Riverside County Grand Jury
2005-2006
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 (14)
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
The City adopted a Code of Ethics (Municipal Code Section 31.45 thru 31.58), which states the following: “…there is hereby established a code of ethics for all officials and employees, whether elected or appointed paid or unpaid. The purpose of this code of ethics is to establish ethical standards of conduct for all such officials and employees…” (Ord. 91.3 adopted February 19, 1991). Information obtained by the Grand Jury indicated violations of the City Code of Ethics as illustrated below: a. A City Council subcommittee on ethics, in a statement dated August 5, 2003, reported ethics violations by certain City officials. b. A former City official recommended that a security contract be approved and later asked for, and was granted, a contract increase from $8,000 to $10,000. It was discovered that this same City official’s relative’s name had been removed from the letterhead before presenting the contract to the Council for action. c. A former City official renegotiated a developer’s contract so that street improvements would extend past this official’s property. This official then recommended that the Council approve the contract without disclosing his/her interest. d. A former City official, whose company performed work within the City, neglected to report that income on his/her Statement of Economic Interest-Form 700. e. Information was reported on the Statements of Economic Interest-Form 700 by certain City officials who did not recuse themselves from apparent conflicts of interest. The Political Reform Act (Government Code Sections 81000- 91015) requires state and local government officials and employees to disclose publicly personal assets and income in their Statements of Economic Interest-Form 700. 2
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
All City employees adhere to the City Code of Ethics. City Council members and City employees who are required to complete a Statement of Economic Interest-Form 700 attend a workshop outlining instructions on completing this form, and also attend ethics training as required by AB 1234.
F2:
It was discovered during an independent financial audit that Administrative Services did not follow proper accounting procedures. Internal control of accounts receivable during fiscal years 2003-2004 and 2004-2005 resulted in special permit funds being commingled with the general fund.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Specialized permit funds should have detailed accounting records, including allocation and disbursement of funds. The City adhere to the recommendations by the independent auditors that the permit funds be segregated from the general fund, and that an annual audit of specialized funds be conducted.
F3:
A former City official held five positions (city manager, executive director of development agency, city engineer, building official, and development director), simultaneously within the City administration. This may have been in conflict with the Common-Law Doctrine of Incompatible Public Offices for a Charter City. On September 30, 1998, the Attorney General of the State of California, in his opinion and analysis, summed up the Common-Law Doctrine as follow: “Offices are incompatible, in the absence of statute suggesting a contrary results, if there is any significant clash of duties or loyalties between the offices, if the dual office holding would be improper for reasons of public policy, or if either officer exercises a supervisory, auditory, or removal power on the other.”
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
City officials should not hold two or more positions simultaneously in City government if a conflict of interest arises.
F4:
As of 2005, City employees had not received a handbook outlining their employment rights (Skelly rights), nor were employees designated as “At-Will,” aware of their status.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
All employees be provided a handbook of their employment rights. This handbook should include specifics on the Skelly rights for government employees. Those employees designated as “At-Will” should be required to sign a statement similar to what Riverside County requires for its “At-Will” employees (See Attachment A, Memorandum of Understanding). Riverside County Resolution No. 2005-475 Section 601-E details what “At- Will” means and how it affects employment and termination.
F5:
Hiring procedures were often ignored by the Human Resources Department. Some employees were hired for certain positions within the City without the required educational degrees and/or criminal background checks. 3
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
Preemployment verification should include educational degrees, position requirements, and criminal background checks. Report Issued: 06/26/06 Report Public: 06/29/06 Response Due: 09/25/06 4 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING This memorandum is an employment understanding between the County of Riverside and: Name:_____________________________________________________________________ Appointed Position:__________________________________________________________ Salary:_____________________________________________________________________ Date of Appointment:_________________________________________________________ Employment Conditions: The incumbent is appointed by the Board of Supervisors and serves at the pleasure of the individual Supervisor (i.e. At-Will) as provided under Article 6, Section E (3) of the Management Resolution No. 2005-475. _____________________________________ ___________________________ Employee Signature Date _____________________________________ ___________________________ Department Head/Agency Head Signature Date EMPLOYEE SERVICES\AT WILL Statement (Board Employee). Dot 3/20/2006 (Attachment A) 5
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
The City adopted a Code of Ethics (Municipal Code Section 31.45 thru 31.58), which states the following: “…there is hereby established a code of ethics for all officials and employees, whether elected or appointed paid or unpaid. The purpose of this code of ethics is to establish ethical standards of conduct for all such officials and employees…” (Ord. 91.3 adopted February 19, 1991). Information obtained by the Grand Jury indicated violations of the City Code of Ethics as illustrated below: a. A City Council subcommittee on ethics, in a statement dated August 5, 2003, reported ethics violations by certain City officials. b. A former City official recommended that a security contract be approved and later asked for, and was granted, a contract increase from $8,000 to $10,000. It was discovered that this same City official’s relative’s name had been removed from the letterhead before presenting the contract to the Council for action. c. A former City official renegotiated a developer’s contract so that street improvements would extend past this official’s property. This official then recommended that the Council approve the contract without disclosing his/her interest. d. A former City official, whose company performed work within the City, neglected to report that income on his/her Statement of Economic Interest-Form 700. e. Information was reported on the Statements of Economic Interest-Form 700 by certain City officials who did not recuse themselves from apparent conflicts of interest. The Political Reform Act (Government Code Sections 81000- 91015) requires state and local government officials and employees to disclose publicly personal assets and income in their Statements of Economic Interest-Form 700. 2
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
All City employees adhere to the City Code of Ethics. City Council members and City employees who are required to complete a Statement of Economic Interest-Form 700 attend a workshop outlining instructions on completing this form, and also attend ethics training as required by AB 1234.
