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
Our investigation revealed that “unpermitted” surface mining has been conducted intermittently on a particular property as early as 1984. Aerial photographs provided by Riverside County Flood Control taken in 1984, 1990, 1995 and 2000 confirm that mining continued during the entire period. a. The first citations on this property were issued April 6, 1994, including one for illegal surface mining. b. On August 17, 1995, the Office of County Counsel signed an agreement with the property owner that a surface mining permit would be required in order to continue operations. c. On March 18, 1996, an application was filed with the Riverside County Planning Department by the property owner. A permit was never issued because the applicant did not satisfy the requirements outlined in SMARA. d. From 1994 to present, multiple citations have been issued to the owner for lack of permits for motocross test tracks, buildings, grading, a landfill, model airplane paved runway and carports. e. On May 14, 2002 a meeting was held in a County Board of Supervisor’s Office with the property owner, a Deputy County Counsel, a Legislative Assistant to a Riverside County Board of Supervisor, and representatives from Planning and Code Enforcement. The purpose of the meeting was to update and clarify the requirements for the owner to legally continue operations. On September 25, 2002, a Planning Department employee representative hand-delivered detailed requirements to the property owner, which when implemented would bring the property into compliance. **Material overlying a useful mineral deposit. 2 f. From 2002 to June 2, 2005 the property owner has continued to operate without proper permits. Investigation by the Grand Jury revealed the Office of County Counsel has not enforced compliance as stated in the requirements given to the owner on September 25, 2002. g. A grading expert in surface mining estimated that over 30,000 cubic yards of overburden** have been removed from the site. h. During a Grand Jury interview a Code Enforcement Officer was directed by a Supervisor in Code Enforcement in 2002 to “Lay off the case.”
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Office of County Counsel must expedite cases in Code Enforcement and Planning as established by Board of Supervisors’ Policy A-57 (Attachment 1). When the Office of County Counsel negotiates an agreement with the property owner, staff must follow through to ensure that the terms of the agreement are strictly enforced.
F2:
County Counsel does not have an electronic link to cases currently open in Code Enforcement and the Planning Department.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Office of County Counsel implement an electronic link from Code Enforcement and Planning Department to its office to provide oversight for legal enforcement on cases that have continued for an extended period of time. 3
F3:
Properties, which have been improved, but remain unpermitted, continue to be assessed at a lower tax rate, thus depriving the County of Riverside of increased tax revenue.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Office of County Counsel must identify and bring into compliance improved properties that remain unpermitted and have not been reassessed. Assessment at a higher value will generate more tax revenue to the County of Riverside.
F4:
A review was conducted of random case files of properties that had been abated without the benefit of a lawful Seizure Warrant. A correspondence was discovered in which a Deputy County Counsel was advising a Code Enforcement Officer how to prevent the property owner from learning what happened and how to carry out further damage control options.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The primary duty of the Office of County Counsel is to provide legal advice to the County and its agencies. They must also exercise their responsibility to third parties as set forth in the California Rules of Professional Conduct. Report Delivered: 06/27/05 Report Public: 06/29/05 Report Response Due: 09/26/05 4 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA BOARD OF SUPERVISORS POLICY Subject: Policy Number Page REVIEW OF UNAUTHORIZED BUSINESSES A-57 1 of 1 OBJECTIVE: To provide policy guidelines for development departments to ensure the timely review of application materials for commercial and industrial uses which have been identified by the Code Enforcement Division of the Department of Building & Safety as operating without the required County approvals. POLICY: With the exception of commercial or industrial uses which qualify for Fast Track Processing pursuant to Board Policy A-32, all unauthorized uses which apply for County approval will be reviewed by the Unauthorized Business Review Team, which will consist of a representative from the Planning Department, Department of Building & Safety, and, when the unauthorized use is located in a Redevelopment Area, the Economic Development Agency. With the exception of the time line mentioned later in this policy and the “Team” identified for the case processing, these applications will follow the standard County procedure for case processing. All unauthorized businesses will be required to file an application for the appropriate County permit and pay all applicable fees. Any application for approval of an unauthorized business