Riverside County Grand Jury
2007-2008
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 (15)
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
MHOPC in Banning currently does not offer families and caregivers parenting classes. Families and caregivers of children along with teens with emotional and behavioral disturbances need guidance in understanding their children and teens’ emotional needs.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
MHOPC in Banning must establish parenting classes for families and caregivers who seek help and guidance.
F2:
At the present time, the building doesn’t have adequate exterior lighting fixtures on the sides or corners of the building. The existing exterior lighting fixtures at the clinic are in need of repair and maintenance. This will improve safety conditions for the staff.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
As set forth in the lease agreement, the Lessor, in cooperation with the Riverside County Real Estate Division Director, immediately inspect all exterior light fixtures for repair or replacement at MHOPC. This provision is found in the leasing contract under Section 10, Repair and Maintenance. Install exterior lighting, e.g. halogen, which provides greater luminosity, on the two front corners of the building at the entrance and exit driveways. This will provide security lighting for the clinic’s staff while walking to and from the clinic. 2
F3:
A toll free telephone number was established approximately five years ago, to allow the community the opportunity to contact the Department of Mental Health Clinics in the Banning and Desert Region area. This toll free number has since been disconnected for over a year.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Director of RCDMH must re-connect and advertise the toll free telephone number allowing people in the Banning and Desert Region areas the ability to seek help and support from the Mental Health Clinics.
F4:
The Director of the Riverside County Department of Mental Health (RCDMH), who has been in office for more than two years, has yet to visit MHOPC in Banning.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The Director of the RCDMH must schedule annual visits to MHOPC in Banning. These visits could ensure that the MHOPC is providing quality service. Report Issued: 06/25/08 Report Public: 06/27/08 Response Due: 09/23/08 3
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
MHOPC in Banning currently does not offer families and caregivers parenting classes. Families and caregivers of children along with teens with emotional and behavioral disturbances need guidance in understanding their children and teens’ emotional needs.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
MHOPC in Banning must establish parenting classes for families and caregivers who seek help and guidance.
F2:
At the present time, the building doesn’t have adequate exterior lighting fixtures on the sides or corners of the building. The existing exterior lighting fixtures at the clinic are in need of repair and maintenance. This will improve safety conditions for the staff.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
As set forth in the lease agreement, the Lessor, in cooperation with the Riverside County Real Estate Division Director, immediately inspect all exterior light fixtures for repair or replacement at MHOPC. This provision is found in the leasing contract under Section 10, Repair and Maintenance. Install exterior lighting, e.g. halogen, which provides greater luminosity, on the two front corners of the building at the entrance and exit driveways. This will provide security lighting for the clinic’s staff while walking to and from the clinic. 2
F3:
A toll free telephone number was established approximately five years ago, to allow the community the opportunity to contact the Department of Mental Health Clinics in the Banning and Desert Region area. This toll free number has since been disconnected for over a year.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Director of RCDMH must re-connect and advertise the toll free telephone number allowing people in the Banning and Desert Region areas the ability to seek help and support from the Mental Health Clinics.
F4:
The Director of the Riverside County Department of Mental Health (RCDMH), who has been in office for more than two years, has yet to visit MHOPC in Banning.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The Director of the RCDMH must schedule annual visits to MHOPC in Banning. These visits could ensure that the MHOPC is providing quality service. Report Issued: 06/25/08 Report Public: 06/27/08 Response Due: 09/23/08 3
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
In compliance with a CEC directive dated February 6, 2006, the City of Blythe installed and activated a Super AWOS on October 24, 2006. The Super AWOS was shut-off on March 16, 2007, because the FBO filed a complaint with FCC that the Super AWOS transmissions were interfering with FBO licensed Unicom frequency 122.8 Mhz. As a result, pilots are not warned of the plume from BEP1.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Vigorously pursue an agreement with Wolfe Enterprises to purchase and/or transfer Wolfe Enterprise’s FCC license (frequency 122.8 Mhz) to the City of Blythe for operation of the Super AWOS Unicom.