F2:
It was discovered during an independent financial audit that Administrative Services did not follow proper accounting procedures. Internal control of accounts receivable during fiscal years 2003-2004 and 2004-2005 resulted in special permit funds being commingled with the general fund.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Specialized permit funds should have detailed accounting records, including allocation and disbursement of funds. The City adhere to the recommendations by the independent auditors that the permit funds be segregated from the general fund, and that an annual audit of specialized funds be conducted.
F3:
A former City official held five positions (city manager, executive director of development agency, city engineer, building official, and development director), simultaneously within the City administration. This may have been in conflict with the Common-Law Doctrine of Incompatible Public Offices for a Charter City. On September 30, 1998, the Attorney General of the State of California, in his opinion and analysis, summed up the Common-Law Doctrine as follow: “Offices are incompatible, in the absence of statute suggesting a contrary results, if there is any significant clash of duties or loyalties between the offices, if the dual office holding would be improper for reasons of public policy, or if either officer exercises a supervisory, auditory, or removal power on the other.”
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
City officials should not hold two or more positions simultaneously in City government if a conflict of interest arises.
F4:
As of 2005, City employees had not received a handbook outlining their employment rights (Skelly rights), nor were employees designated as “At-Will,” aware of their status.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
All employees be provided a handbook of their employment rights. This handbook should include specifics on the Skelly rights for government employees. Those employees designated as “At-Will” should be required to sign a statement similar to what Riverside County requires for its “At-Will” employees (See Attachment A, Memorandum of Understanding). Riverside County Resolution No. 2005-475 Section 601-E details what “At- Will” means and how it affects employment and termination.
F5:
Hiring procedures were often ignored by the Human Resources Department. Some employees were hired for certain positions within the City without the required educational degrees and/or criminal background checks. 3
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
Preemployment verification should include educational degrees, position requirements, and criminal background checks. Report Issued: 06/26/06 Report Public: 06/29/06 Response Due: 09/25/06 4 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING This memorandum is an employment understanding between the County of Riverside and: Name:_____________________________________________________________________ Appointed Position:__________________________________________________________ Salary:_____________________________________________________________________ Date of Appointment:_________________________________________________________ Employment Conditions: The incumbent is appointed by the Board of Supervisors and serves at the pleasure of the individual Supervisor (i.e. At-Will) as provided under Article 6, Section E (3) of the Management Resolution No. 2005-475. _____________________________________ ___________________________ Employee Signature Date _____________________________________ ___________________________ Department Head/Agency Head Signature Date EMPLOYEE SERVICES\AT WILL Statement (Board Employee). Dot 3/20/2006 (Attachment A) 5
F2006:
The City contracts with a City manager to oversee staff and City business, and with a City attorney to advise the City Council on legal matters. The City of Desert Hot Springs has its own police department and contracts with the Riverside County Fire Department/California Department of Forestry (CDF) for fire protection. City of Desert Hot Springs General Plan Vision Statement “The City of Desert Hot Springs is committed to becoming a world- class health and wellness destination based on its famous miracle waters, unique desert ecosystem, spectacular mountain view and natural environment. The City is dedicated to improving the quality of life and economic opportunities for its residents, while preserving community and family values, encouraging social and cultural diversity and increasing recreational opportunities.” 1 Findings 1. The City adopted a Code of Ethics (Municipal Code Section 31.45 thru 31.58), which states the following: “…there is hereby established a code of ethics for all officials and employees, whether elected or appointed paid or unpaid. The purpose of this code of ethics is to establish ethical standards of conduct for all such officials and employees…” (Ord. 91.3 adopted February 19, 1991). Information obtained by the Grand Jury indicated violations of the City Code of Ethics as illustrated below: a. A City Council subcommittee on ethics, in a statement dated August 5, 2003, reported ethics violations by certain City officials. b. A former City official recommended that a security contract be approved and later asked for, and was granted, a contract increase from $8,000 to $10,000. It was discovered that this same City official’s relative’s name had been removed from the letterhead before presenting the contract to the Council for action. c. A former City official renegotiated a developer’s contract so that street improvements would extend past this official’s property. This official then recommended that the Council approve the contract without disclosing his/her interest. d. A former City official, whose company performed work within the City, neglected to report that income on his/her Statement of Economic Interest-Form 700. e. Information was reported on the Statements of Economic Interest-Form 700 by certain City officials who did not recuse themselves from apparent conflicts of interest. The Political Reform Act (Government Code Sections 81000- 91015) requires state and local government officials and employees to disclose publicly personal assets and income in their Statements of Economic Interest-Form 700. 2 2. It was discovered during an independent financial audit that Administrative Services did not follow proper accounting procedures. Internal control of accounts receivable during fiscal years 2003-2004 and 2004-2005 resulted in special permit funds being commingled with the general fund.
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
The City of Blythe has contracted for the last seven years with Workplace Safety Specialists of Phoenix, Arizona. This private company has trained several City departments, including the CBVFD, to address Cal/OSHA and Hazmat requirements. Cost for training the Volunteer Fire Department in 2005 was $19,124.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
City of Blythe volunteer firefighters be trained to meet the minimum training requirements for Emergency Medical Technician (EMT), Fire Fighter I, Cardio Pulmonary Resuscitation (CPR), and First Aid.
F2:
A City volunteer fire official stated that the CBVFD adheres to the California State Fire Marshal’s Safety Standards. However, Workplace Safety Specialists informed the Grand Jury, “They have never conducted, or claimed to conduct, State Fire Marshal courses, and have no intention to conduct such courses.” In addition, the City Manager stated, “The Blythe Volunteer Fire Department does not have to have any certification from the State Fire Marshals Office. …The City has never attempted to gain that type of certification, recognizing that there is a distinction between the volunteer firefighter and full-time firefighter’s training.”
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
City of Blythe volunteer firefighters obtain certified and documented training through a California-approved agency.