which is not accompanied by the applicable fee (or supplemental deposit) will be taken forward to the appropriate review body for immediate denial, after which the use will be subject to enforcement action pursuant to Board Policy F-5. TIMELINES: All applications filed pursuant to this policy will be brought forward for hearing to the appropriate hearing body within six months of the initial application (except for those cases which are delinquent in paying the required fee) whether or not the applicant has supplied all of the necessary information or studies. The submittal of complete information and all necessary studies is the responsibility of the applicant, and a lack of necessary data will not prevent any case processed by the Unauthorized Business Review Team from being processed in accordance with these policy guidelines. Reference: Minute Order 3.23 dated 4/23/02 ATTACHMENT 1 5
Findings & Recommendations
13 findings
F1:
The City Attorney’s contract is renewed annually without the open bid process. The City of Lake Elsinore has continually contracted with one legal firm for the last seven (7) years, without competitive bid. For the year 2004 the legal firm required a $7,000 per month retainer in addition to $155 per hourly fee for other non-specific legal services. The amount of legal services for 2004 exceeded $500,000.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The City Council initiate an independent audit of all monetary charges for fiscal year 2003-2004 submitted to the City by the City Attorney.
F2:
The Grand Jury referred to the California State Attorney General‘s opinion 02-711, dated October 23, 2002, to clarify purchases of third party meals by a City Administrator. The attorney representing the City of Lake Elsinore disagreed with the Attorney General’s opinion and stated that this law applied only to the City Council members.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The City Council consider making the City Attorney a staff position.
F3:
As of January 1, 2005, Lake Elsinore City Council did not have formal adopted and updated policies and procedures that pertain to the following: - HWBP (Program terminated January 2005) - Credit Card use - Cell Phone use - Travel Reimbursement - City Vehicle Benefits - Car Allowance - Petty Cash Reimbursement - Per Diem Reimbursement - Meal Reimbursement The City’s financial division accepted and approved significant discrepancies in the above programs. 2
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The City Council establish a Policy and Procedure Committee within the next sixty (60) days to review and revise current policies for formal adoption. Policies and procedures must be reviewed and published on an ongoing basis and/or when there is a change of procedures in staff duties.
F4:
As of October of 2004: (a) The City Council has not had Town Hall Meetings on subjects important to the citizens. (b) Some Lake Elsinore citizens have expressed concern regarding the current indebtedness of the City, concluding that they will ultimately be responsible for repayment of the debts from the general funds, which include: - Cost to operate the Diamond Stadium - Cost to subsidize the McVicker Skate Board Park - Bond and Tax Debt (in excess of $170 million) - Attorney and Consultant fees - Salaries for executives, staff and managers. (c) The first of three (3) Redevelopment Agency (RDA) Bonds was issued October 1, 1994, to finance the Diamond Stadium. The bonds were issued to finance cost overruns of the general fund account, which includes the cost to operate the Diamond Stadium. The City Council passed an ordinance to refinance the bonds by allowing the City to issue “Certificate of Participation Bonds” with the RDA. As indicated above in Finding #4b, general funds are being used for the repayment of the bonds. The stadium, since its inception has been operating at a loss. In fiscal year 2003-2004 the stadium expenses exceeded income in excess of $700,000. This situation contributed to the financial problems of the City, causing funds to be diverted from RDA’s low and moderate-income housing development program. (d) The City of Lake Elsinore’s RDA, as stated in Health and Safety Code Section 33334.2 thru 33334.6, requires redevelopment agencies to set aside twenty percent (20%) of the property tax increment receipts to a low and moderate income housing fund. This has been validated by Superior Court Case #CIV271683, dated November 14, 1995. This lawsuit petitions the courts for relief of all city indebtedness by allocating RDA’s twenty percent (20%) set aside designated monies to reduce that indebtedness.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The City Council, in order to be more cost effective, replace all car allowances with the City’s approved rate per mile for actual miles driven; and adopt policies and procedures to prevent the misuse of, but not limited to, the following: - Credit Card use - Cell Phone use - Travel Reimbursement - Use of City Vehicles - Car Allowances - Petty Cash Reimbursement - Per Diem Reimbursement - Meal Reimbursement
F5:
The City of Lake Elsinore does not have a salary plan that includes job definition and stated criteria for advancement. 3
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The City Council improve its level of community outreach through Town Hall Meetings with the Citizens of Lake Elsinore.