F2:
As of June 1, 2008, the City of Blythe had not complied with the CEC directive to designate a calm wind runway and change the traffic pattern from left-hand to right-hand by April 15, 2007. BEP1 has agreed to pay for any environmental analysis to determine the feasibility of changing the designation.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Reactivate the Super AWOS that has been purchased by BEP1 that will notify pilots using Blythe Airport to avoid direct over flight of the power plant.
F3:
Currently, Wolfe Enterprises has a FCC license to operate a Unicom at the airport on frequency 122.8 Mhz. The City of Blythe has been directed by CEC to install a Super AWOS Unicom at the airport, but does not have an FCC license. In addition, FAA guidelines do not permit two different warning systems operating at an uncontrolled airport. 5
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Conduct an environmental review that has been funded by the BEP1, of the designation of a calm wind runway and/or a change in the traffic- landing pattern at the airport. Report Issued: 06/19/08 Report Public: 06/23/08 Response Due: 09/17/08 6 BEP1 – Runway 26, Blythe Airport (Picture taken January 2003.) 7
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
In compliance with a CEC directive dated February 6, 2006, the City of Blythe installed and activated a Super AWOS on October 24, 2006. The Super AWOS was shut-off on March 16, 2007, because the FBO filed a complaint with FCC that the Super AWOS transmissions were interfering with FBO licensed Unicom frequency 122.8 Mhz. As a result, pilots are not warned of the plume from BEP1.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Vigorously pursue an agreement with Wolfe Enterprises to purchase and/or transfer Wolfe Enterprise’s FCC license (frequency 122.8 Mhz) to the City of Blythe for operation of the Super AWOS Unicom.
F2:
As of June 1, 2008, the City of Blythe had not complied with the CEC directive to designate a calm wind runway and change the traffic pattern from left-hand to right-hand by April 15, 2007. BEP1 has agreed to pay for any environmental analysis to determine the feasibility of changing the designation.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Reactivate the Super AWOS that has been purchased by BEP1 that will notify pilots using Blythe Airport to avoid direct over flight of the power plant.
F3:
Currently, Wolfe Enterprises has a FCC license to operate a Unicom at the airport on frequency 122.8 Mhz. The City of Blythe has been directed by CEC to install a Super AWOS Unicom at the airport, but does not have an FCC license. In addition, FAA guidelines do not permit two different warning systems operating at an uncontrolled airport. 5
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Conduct an environmental review that has been funded by the BEP1, of the designation of a calm wind runway and/or a change in the traffic- landing pattern at the airport. Report Issued: 06/19/08 Report Public: 06/23/08 Response Due: 09/17/08 6 BEP1 – Runway 26, Blythe Airport (Picture taken January 2003.) 7
Findings & Recommendations
1 findings
F1:
In compliance with California Penal Code §919(b) and in response to a complaint by an inmate, an investigation by the Grand Jury revealed that CRC staff had not properly addressed a request by an inmate for Temporary Community Leave (TCL). Recognizing the limited scope given the Grand Jury by California Penal Code §919(b) “condition and management”, it was determined that the policies and procedure of CRC were not followed by the staff of CRC. The process to initiate TCL, Department of Corrections “Temporary Community Leave Request “ (Form 601) was never initiated as required by departmental policy. 1
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Warden of CRC review and implement their policies and procedures regarding TCL and inmate welfare to ensure proper application by staff. 2
Findings & Recommendations
1 findings
F1:
In compliance with California Penal Code §919(b) and in response to a complaint by an inmate, an investigation by the Grand Jury revealed that CRC staff had not properly addressed a request by an inmate for Temporary Community Leave (TCL). Recognizing the limited scope given the Grand Jury by California Penal Code §919(b) “condition and management”, it was determined that the policies and procedure of CRC were not followed by the staff of CRC. The process to initiate TCL, Department of Corrections “Temporary Community Leave Request “ (Form 601) was never initiated as required by departmental policy. 1
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Warden of CRC review and implement their policies and procedures regarding TCL and inmate welfare to ensure proper application by staff. 2
Findings & Recommendations
11 findings
F1:
The annual fees are disproportionate with the size and financial capability of PVH. The present fees charged by AHM, is approaching a million dollars annually for two executives.