F3:
The City of Blythe contains many potential structural fire risks, including the existing power plant, future Wal-Mart and proposed casino.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The City of Blythe conduct a comprehensive study regarding its fire prevention and safety needs as they relate to the power plant, Wal-Mart, a casino, future development and an expanding population.
F4:
The CBVFD does not respond to medical aid calls since the Department has no paramedics. Blythe Ambulance Service responds to medical aid calls. Riverside County firefighters only respond to medical aid calls in the annexed areas, and must obtain CBVFD permission to respond in the downtown/core area.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The CBVFD grant Riverside County firefighters permission to respond to all medical aid calls.
F5:
For the past two years, Riverside County fire officials have requested that the CBVFD allow Riverside County Fire to respond automatically to all medical emergencies in the downtown/core at no cost to the City. In addition to ambulance service, this would provide another paramedic and two firefighters to assist at the scene. These offers continue to be rejected.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
All City of Blythe commercial and public buildings be inspected by a fire prevention specialist who is approved and certified by the State Fire Marshal.
F6:
According to the City Manager the, “City of Blythe building inspectors, under the direction of the Senior Building Inspector/Fire Marshal is [sic] responsible for conducting annual fire inspections within the City of Blythe.” 2 The City’s Senior Building Inspector/Fire Marshal/Code Enforcement Officer conducts fire inspections as part of the sign- off procedure for new business licenses. This is a one-time only inspection. This official has no formal fire training, but said that he has “on the job training.”
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
The City of Blythe contract with the Riverside County Fire Department for complete fire services. Report Issued: 06/28/06 Report Public: 06/30/06 Response Due: 09/27/06 3
F7:
A Riverside County fire official stated that if the City of Blythe were to contract with Riverside County for fire services, there would be no need for additional fire stations or fire vehicles in the area.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
West Nile Virus cases for Riverside County, as of November 2005, are shown on the attached chart. Seventy-one percent of West Nile Virus cases were reported from the areas covered by the County Vector Control Division of the Environmental Health Department.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Conduct a study of vector control effectiveness throughout the areas covered by the five agencies. Based upon study results, consider the benefit to the County of dividing all vector control responsibilities between the two Special Districts (Northwest and Coachella Valley).
F2:
Complaints about mosquitoes between the Coachella Valley District and the City of Blythe are received by the Blythe office and submitted weekly to County Vector Control. The County then schedules control visits based upon the weekly reports and sends personnel and equipment, incurring costs for overnight stays and extensive mileage.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Conduct a survey and/or prepare a ballot measure for voters outside the present Special Districts to determine their willingness to support the additional cost for Special District coverage.
F3:
With five agencies, separate areas of responsibility and unclear geographic boundaries, the public is often confused about whom to call for assistance or to report vector activity. 2
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
If accepted by the voters, merge County Vector Control into the two Special Districts, or form a third Special District. Such a merger or expansion should offer any non-participating cities the option to contract with the appropriate Special District. RIVERSIDE COUNTY WEST NILE VIRUS ACTIVITY BY VECTOR CONTROL DISTRICT As of November 2005 Vector District Number of Cases Areas Covered City of Blythe 0 Blythe Vector Control – City of 7 Riverside Riverside Coachella Valley MVCD 5 Desert Hot Springs, Rancho Mirage, Indian Wells, Palm Springs, Palm Desert, Indio Northwest MVCD 4 Lake Elsinore, Glen Ivy, Corona, Norco, Arlington/Arlanza, Canyon Crest, La Sierra, Woodcrest Mira Loma, El Cerrito, Jurupa, Glen Avon, Highgrove, Rubidoux, Pedley, and Home Gardens Vector Control – 72 Beaumont, Banning, Riverside County Hemet, Nuevo, Moreno Environmental Health Valley, Cherry Valley, Sun City, Hemet, Wildomar, Canyon Lake, Menifee, San Jacinto, Yucaipa, Temecula, Romoland, Homeland, Quail Valley, Winchester and Cabazon. Area without current 13 Perris and Calimesa vector control Case count provided by the Director, Disease Control, Riverside County Community Health Agency. Report Issued: 06/28/06 Report Public: 06/30/06 Response Due: 09/27/06 4
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
West Nile Virus cases for Riverside County, as of November 2005, are shown on the attached chart. Seventy-one percent of West Nile Virus cases were reported from the areas covered by the County Vector Control Division of the Environmental Health Department.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Conduct a study of vector control effectiveness throughout the areas covered by the five agencies. Based upon study results, consider the benefit to the County of dividing all vector control responsibilities between the two Special Districts (Northwest and Coachella Valley).
F2:
Complaints about mosquitoes between the Coachella Valley District and the City of Blythe are received by the Blythe office and submitted weekly to County Vector Control. The County then schedules control visits based upon the weekly reports and sends personnel and equipment, incurring costs for overnight stays and extensive mileage.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Conduct a survey and/or prepare a ballot measure for voters outside the present Special Districts to determine their willingness to support the additional cost for Special District coverage.