F6:
In 1997 land was donated for a potential site of the Diamond Stadium. During the 2004-05 Grand Jury investigation of the donated land, a supplemental agreement document was discovered. This agreement disclosed that fair market compensation would not be realized by the donor if the land was sold to a non-governmental agency within fifty (50) years of the date of donation and the original intent of the donation was not kept.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
Human Resource Department develop a plan to include job definitions and associated criteria for advancement.
F7:
Based on investigations, one person performs both the duties of City Clerk and Human Resources Director. Some annual personnel evaluations have not been done since 1998. One employee has not received an evaluation for seventeen (17) years.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
In the event the City of Lake Elsinore decides to sell the Diamond Stadium and the land on which it sits, a fair market appraisal should be made to determine an adequate price. 6
F8:
The City Council has renewed some local contracts annually rather than using the open bid process. Some contracts are incomplete and amendments are unsigned.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
The City of Lake Elsinore needs to determine if agreement is valid before transferring.
F9:
The McVicker Skateboard Park is located several miles from downtown Lake Elsinore in McVicker Canyon. The park is operated under contract to a private company. At the present time it is operating at a loss. The location of the park and lack of public transportation for park users has contributed to this loss and has required the City to subsidize the operation of the park to keep it open.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
The City Manager review all existing contracts to assure completeness of application forms that require information pertaining to licenses and other pertinent data.
F10:
The preliminary procedure for an Employee Development Program (educational training) does not have appropriate requirements and approvals.
Related Recommendations (1)
R10:
The City Council of Lake Elsinore investigate the availability of a local “Community Development Block Grant Fund,” and specialized transit fund to provide a transportation system that could bring city youth to the skateboard park.
F11:
In reviewing the Lake Elsinore General Plan it was discovered: (a) The City General Plan, in total, has not been updated since June 1995, but does have a goal to update the land use element/development codes. California State Law, Government Code Section 65300, requires every City and County to adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan for physical development of the community. 4 (b) The Housing Element was updated in July 2002. The Circulation Element of the General Plan has not been amended since March 1995. The Traffic Study Report, which is a part of the Circulation Element, has not been updated since March 1994. (c) California State Law, Government Code Section 65400 (b), requires local governments to provide an annual report to the legislative body on the status and implementation of the original General Plan, which was adopted on November 27, 1990 and reprinted in March 1995. California Government Code Section 65302 requires planning of the following areas: • Land Use • Circulation / with Congestion Management Plan • Housing • Conservation • Open Space • Noise • Safety (d) In April 2005, the Grand Jury requested the City’s Status Report for the year of 2004 and/or prior years. The Report for 2004 was not submitted to the Grand Jury as requested. It was stated by the Planning Department, “They did not have the required Status Reports, because the department was inadequately staffed.”
Related Recommendations (1)
R11:
The City Manager must first approve an educational course that is job related and taken at an accredited institution. Subsequently, the employee must provide proof of a passing grade before receiving reimbursement for tuition costs.
F12:
The Grand Jury requested information on safety rules and regulations for the use of the lake. The brochures, written only in English, contain important information regarding, boating, fishing, and swimming.
Related Recommendations (1)
R12:
The Planning Department of the City of Lake Elsinore update the General Plan that meets California State requirements for General Plans Section 65300 of the Government Code. Produce annual reports in accordance with California State Law, Government Code Section 65400(b). Copies of the plan and report must be available for public review at the City’s local library and City Hall.