F2:
AHM staff wage rates are not consistent with other hospitals. A wage comparison of hospitals similar in size and location is shown in the following chart. The PVH Registered Nurse (RN) maximum hourly wage is not shown, as there was no maximum listed on the hourly current wage rates. RN HOURLY WAGE RATE 50 45 40 35 30 MAX 25 MIN 20 15 10 5 0 BIG BEAR, CA LA PAZ, AZ PVH BLYTHE,CA HOSPITALS The above wage comparison indicates that PVH’s RN minimum hourly wage rate is higher than either Big Bear or La Paz Hospitals’ maximum hourly wage rate. LVN HOURLY WAGE RATE 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 BIG BEAR, CA LA PAZ, AZ PVH BLYTHE,CA HOSPITALS SETAR EGAW YLRUOH MAX MIN 4 A similar chart shown above for Licensed Vocational Nurses (LVN) at each hospital illustrates the difference in pay for the PVH’s LVNs. Again, the PVH minimum hourly wage rate is higher than the others shown and the maximum hourly wage rate is well above the other hospitals’ maximum. DIRECTOR OF PLANT OPERATIONS 70 60 50 40 MAX 30 MIN 20 10 0 LA PAZ, AZ PVH BLYTHE,CA RCRMC, CA HOSPITALS This practice extends to other job classifications, including Director of Plant Operations, which is a non-medical position. Riverside County Regional Medical Center (RCRMC) has 439 beds compared to PVH, which has only fifty-one beds, and yet the minimum hourly wages of PVH are close to the maximum of RCRMC. The La Paz Hospital hourly wages are more in line with RCRMC.
F3:
The President of the Board has failed in his authority to appoint standing, special, or community ad-hoc committees of non-board members to act as an advisory group to the Board. The function of the standing committees is, if assigned, would be to review: • Budget and business plans; • Personnel matters; • Legal and legislative issues; and • Periodic inspections of the hospital facility to ensure that the hospital meets regulation requirements. 5
F4:
Interviews with existing Board members revealed a lack of understanding of the By-Laws governing the PVHD. This lack of understanding exists in spite of the fact that each elected or appointed Board Director is provided with a training manual. This manual contains the current District and Medical Staff By-Laws, as well as a copy of the Brown Act, and the complete California Health and Safety Codes, Division 23, “The Local Health Care District Law”.
F5:
AHM has failed to respond to some of the doctors’ complaints, as exemplified by assigning nurses with insufficient training for their assigned departments.
F6:
The current Medical Staff By-Laws, Section 6.4-1, requires only an authorized certified member of the medical staff to be the only one to admit patients to the hospital. This section is used by some physicians to withhold the admission of patients, bringing the hospital to near bankruptcy.
F7:
The existing contract between the PVHD and AHM authorizes an automatic five-percent increase in the fees paid to AHM in January of every year. The automatic increase has no performance targets as a requirement to receiving this increase.
F8:
PVHD Board Members receive agenda packets just prior to board meetings, giving them little time to study the financial and operational data, regulatory compliance issues, and previous Board meeting minutes.
F9:
PVHD By-Laws grant the Board primary responsibility on matters of policy. The Board is responsible for the regular review of PVH budgetary and financial matters related to, and including, the annual audit. The Board has relinquished its oversight to AHM. These inactions approach misfeasance.
F10:
The PVH Obstetrics Department was closed in June 2007, as a result of some doctors refusing to admit patients to PVH. Women are currently being transported great distances to other hospitals, putting them at risk. 6
F11:
The lack of hospital services at PVH impacts the nearby prisons, CVSP and ISP. Prisoners with surgical needs are being transported to outlying hospitals in Riverside, Brawley, or San Diego. Each incident requires two vehicles, one for a guard and the prisoners, and a second for back-up guards. ADDED COST TO LOCAL PRISONS 2007-2008 Month AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC JAN $1,000’s 976 421 321 417 567 666 These costs, totaling over $3.3 million annually, do not include the high cost of fuel. Concurrent with these costs to the prisons is a substantial loss of revenue to PVH.
Findings & Recommendations
11 findings
F1:
The annual fees are disproportionate with the size and financial capability of PVH. The present fees charged by AHM, is approaching a million dollars annually for two executives.