F3:
With five agencies, separate areas of responsibility and unclear geographic boundaries, the public is often confused about whom to call for assistance or to report vector activity. 2
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
If accepted by the voters, merge County Vector Control into the two Special Districts, or form a third Special District. Such a merger or expansion should offer any non-participating cities the option to contract with the appropriate Special District. RIVERSIDE COUNTY WEST NILE VIRUS ACTIVITY BY VECTOR CONTROL DISTRICT As of November 2005 Vector District Number of Cases Areas Covered City of Blythe 0 Blythe Vector Control – City of 7 Riverside Riverside Coachella Valley MVCD 5 Desert Hot Springs, Rancho Mirage, Indian Wells, Palm Springs, Palm Desert, Indio Northwest MVCD 4 Lake Elsinore, Glen Ivy, Corona, Norco, Arlington/Arlanza, Canyon Crest, La Sierra, Woodcrest Mira Loma, El Cerrito, Jurupa, Glen Avon, Highgrove, Rubidoux, Pedley, and Home Gardens Vector Control – 72 Beaumont, Banning, Riverside County Hemet, Nuevo, Moreno Environmental Health Valley, Cherry Valley, Sun City, Hemet, Wildomar, Canyon Lake, Menifee, San Jacinto, Yucaipa, Temecula, Romoland, Homeland, Quail Valley, Winchester and Cabazon. Area without current 13 Perris and Calimesa vector control Case count provided by the Director, Disease Control, Riverside County Community Health Agency. Report Issued: 06/28/06 Report Public: 06/30/06 Response Due: 09/27/06 4
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
The County of Riverside has an Annual Leave redemption policy, referred to as “buy down,” for employees who are entitled to this benefit. Each calendar year they are permitted to submit two requests for payment, not to exceed a combined total of 160 hours. The first 80 hours may be redeemed on an employee’s signature. Due to budgetary limitations, any additional hours up to a maximum of 80 must have agency/department head approval.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Sheriff’s Department Executive Staff adhere to General Orders 205.03-205.07, which detail duty time and the proper documentation of leave reports.
F2:
The Grand Jury subpoenaed and received payroll and annual leave records of the sworn Executive Staff for the years 2000 through 2005, with the exception of some records. The Sheriff’s Department custodian of records was unable to locate the year 2000 records for employees with the last name beginning with the letter “L”. 1
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Sheriff’s Department Executive Staff adhere to Article 21, sections 2101 and 2102 of County Resolution 2005-475, which encourages the use of Annual Leave. 2
F3:
Payroll Activity Reports (RSD Form 344) provided by the Sheriff’s Department revealed that until the start of this Grand Jury investigation, only a limited number of Executive Staff reported annual leave usage.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Executive Office develop and implement a policy governing the reporting of time, and the recording of annual leave usage for exempt employees.
F4:
Payroll records for 2003 and 2004 revealed that two sworn Executive Staff members did not utilize any annual leave, and “bought down” the maximum 160 hours allowed in both years for a total payout of $43,416.72.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Riverside County Board of Supervisors hire an independent forensic accounting firm to audit timekeeping and annual leave records for the Sheriff’s Department Executive Staff for the years 2000 through 2005, and that these findings be made public.
F5:
The lack of proper documentation creates the appearance of impropriety with respect to the use of public monies. Payroll Activity Reports revealed: • Unsigned payroll sheets • Multiple predated payroll sheets, some of which were submitted months later • No supervisor signature and/or signature date • Approval of own Payroll Activity Reports, and no leave time annotated, except for approved holidays.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
Auditor-Controller perform a follow-up comprehensive Management Leave Analysis audit of the Sheriff’s Department Executive Staff every two years. Report Issued: 06/26/06 Report Public: 06/29/06 Response Due: 09/25/06 3
F6:
A January 2006 scheduled countywide internal audit on Management Leave Analysis (annual leave) for internal controls was canceled.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
Morale Staff morale is dangerously low for an effective working environment. Major causes include, but are not limited to: a. Frequent relocation or transfer of personnel; b. Reorganization of clinics without seeking and considering staff input; c. Pervasive lack of communication among senior management, supervisors and staff; d. Inconsistent and unclear opportunities for promotion; and e. Senior management not monitoring morale indicators such as stress leave, frequent unscheduled time off, unexpected resignations or retirements, and transfer requests. 1
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Morale a. Develop a system that allows senior management to evaluate morale indicators including, but not limited to: • Stress leave; • Transfer requests; • Excessive absenteeism (particularly on Mondays and Fridays); • Unplanned resignations or retirements; and • Worker’s compensation claims. b. Take action to avoid the perception that staff input is of little or no value. Senior management should solicit participation of line staff and supervisors in decisions affecting the clinic environment. c. Increase employee awareness of educational and other requirements for promotional opportunities. In appropriate circumstances, communicate the requirement for degreed or certificated applicants.
F2:
Safety Personnel in some clinics denied knowing, or were unaware of, the existence of written safety protocols for their clinics. a. Safety inspection reports were not uniformly followed. b. The reception areas do not provide full visibility to clinic staff. This is important as the clinics deal with mentally ill persons. c. Not all clinics are equipped with panic buttons. Some buttons are not operational or staff members were unaware of their location and use.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Safety a. Implement guidelines from the Safety Division with respect to location, installation, and maintenance of panic buttons and alarm systems. 4 b. Prepare written protocols for emergency actions and evacuations. Assure that all personnel are aware of emergency procedures. Conduct frequent training with various emergency scenarios. c. Make all reception areas fully observable by staff.
F3:
Training a. Clinics do not have designated training officers. b. In some clinics, proper documentation of a client’s chart, in terms of assessment, case notes and other actions (including appropriate reimbursement billing notations), is handled by untrained clerical personnel. • Clerical staff are unable to handle workloads due to their personal injuries. • Clinics are unable to secure replacement staffing through the county’s Temporary Assistance Program (TAP). c. There was no evidence that each clinic regularly scheduled and participated in drill procedures for fire or other emergency situations.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Training a. Each clinic supervisor appoint a clinic training officer. b. Position descriptions and duties be explained to each employee. c. Explain to each employee and contract professional the importance of prompt and proper chart documentation, and require compliance. d. In the case of contract personnel, make documentation of client records a specific contractual requirement. e. Recognize quality performance promptly and publicly. f. Develop positions consistent with client profiles.