F13:
As of January 2005, the City Clerk stated that the City of Lake Elsinore had no Mission Statement. 5
Related Recommendations (1)
R13:
The City Council produce lake brochures in both English and Spanish.
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R14:
The City Council prepare and approve a formal written Mission Statement that states the mission and the vision of the city for its future. Report Delivered: 06/23/05 Report Public: 06/27/05 Report Response Due: 09/21/05 7
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
Since 1994, the Facilities Management Division has charged a monthly four percent (4%) property management fee to all departments occupying leased facilities throughout the County of Riverside. Lease agreements on all privately owned property/buildings, which include a maintenance package, are also charged a 4% property management fee. The lease agreement does not stipulate that a 4% property fee is included, however, the 4% fee is itemized on the monthly invoice. Upon review of documentation and testimony from the Auditor-Controller, it was discovered that the Auditor-Controller was not informed of the 4% property management fee nor reviewed it. Board of Supervisors Policy B-4 (Attachment A) requires the Auditor-Controller to review all new and charged fees for recommendation to the Board of Supervisors for Board adoption. 1
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Facilities Management Division strictly adhere to Board of Supervisors Policy B-4 requiring review by the Auditor-Controller of all new and charged fees.
F2:
Documented correspondence shows that the Director and the Assistant Director of Facilities Management Division have knowledge that employees are engaging in 50/50 fundraisers during working hours on a regular basis. This practice is not in compliance with Riverside County Human Resources Department New Employee Handbook, Employment Policies, Personal Profit and Conflicts of Interest that states, “Employees must devote their time to county business and may not engage in private activities for profit during working hours…”
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Facilities Management Division review County policy regarding fundraisers to comply with the Riverside County Human Resources Department New Employee Handbook, Personal Profit and Conflicts of Interest.
F3:
After review of employee timesheets and written documentation, some employees who were observed and documented by staff over a period of several months arriving late and/or leaving early from work, consistently registered a nine-hour workday on their timesheets.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Facilities Management Division install an electronic or mechanical time clock to curb the abuse of inaccurate recording of hours worked.
F4:
Several coworkers testified an employee stated to them that a member of upper management had secured said employee a promotional position prior to the Human Resources Department open recruitment process.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Facilities Management Division comply with Riverside County Human Resources Department established recruitment process to ensure a fair and equitable method of advancement.
F5:
Employees with previous overall satisfactory performance evaluations within the Facilities Management Division, subsequently received unsatisfactory evaluations as a result of: a. Filing written complaints to the Human Resources Department and/or grievances with Service Employees International Union, Department of Fair Employment and Housing, and the Grand Jury. b. Testifying in Human Resources Employee Relations Division investigations of upper management. The Riverside County Human Resources Department New Employee Handbook and Memorandum of Understanding, maintain that employees shall be free from reprisal following a good faith filing of grievances and/or complaints.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The Facilities Management Division and the Human Resources Department enforce strict compliance to Riverside County Board of Supervisors Policy C-25 Harassment Policy and Complaint Procedure and Riverside County Human Resources Department New Employee Handbook, Personnel Policies and Practices Grievances, as referenced in Findings 5, 6 and 7. Report Delivered: 06/29/05 Report Public: 07/01/05 Report Response Due: 09/27/05 3 Subject: Policy Number Page RATES CHARGED FOR CURRENT SERVICES B-4 1 of 1 Policy:
F6:
Employees who officially came in contact with this Grand Jury after documents were requested testified that they received various forms of harassment from upper management such as: a. Corrective Memorandums b. Relieved of their positions and transferred to other departments within the Facilities Management Division without their request c. Isolation from staff d. Removal of supervisory duties e. Received intimidating remarks and facial expressions from upper management 2
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