F4:
Organization a. The Regional Mental Health Services Manager volunteered for and assumed additional duties, thus resulting in dilution of overall effectiveness. b. Employee performance evaluations are not accomplished in a timely manner. Some employees have not received written evaluations for as long as seven years. c. Senior management has displayed an indifferent attitude toward staff input in clinic reorganization. d. There is a perception of managerial indifference toward staff
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Organization a. Require written performance evaluations at all levels on employee anniversary dates. Failure to comply be a mandatory notation on the evaluator’s performance report. b. After removal of employees from progressive discipline (Progressive Performance Improvement, or PPI), require written reports on employees until performance has been at a satisfactory level for six months. c. Transfer of underperforming employees be prohibited unless both transferring and receiving supervisors agree. Employees being transferred under these circumstances should have already been under PPI for a reasonable period.
F5:
Finances a. Based on available information, failure to document fees for services correctly, or not document at all, cost the County approximately $250,000. b. Medical billing was disallowed due to incomplete charting. c. Charts audited were selected by the supervisor, rather than randomly chosen, thus allowing any audit effort to be easily manipulated. d. The twenty-year-old computer system currently in use is outdated and cannot keep up with government accounting and billing requirements.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
Finances a. Require the Auditor-Controller to audit the Western Region. b. Standardize policies and procedures throughout the system to maximize reimbursement for authorized services. 5 c. Review financial records regularly to assure that appropriate reimbursements are received. d. Develop a comprehensive system of electronic recordkeeping, to include the replacement of the twenty-year-old computer system.
F6:
Clientele a. The office structure of the clinics is not conducive to meeting the physical and emotional needs of the majority of the clients. b. The Corona/Norco area with a population of nearly 200,000 has no locally available multipurpose mental health service clinic, so clients must travel to Riverside. c. There is inadequate office space to assure client confidentiality. d. There are insufficient personnel trained to deal effectively with dual diagnosis (mental illness plus alcohol and/or drug addiction) that afflict seventy to eighty percent of service consumers. e. Reception personnel are not trained to deal with the clinics’ difficult mental health service clients. f. The City of Riverside has initiated eminent domain proceedings, with condemnation of two facilities currently contracted by the County to provide housing for Department of Mental Health clients. This action will exacerbate the shortage of bed space for these clients. 3
F7:
Quality Improvement – Outpatient a. Quality Improvement audits of clinics are not conducted quarterly as the procedure manual dictates. b. A function of Quality Improvement is to collect data for medical disallowances. This data is used in discussions with clinic supervisors, but is not disseminated to senior management. c. Adequate information regarding billing procedures is not collected. There are no indicators to alert management to billing deficiencies. d. Information collected is not always reported to the department program manager, assistant director or director.
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R8:
Clientele a. Educate transportation and reception personnel to deal appropriately with clientele displaying significant physical or emotional problems. b. Initiate fast-track efforts to establish a full-service clinic in the Corona/ Norco area. c. Provide clinicians and behavioral health specialists private offices to guarantee client confidentiality. d. Increase staff resources to deal with dual diagnosis (mental illness plus alcohol and/or addiction drug) clients. e. Coordinate County and City efforts to provide facilities to replace the loss of client beds caused by property condemnations. f. Urge County and City governments to locate multipurpose facilities for client convenience.
R9:
Quality Improvement a. Develop a statistically valid protocol to provide accuracy of records, and to monitor revenue. b. Provide review and audit results to senior management on a quarterly basis. Report Issued: 05/31/06 Report Public: 06/02/06 Response Due: 08/29/06 6
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
F1:
Morale Staff morale is dangerously low for an effective working environment. Major causes include, but are not limited to: a. Frequent relocation or transfer of personnel; b. Reorganization of clinics without seeking and considering staff input; c. Pervasive lack of communication among senior management, supervisors and staff; d. Inconsistent and unclear opportunities for promotion; and e. Senior management not monitoring morale indicators such as stress leave, frequent unscheduled time off, unexpected resignations or retirements, and transfer requests. 1
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Morale a. Develop a system that allows senior management to evaluate morale indicators including, but not limited to: • Stress leave; • Transfer requests; • Excessive absenteeism (particularly on Mondays and Fridays); • Unplanned resignations or retirements; and • Worker’s compensation claims. b. Take action to avoid the perception that staff input is of little or no value. Senior management should solicit participation of line staff and supervisors in decisions affecting the clinic environment. c. Increase employee awareness of educational and other requirements for promotional opportunities. In appropriate circumstances, communicate the requirement for degreed or certificated applicants.
F2:
Safety Personnel in some clinics denied knowing, or were unaware of, the existence of written safety protocols for their clinics. a. Safety inspection reports were not uniformly followed. b. The reception areas do not provide full visibility to clinic staff. This is important as the clinics deal with mentally ill persons. c. Not all clinics are equipped with panic buttons. Some buttons are not operational or staff members were unaware of their location and use.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Safety a. Implement guidelines from the Safety Division with respect to location, installation, and maintenance of panic buttons and alarm systems. 4 b. Prepare written protocols for emergency actions and evacuations. Assure that all personnel are aware of emergency procedures. Conduct frequent training with various emergency scenarios. c. Make all reception areas fully observable by staff.
F3:
Training a. Clinics do not have designated training officers. b. In some clinics, proper documentation of a client’s chart, in terms of assessment, case notes and other actions (including appropriate reimbursement billing notations), is handled by untrained clerical personnel. • Clerical staff are unable to handle workloads due to their personal injuries. • Clinics are unable to secure replacement staffing through the county’s Temporary Assistance Program (TAP). c. There was no evidence that each clinic regularly scheduled and participated in drill procedures for fire or other emergency situations.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Training a. Each clinic supervisor appoint a clinic training officer. b. Position descriptions and duties be explained to each employee. c. Explain to each employee and contract professional the importance of prompt and proper chart documentation, and require compliance. d. In the case of contract personnel, make documentation of client records a specific contractual requirement. e. Recognize quality performance promptly and publicly. f. Develop positions consistent with client profiles.
F4:
Organization a. The Regional Mental Health Services Manager volunteered for and assumed additional duties, thus resulting in dilution of overall effectiveness. b. Employee performance evaluations are not accomplished in a timely manner. Some employees have not received written evaluations for as long as seven years. c. Senior management has displayed an indifferent attitude toward staff input in clinic reorganization. d. There is a perception of managerial indifference toward staff
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Organization a. Require written performance evaluations at all levels on employee anniversary dates. Failure to comply be a mandatory notation on the evaluator’s performance report. b. After removal of employees from progressive discipline (Progressive Performance Improvement, or PPI), require written reports on employees until performance has been at a satisfactory level for six months. c. Transfer of underperforming employees be prohibited unless both transferring and receiving supervisors agree. Employees being transferred under these circumstances should have already been under PPI for a reasonable period.
F5:
Finances a. Based on available information, failure to document fees for services correctly, or not document at all, cost the County approximately $250,000. b. Medical billing was disallowed due to incomplete charting. c. Charts audited were selected by the supervisor, rather than randomly chosen, thus allowing any audit effort to be easily manipulated. d. The twenty-year-old computer system currently in use is outdated and cannot keep up with government accounting and billing requirements.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
Finances a. Require the Auditor-Controller to audit the Western Region. b. Standardize policies and procedures throughout the system to maximize reimbursement for authorized services. 5 c. Review financial records regularly to assure that appropriate reimbursements are received. d. Develop a comprehensive system of electronic recordkeeping, to include the replacement of the twenty-year-old computer system.
F6:
Clientele a. The office structure of the clinics is not conducive to meeting the physical and emotional needs of the majority of the clients. b. The Corona/Norco area with a population of nearly 200,000 has no locally available multipurpose mental health service clinic, so clients must travel to Riverside. c. There is inadequate office space to assure client confidentiality. d. There are insufficient personnel trained to deal effectively with dual diagnosis (mental illness plus alcohol and/or drug addiction) that afflict seventy to eighty percent of service consumers. e. Reception personnel are not trained to deal with the clinics’ difficult mental health service clients. f. The City of Riverside has initiated eminent domain proceedings, with condemnation of two facilities currently contracted by the County to provide housing for Department of Mental Health clients. This action will exacerbate the shortage of bed space for these clients. 3
F7:
Quality Improvement – Outpatient a. Quality Improvement audits of clinics are not conducted quarterly as the procedure manual dictates. b. A function of Quality Improvement is to collect data for medical disallowances. This data is used in discussions with clinic supervisors, but is not disseminated to senior management. c. Adequate information regarding billing procedures is not collected. There are no indicators to alert management to billing deficiencies. d. Information collected is not always reported to the department program manager, assistant director or director.
F8:
Clientele a. Educate transportation and reception personnel to deal appropriately with clientele displaying significant physical or emotional problems. b. Initiate fast-track efforts to establish a full-service clinic in the Corona/ Norco area. c. Provide clinicians and behavioral health specialists private offices to guarantee client confidentiality. d. Increase staff resources to deal with dual diagnosis (mental illness plus alcohol and/or addiction drug) clients. e. Coordinate County and City efforts to provide facilities to replace the loss of client beds caused by property condemnations. f. Urge County and City governments to locate multipurpose facilities for client convenience.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
Clientele a. Educate transportation and reception personnel to deal appropriately with clientele displaying significant physical or emotional problems. b. Initiate fast-track efforts to establish a full-service clinic in the Corona/ Norco area. c. Provide clinicians and behavioral health specialists private offices to guarantee client confidentiality. d. Increase staff resources to deal with dual diagnosis (mental illness plus alcohol and/or addiction drug) clients. e. Coordinate County and City efforts to provide facilities to replace the loss of client beds caused by property condemnations. f. Urge County and City governments to locate multipurpose facilities for client convenience.
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R9:
Quality Improvement a. Develop a statistically valid protocol to provide accuracy of records, and to monitor revenue. b. Provide review and audit results to senior management on a quarterly basis. Report Issued: 05/31/06 Report Public: 06/02/06 Response Due: 08/29/06 6
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
A review of Use of Force Report and Use of Force Witness Report (RSD Forms 553 and 553-B) files reflected that many had not been accurately completed. Incident dates differed from those referenced in the reporting deputies’ narratives. Details in the witness report forms did not always match the primary reports. Inaccuracies in these reports were not addressed when reviewed and signed by supervisors.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Corrections Division of the Sheriff’s Department adhere to California Code of Regulations Title 15, article 1.5, §3268.1(a), which requires (1) “An employee who uses or observes non- deadly force…shall document that fact.” and (2) “The employee’s immediate supervisor shall review the document to ensure that it is adequately prepared…”
F2:
Medical assessment or treatment was not provided to some inmates who had been exposed to Oleoresin Capsicum (pepper spray).
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Inmates receive treatment by medical staff after exposure to Oleoresin Capsicum (pepper spray). In the absence of medical staff, custody/corrections staff provide treatment (G.O. 503.04). 2
F3:
One responsibility of the Emergency Response Team (ERT) is to assign a team member to video record all use of force incidents. The retention period for these files, including the video record, is current year plus five years. ERT videotapes were often missing in the Use of Force documentation files.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Any time the ERT is deployed to an incident requiring the use of force, the episode be video recorded and maintained according to established procedure (G.O. 503.09).
F4:
Custody Transfer/Transportation Orders (RSD Form 533) were missing pertinent information. These orders did not reflect a complete history of inmate(s) movement(s) between Riverside County jail facilities.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Correctional deputies assigned to transferring and transporting of inmates to “…be familiar with transfer requirements and paperwork.” (G.O. 510.03)
F5:
Correctional deputies are allowed to work overtime at other Riverside County jail facilities where G.O. procedures may differ.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
Correctional deputies working overtime in other Riverside County jail facilities demonstrate a working knowledge of that facility’s G.O. prior to the authorization of overtime. Report Issued: 04/27/06 Report Public: 05/01/06 Response Due: 07/27/06 3
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
The expertise provided by the Riverside County Cooperative Extension is instrumental to egg processing facilities and preventing the spread of Avian Influenza, also known as the Bird Flu. In a joint effort with the Cooperative Extension Program, a Riverside County Avian Influenza Task Force was organized and includes several county health agencies.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Riverside County Board of Supervisors continue to support and budget for the Cooperative Extension and its joint effort with the Avian Influenza Task Force.