Charges should recover actual costs of providing the services unless the Board of Supervisors sets the charge at a lesser amount. Reference: Policy Manual approval 1-28-75 Minute Order 3.24 dated 3-3-87 ATTACHMENT A 4 Subject: Policy Number Page HARRASSMENT POLICY AND COMPLAINT PROCEDURE C-25 1 of 3 PURPOSE: The purpose of this policy is to establish a strong commitment to prohibit and to prevent unlawful harassment in employment, and to set forth a procedure for investigating and resolving internal complaints of unlawful harassment. POLICY: Harassment of an applicant or an employee by a supervisor, management employee, County Officer, or co-worker on the basis of race, color, national origin, ancestry, religion, sex, age, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, martial status, pregnancy, or sexual orientation will not be tolerated. This policy applies to all workplace behaviors and forms and conditions of employment, including but not limited to, hiring, placement, promotion, disciplinary action, layoff, recall, transfer, leaves of absence, compensation and training. It applies to a County employee action on behalf of the County on or off the job sit. Disciplinary action up to and including termination will be instituted for behaviors described in the definition of harassment referred to below. Any retaliation against a person for filing a harassment charge or making a harassment complaint is prohibited. Employees found to be retaliating against another shall be subject to disciplinary action, which may include termination. DEFINITION: Harassment includes, but is not limited to: Speech, such as lewd propositioning, epithets, stereotypical or derogatory comments or slurs on the basis of race, color, national origin, ancestry, religion, sex age, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, martial status, pregnancy, or sexual orientation. This might include inappropriate sex-oriented comments or appearance, including dress or physical features, or race/ethnicity-oriented stories or jokes. Physical acts such as assault, impeding or blocking movement, or offensive touching, or an physical interference with normal work or movement when directed at an individual on the basis of race, color, national origin, ancestry, religion, sex age, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, martial status, pregnancy, or sexual orientation. This includes pinching, grabbing, patting, propositioning, leering or making explicit or implied job threats or promises in return for submission to physical acts. Visual insults, such as derogatory posters, cartoons, or drawings related to race, color, national origin, ancestry, religion, sex age, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, martial status, pregnancy, or sexual orientation. ATTACHMENT B 5 Subject: Policy Number Page HARRASSMENT POLICY AND COMPLAINT PROCEDURE C-25 2 of 3 Unwanted sexual advances, request or sexual favors and other acts of a sexual nature, where submission is made a term or condition of employment, where submission or rejection of the conduct is used as the basis for employment decisions, or where the conduct is intended to or actually does unnecessarily interfere with an individual’s work performance or creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment. COMPLAINT PROCEDURE: An employee or job applicant who believes he or she has been harassed has a responsibility to immediately make a complaint either orally or in writing with any of the following: - Immediate Supervisor; - Any supervisor or management employee/officer within the department, including the department head. - The Human Resources Director for the County of Riverside. The employee or job applicant also has the right to file a complaint with the State Department of Fair Employment and Housing or the federal equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Any supervisor or management employee, or County Officer who receives a harassment complaint shall immediately notify the County’s Human Resources Director. COMPLAINT INVESTIGATION: Upon receiving notification of a harassment complaint the Department Head or the Human Resources Director shall:
F7:
Employees who verbally reported harassment complaints to the Human Resources Department and to an Assistant County Executive Officer in the Riverside County Executive Office were not contacted by an Employee Relations Division Investigator for follow-up investigation as required by Board Policy C-25 (Attachment B), Harassment Policy and Complaint Procedures and Riverside County Human Resources Department New Employee Handbook, Complaint Procedure. Subsequently, these employees strongly expressed concern to the Grand Jury that their employment may be in jeopardy due to the lack of remedial action from the Human Resources Department to protect them from possible reprisal. Board Policy C-25 specifically states, “Any retaliation against a person for filing a harassment charge or making a harassment complaint is prohibited...”
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
In some departments, there appears to be a breakdown in communication between management and line staff regarding the recruitment process, particularly employees hired prior to the installation of the Resumix System. Many of these employees are unaware that they are required to update their resumes annually to be placed on a certified candidate list in order to compete for open positions either intra- departmentally or inter-departmentally.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Post a written notice in the employee break room and remind employees at department staff meetings of the importance of updating resumes to ensure an equitable and competitive process.
F2:
Unknown to HR Recruiters, some hiring managers encourage “favored” employees to modify their resumes to mirror the CRF’s job requirements to ensure a higher position on the candidate list.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Adhere to the established standard recruitment process and comply with County Ordinance 440, Section 6(a) entitled Employment Procedures, and the Riverside County Human Resources New Employee Handbook (Merit System).
F3:
In some cases, management will forego the open recruitment process by filling promotional positions with inter-departmental transfers and/or Temporary Assistance Pool (TAP) employees. This is contrary to County Ordinance 440, Section 6(a) entitled Employment Procedures and the Riverside County Human Resources Department New Employee Handbook (Merit System). Grand Jury interviews indicate that these practices have significantly lowered employee morale.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Deputy Director of Human Resources must review all new hires, transfers and promotions to ensure that each employee has advanced through the proper process.
F4:
The Department of Public Social Services (DPSS) recruitment process for social workers may take up to two (2) months from requisition to hire. Due to the prolonged process many applicants may accept employment elsewhere.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Riverside County Human Resources Department develop a procedure to streamline the hiring process for DPSS social workers.
F5:
Based on information furnished to the Grand Jury from the Auditor-Controller’s Office, the cost of utilizing the QWIZ assessment testing for fiscal year 2002-03, including a $99 training fee for one employee, was $510,699. In fiscal year 2003-04, the cost was $250,000 making the total cost for both years $760,699. 2
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The Riverside County Purchasing Department follow established County Policy A-18 5(a) and seek comparable testing services to obtain the best value for Riverside County.
F6:
The County of Riverside Board of Supervisors Policy A-18 5(a) Procedures states: “Subject to the availability of funds, the department head shall prepare a request for proposal which shall include specifications, conditions and any other requirements deemed necessary for the provision of such services.” PROCEDURES FOR CONTRACTING FOR PROFESSIONAL OR PERSONAL SERVICES (f) “Pursuant to Public Contract Code Section 25502.5(a), the County Purchasing Agent may process and execute contracts for personal and professional services which do not exceed, in aggregate, the appropriate statutory limit, currently $100,000. This policy, however, shall limit such contracting authority of the Purchasing Agent to $25,000 without prior Board approval if the contract was not competitively bid.” The Grand Jury could find no evidence that a Request For Proposal (RFP) or a request for purchase had been submitted on a **Form 11 to the Board of Supervisors for approval. **A Form 11 is a standard request form used for all requests for Board of Supervisors action. 3
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
The Riverside County Human Resources Director adhere to County Policy A-18 5(a) and submit a Form 11 to the Board of Supervisors for approval of purchases exceeding $100,000. Report Delivered: 05/31/05 Report Public: 06/02/05 Report Response Due: 08/30/05 4
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
The District’s principal source of general-purpose revenue is from a 1% assessed value property tax. Revenue history over the past ten (10) years shows an increase of 64.6%, ($17,385,000 in 1995 to a projected $27,762,500 in 2004/2005). This projected increase is due to the population explosion in the county over the past ten years.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Board of Supervisors should reduce the 1% tax that was initiated in 1945, to mirror the increase in population and the near completion of a major portion of the flood control infrastructure. 2
F2:
The 1945 California statute establishing the Riverside Flood Control and Water Conservation District states that the monies collected by said taxes shall be used in the zones from which they are collected. Per the Director, the Flood Control and Water Conservation District currently operates on the basis that money may be loaned from one zone to another zone if repaid within the current fiscal year. However, the statute does not prohibit the Board of Supervisors from extending a loan for up to five (5) years. San Bernardino County currently uses a three-year policy for repayment to the loaning zone(s).