F2:
The County of Riverside leases space for the Cooperative Extension’s main office in Moreno Valley from the Farm Bureau for $108,368. This 6,000 square-foot workplace accommodates 18 employees, offices, and small and large conference rooms. 2
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Board of Supervisors provide a main office with space for: a. A 700 square-foot research laboratory to include: • Natural gas • Fume hood • Water • Bench space b. Conference room with a capacity for 150 3
F3:
There are no laboratory facilities available, forcing researchers to use their workrooms as makeshift laboratories both in Moreno Valley and Indio. Some researchers have indicated that this is disruptive and sometimes hinders research. Indio personnel must transport samples and equipment to Riverside, which can compromise the quality of samples.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Board of Supervisors provide the Indio staff space for: a. A 700 square-foot research laboratory to include: • Natural gas • Fume hood • Water • Bench space b. Four offices c. Conference room with a capacity for 20 d. Work area to house a large photocopier with collator computer, postage meter and table Report Issued: 04/10/06 Report Public: 04/12/06 Response Due: 07/10/06 4
F4:
The Indio office is based in the County Administration Center and has 900 square-feet of workspace. This includes just one office for five employees plus seasonal staff.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
In an effort to solicit interest in promotional opportunities within the Sheriff’s Department, the County of Riverside issues Class Specification Bulletins listing: • Salary range • Class concept • Representation unit • Essential duties • Recruiting guidelines • Educational requirements
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Sheriff’s Department employees comply with General Order 200.04, which states that employees, “…shall meet the Departmental and state requirements for employment or placement in their job classification or position.”
F2:
Grand Jury investigation revealed that Human Resources personnel did not verify, as required, the educational background of two Sheriff’s Department employees. This allowed them to be placed on the Human Resources Certification List, even though they lacked the academic requirements for promotion.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
During the promotion process within the Sheriff’s Department, Human Resources follow Sheriff’s Department General Order 211.04, which reads: “Only qualified members will be allowed to take a promotional examination.”
F3:
Further Grand Jury investigation revealed that during 2002 to 2004, these two Sheriff’s Department employees had been promoted–one to the rank of Chief Deputy Sheriff and the other to the rank of Sheriff’s Captain. When this fact became known, Human Resources Management contacted the Sheriff to advise him of the promotional errors. A mutual decision was made that, “it was no fault of the applicants and that they were not required to revert back [sic].”
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Sheriff’s Department comply with General Order 211.03, which reads: “A department member shall meet the requirements for the position prior to the final filing date.”
F4:
On March 29, 2006, the Grand Jury submitted to the Human Resources Department a written request for copies of resumes of the two promoted employees. The Grand Jury received a written response dated April 11, 2006 from the Assistant CEO/Human Resources Director advising, “…that it appears that those records (promotional recruitment) have been purged.” Human Resources staff later revealed that these files had actually been shredded two to three months prior to the Grand Jury’s request, coinciding with the beginning of this investigation in January 2006. 2
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Sheriff’s Department recruitment files, including resumes, be maintained in accordance with the proposed Human Resources Department Records Retention Schedule. The proposed schedule would require that recruitment files be maintained for three years after termination of employment. Report Issued: 06/26/06 Report Public: 06/29/06 Response Due: 09/25/06 3
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
A Business Registration and Licensing Program, a major component of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES*), was approved by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors on March 21,
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Weights and Measures Division utilize the database being developed for the Business Registration and Licensing Program. This database will identify all businesses in Riverside County.
F2:
In fiscal year 2004-2005, the Weights and Measures Division completed a total of 1,202 scanner inspections of licensed businesses within the County. Forty-five percent of these inspections reflected pricing errors. 1
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
All retail establishments that fail an inspection be assessed a civil penalty and a reinspection fee.
F3:
The Business and Profession Code Section 12015.3(a) gives Weights and Measures Division inspectors the authority to impose civil penalties, which can be up to $1,000 for each violation.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Board of Supervisors adopt an ordinance allowing the Weights and Measures Division to enforce reinspection fees as permitted by AB889.
F4:
Assembly Bill 889, Section 6, 13350(e) states, “The board of supervisors, by ordinance, may charge a reinspection fee for reinspections of a retail establishment that fails a standard inspection…” A Weights and Measures Scanner Inspection Program Report dated July 15, 2005, revealed that businesses are most often issued a Notice of Proposed Action rather than a fee.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
All inspectors be issued standardized identification. 2
F5:
Weights and Measures Division inspectors are frequently faced with business owners who do not recognize their authority.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The Agricultural Commissioner take action to increase consumer awareness about the Weights and Measures Division. This should include, but not be limited to, distributing information to: • Senior Centers • Public Schools/ P.T.A. • Public Libraries • Local cable public information ads • Public radio Report Issued: 06/26/06 Report Public: 06/29/06 Response Due: 09/25/06 3
F6:
The existence, functions and benefits of the Weights and Measures Division is not well known to the public. Its information pamphlet is not well distributed. *NPDES is a formal water quality/storm water discharge inspection of specified commercial/industrial businesses within the unincorporated county areas.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
A Business Registration and Licensing Program, a major component of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES*), was approved by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors on March 21,
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Weights and Measures Division utilize the database being developed for the Business Registration and Licensing Program. This database will identify all businesses in Riverside County.