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Riverside County Board of Supervisors consider changing its policy whereby the seven (7) zones can loan monies from one zone to another for more than the current year, i.e. up to five (5) years, to make available funds more flexible.
F3:
The flood control districts in San Bernardino, San Diego, Orange, Los Angeles, Ventura, Santa Barbara, Kern and Inyo Counties report through the public works departments. The Flood Control District and Transportation & Land Management Agency (TLMA) (Riverside County’s Public Works Department), perform similar functions, i.e. land management, design and construction, surveying and mapping services. Duplication often occurs in the use of equipment, personnel and facilities. As the county population grows and possible satellite facilities are added, this duplication will be magnified.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Riverside County Board of Supervisors implement a task force to study the merits of merging TLMA and Flood Control facilities, equipment, and personnel as demonstrated in surrounding counties.
F4:
When the Flood Control and Water Conservation District was created in 1945, the primary emphasis was on flood control, the building of dams, storm channels, drains, etc. According to the Director of Flood Control, “…the major drainage infrastructure needs of the County and its cities have not been completely met, they are beginning to diminish…” The Director also stated, “The District’s future efforts in water conservation should be greatly enhanced.” However, as of June 1, 2005 the Director has not published a timeline for shifting the emphasis to water conservation.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Flood Control direct hiring to include specialists in water conservation, i.e. chemical, environmental engineering, etc. Report Delivered: 06/27/05 Report Public: 06/29/05 Report Response Due: 09/26/05 3
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
The District’s principal source of general-purpose revenue is from a 1% assessed value property tax. Revenue history over the past ten (10) years shows an increase of 64.6%, ($17,385,000 in 1995 to a projected $27,762,500 in 2004/2005). This projected increase is due to the population explosion in the county over the past ten years.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Board of Supervisors should reduce the 1% tax that was initiated in 1945, to mirror the increase in population and the near completion of a major portion of the flood control infrastructure. 2
F2:
The 1945 California statute establishing the Riverside Flood Control and Water Conservation District states that the monies collected by said taxes shall be used in the zones from which they are collected. Per the Director, the Flood Control and Water Conservation District currently operates on the basis that money may be loaned from one zone to another zone if repaid within the current fiscal year. However, the statute does not prohibit the Board of Supervisors from extending a loan for up to five (5) years. San Bernardino County currently uses a three-year policy for repayment to the loaning zone(s).
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Riverside County Board of Supervisors consider changing its policy whereby the seven (7) zones can loan monies from one zone to another for more than the current year, i.e. up to five (5) years, to make available funds more flexible.
F3:
The flood control districts in San Bernardino, San Diego, Orange, Los Angeles, Ventura, Santa Barbara, Kern and Inyo Counties report through the public works departments. The Flood Control District and Transportation & Land Management Agency (TLMA) (Riverside County’s Public Works Department), perform similar functions, i.e. land management, design and construction, surveying and mapping services. Duplication often occurs in the use of equipment, personnel and facilities. As the county population grows and possible satellite facilities are added, this duplication will be magnified.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Riverside County Board of Supervisors implement a task force to study the merits of merging TLMA and Flood Control facilities, equipment, and personnel as demonstrated in surrounding counties.
F4:
When the Flood Control and Water Conservation District was created in 1945, the primary emphasis was on flood control, the building of dams, storm channels, drains, etc. According to the Director of Flood Control, “…the major drainage infrastructure needs of the County and its cities have not been completely met, they are beginning to diminish…” The Director also stated, “The District’s future efforts in water conservation should be greatly enhanced.” However, as of June 1, 2005 the Director has not published a timeline for shifting the emphasis to water conservation.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Flood Control direct hiring to include specialists in water conservation, i.e. chemical, environmental engineering, etc. Report Delivered: 06/27/05 Report Public: 06/29/05 Report Response Due: 09/26/05 3
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
On July 21, 2004, the Riverside County Community Health Agency, which serves as the local Emergency Medical Services Agency for Riverside County, conducted a focused survey of the RCRMC Trauma Center, and noted that the “Trauma Bay was extremely small.” The Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development* confirmed that there are no California State standards for Trauma Bay size or design and that each healthcare institution determines its own size and design. Therefore, the Grand Jury obtained comparative data from other hospitals in Riverside and San Bernardino counties (see Table I) *A state agency that approves all new hospital construction and remodeling in California TABLE I RIVERSIDE AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTIES TRAUMA CENTER COMPARISON FACILITY TRAUMA ROOM ANNUAL BAY SIZE VOLUME RIVERSIDE COUNTY REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER 1 12’ X 14’ 9” 2,160 RIVERSIDE COMMUNITY HOSPITAL 2 14’ 5” X 18’ 5” 1,842 ARROWHEAD REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER 8 14’ 6” X 11’ 2” 2.068 SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY LOMA LINDA UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER 10 9’ X 18’ 2,700 SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
RCRMC Chief Executive Officer develop and submit Trauma Center Expansion Plans by November 1, 2005, to the Board of Supervisors for approval.
F2:
In November 2004, the RCRMC received a $250,000 Federal Planning Grant to design the expansion of the Trauma Center. As of June 28, 2005, there has been no public release of a plan design or timeline for a Trauma Center Expansion project. 3
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
RCRMC Chief Executive Officer request approval from the Board of Supervisors for Trauma Center Expansion Project.
F3:
The 2004 Annual Security Assessment for RCRMC prepared by a Security Officer with the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department and a RCRMC Safety Officer stated the following: • Although terrorist attacks can occur anywhere in the country, the threat of a possible terrorist attack occurring at RCRMC is rated medium. This is based on the Rapid Response Profile** of the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department. However, the Medical Center would be expected to deal with other Mass Casualty Incidents (MCIs) occurring within the county. In order for RCRMC to effectively respond to MCIs, perimeter security of the facility is vital. Currently, RCRMC has over thirty (30) perimeter doors that are accessible from the street. • The electronic monitoring system that attaches to newborn, Neonatal Intensive Care Unit and pediatric patients to prevent infant abduction is “…becoming antiquated and parts are becoming harder to find. Additionally, with the current system it takes an extended amount of time to validate if an actual abduction has occurred. This allows an abductor to exit the Medical Center before a perimeter is established, and this was proved during a recently staged abduction drill.” .
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
RCRMC Chief Executive Officer formally request approval and funding from the Board of Supervisors to implement by March 31, 2006, all safety and security strategies identified on the RCRMC 2004 Annual Security Assessment as shown on Table II, specifically upgrade the Infant Abduction Monitoring System. Report Delivered: 06/29/05 Report Public: 07/01/05 Report Response Due: 09/27/05 5 6
F4:
Although RCRMC is committed to providing a safe and secure environment for patients, staff and visitors, the RCRMC 2004 Annual Security Assessment identifies additional strategies to enhance security at the Medical Center. The estimated cost of implementation of these safety and security strategies is summarized in Table II. **The Rapid Response Profile is designed to respond to previously identified critical infrastructure within the county. This is a pre-plan for law enforcement operations in the event of a terrorist attack or natural emergency. TABLE II RCRMC PROPOSED SECURITY AND SAFETY STRATEGIES a. Install perimeter fence around the Medical $130,000 Center and Tank Farm. b. Upgrade the Infant Abduction Monitoring 200,000 System. c. Install barrier doors that require the use of key 15,000 card to control access to the Operating Room. d. Install doors in the hallway that require the use 30,000 of key card to control access to the Diagnostic Imaging Department. e. Install an alarm system around the perimeter of 4,000 the Tank Farm. f. Install a gate at the top of driveway leading to 30,000 the Loading Dock. g. Implement a screening system for patients and 15,000 visitors with the use of color-coded passes. h. Install a stationary metal detector at the four 35,000 main entrances (Nason Street, Cactus Avenue, and Security and Emergency Departments) to the Medical Center. TOTAL $459,000