F2:
In fiscal year 2004-2005, the Weights and Measures Division completed a total of 1,202 scanner inspections of licensed businesses within the County. Forty-five percent of these inspections reflected pricing errors. 1
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
All retail establishments that fail an inspection be assessed a civil penalty and a reinspection fee.
F3:
The Business and Profession Code Section 12015.3(a) gives Weights and Measures Division inspectors the authority to impose civil penalties, which can be up to $1,000 for each violation.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Board of Supervisors adopt an ordinance allowing the Weights and Measures Division to enforce reinspection fees as permitted by AB889.
F4:
Assembly Bill 889, Section 6, 13350(e) states, “The board of supervisors, by ordinance, may charge a reinspection fee for reinspections of a retail establishment that fails a standard inspection…” A Weights and Measures Scanner Inspection Program Report dated July 15, 2005, revealed that businesses are most often issued a Notice of Proposed Action rather than a fee.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
All inspectors be issued standardized identification. 2
F5:
Weights and Measures Division inspectors are frequently faced with business owners who do not recognize their authority.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The Agricultural Commissioner take action to increase consumer awareness about the Weights and Measures Division. This should include, but not be limited to, distributing information to: • Senior Centers • Public Schools/ P.T.A. • Public Libraries • Local cable public information ads • Public radio Report Issued: 06/26/06 Report Public: 06/29/06 Response Due: 09/25/06 3
F6:
The existence, functions and benefits of the Weights and Measures Division is not well known to the public. Its information pamphlet is not well distributed. *NPDES is a formal water quality/storm water discharge inspection of specified commercial/industrial businesses within the unincorporated county areas.
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F1:
Board Resolution 2005-475, Section 204, reads, “Any employee whose position is determined to be exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) shall not be entitled to compensation for overtime of any type.”
F2:
There are exempt Board of Supervisors and Clerk of the Board employees who utilize compensatory time for vacation in lieu of annual leave, then “buy down”1 this banked leave. Both County Counsel and Human Resources Director stated that this is an acceptable practice. The Grand Jury found this to be in direct violation of Board Resolution 2005-475.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Riverside County Board of Supervisors and Clerk of the Board employees adhere to Board Resolution 2005-475, Section 204, and the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
F3:
The Human Resources Director issued a memorandum effective October 13, 2005, addressing the following points: a. Cited Department of Labor regulation 29 C.F.R. 541.118(a), as a basis for allowing compensatory time for exempt employees, even though this regulation was superseded by C.F.R. 541.602(a) on August 23, 2004. The County of Riverside has an Annual Leave redemption policy, referred to as “buy down”, for employees who are entitled to this benefit. 1 b. “The Board of Supervisors’ staffs are exempt employees paid a regular salary. However, due to the extensive and irregular hours worked by the staff that exceed the normal workday, they are also allowed to accumulate (earn) a large amount of compensatory time.” c. “Each employee is required to contact the Clerk of the Board in the event their annual leave banks need to be charged (decreased). . . in excess of pay earned or banked ‘compensatory time’ during the pay period of the occurrence.” d. “Each employee is required to informally track the compensatory time earned. Board members or their designee will periodically review and direct staff members to begin using their annual leave banks when the compensatory time is exhausted.”
F4:
Some departments require all employees to complete detailed time sheets signed under penalty of perjury. Other departments require no time reporting unless the employee takes annual leave during that period.
F5:
There is no law or regulation specifically requiring exempt employees to report their time. Not having a consistent time reporting system creates a breakdown in internal controls causing an opportunity for, and appearance of, impropriety or fraud in the payroll process.
Related Recommendations (3)
R2:
County Executive Officer improve countywide control over the payroll process, to include a requirement that all exempt employees prepare, sign and submit regular biweekly time sheets to their supervisors under penalty of perjury. 3
R3:
The accuracy of time sheets submitted by all employees of the Board of Supervisors and the Clerk of the Board be certified by a supervisor or designee.
R5:
Auditor-Controller audit all County departments to determine if similar reporting inconsistencies exist in payroll recordkeeping. Report Issued: 06/26/06 Report Public: 06/29/06 Response Due: 09/25/06 4
F6:
During fiscal years, July 1, 2002 through June 30, 2005: a. Four of the thirty-three Board of Supervisors’ staff employees did not utilize any annual leave time. b. Nine of the Board of Supervisors’ staff employees did not utilize annual leave time for one or more years during this period. 2 c. Almost half of the thirty-three Board of Supervisors’ staff employees, who worked part-time or a fraction of the year, did not use annual leave within reasonable limits of an average percentage, as determined by the County Auditor- Controller.
F7:
An employee can “buy down” (receive compensation) for annual leave time earned in the amount of 80 hours in any one calendar year. Subject to budgetary limitations, the employee can also “buy down” an additional 80 hours in the same calendar year with supervisory approval. He/she is not permitted to “buy down” more than 160 hours in the same calendar year, nor permitted to submit more than two “buy down” requests in the same calendar year.
F8:
Nine of the thirty-three Board of Supervisors’ staff employees, including several who did not utilize any annual leave time, “bought down” annual leave in excess of 160 hours, thus violating Section 704 of Board Resolution 2005-475.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
Riverside County Board of Supervisors and Clerk of the Board employees adhere to Board Resolution 2005-475, Section 204, and the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
R4:
County Executive Officer enforce current County policy regarding the maximum allowable “buy down” provisions, and implement a tracking program to assure compliance. In the alternative, discontinue the annual leave “buy down” benefit.
F9:
Many of the “buy down” requests reviewed were incomplete, lacked supervisory approval and/or had hours not formally tracked. Further Grand Jury investigation revealed employees feel that it is not their responsibility to track their requests.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
County Executive Officer enforce current County policy regarding the maximum allowable “buy down” provisions, and implement a tracking program to assure compliance. In the alternative, discontinue the annual leave “buy down” benefit.