F2:
AHM staff wage rates are not consistent with other hospitals. A wage comparison of hospitals similar in size and location is shown in the following chart. The PVH Registered Nurse (RN) maximum hourly wage is not shown, as there was no maximum listed on the hourly current wage rates. RN HOURLY WAGE RATE 50 45 40 35 30 MAX 25 MIN 20 15 10 5 0 BIG BEAR, CA LA PAZ, AZ PVH BLYTHE,CA HOSPITALS The above wage comparison indicates that PVH’s RN minimum hourly wage rate is higher than either Big Bear or La Paz Hospitals’ maximum hourly wage rate. LVN HOURLY WAGE RATE 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 BIG BEAR, CA LA PAZ, AZ PVH BLYTHE,CA HOSPITALS SETAR EGAW YLRUOH MAX MIN 4 A similar chart shown above for Licensed Vocational Nurses (LVN) at each hospital illustrates the difference in pay for the PVH’s LVNs. Again, the PVH minimum hourly wage rate is higher than the others shown and the maximum hourly wage rate is well above the other hospitals’ maximum. DIRECTOR OF PLANT OPERATIONS 70 60 50 40 MAX 30 MIN 20 10 0 LA PAZ, AZ PVH BLYTHE,CA RCRMC, CA HOSPITALS This practice extends to other job classifications, including Director of Plant Operations, which is a non-medical position. Riverside County Regional Medical Center (RCRMC) has 439 beds compared to PVH, which has only fifty-one beds, and yet the minimum hourly wages of PVH are close to the maximum of RCRMC. The La Paz Hospital hourly wages are more in line with RCRMC.
F3:
The President of the Board has failed in his authority to appoint standing, special, or community ad-hoc committees of non-board members to act as an advisory group to the Board. The function of the standing committees is, if assigned, would be to review: • Budget and business plans; • Personnel matters; • Legal and legislative issues; and • Periodic inspections of the hospital facility to ensure that the hospital meets regulation requirements. 5
F4:
Interviews with existing Board members revealed a lack of understanding of the By-Laws governing the PVHD. This lack of understanding exists in spite of the fact that each elected or appointed Board Director is provided with a training manual. This manual contains the current District and Medical Staff By-Laws, as well as a copy of the Brown Act, and the complete California Health and Safety Codes, Division 23, “The Local Health Care District Law”.
F5:
AHM has failed to respond to some of the doctors’ complaints, as exemplified by assigning nurses with insufficient training for their assigned departments.
F6:
The current Medical Staff By-Laws, Section 6.4-1, requires only an authorized certified member of the medical staff to be the only one to admit patients to the hospital. This section is used by some physicians to withhold the admission of patients, bringing the hospital to near bankruptcy.
F7:
The existing contract between the PVHD and AHM authorizes an automatic five-percent increase in the fees paid to AHM in January of every year. The automatic increase has no performance targets as a requirement to receiving this increase.
F8:
PVHD Board Members receive agenda packets just prior to board meetings, giving them little time to study the financial and operational data, regulatory compliance issues, and previous Board meeting minutes.
F9:
PVHD By-Laws grant the Board primary responsibility on matters of policy. The Board is responsible for the regular review of PVH budgetary and financial matters related to, and including, the annual audit. The Board has relinquished its oversight to AHM. These inactions approach misfeasance.
F10:
The PVH Obstetrics Department was closed in June 2007, as a result of some doctors refusing to admit patients to PVH. Women are currently being transported great distances to other hospitals, putting them at risk. 6
F11:
The lack of hospital services at PVH impacts the nearby prisons, CVSP and ISP. Prisoners with surgical needs are being transported to outlying hospitals in Riverside, Brawley, or San Diego. Each incident requires two vehicles, one for a guard and the prisoners, and a second for back-up guards. ADDED COST TO LOCAL PRISONS 2007-2008 Month AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC JAN $1,000’s 976 421 321 417 567 666 These costs, totaling over $3.3 million annually, do not include the high cost of fuel. Concurrent with these costs to the prisons is a substantial loss of revenue to PVH.
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
In March 2008, two dogs died from Parvovirus (Parvo) at the shelter. A common disease fatal to dogs is Parvo, “a genus of viruses that replicates autonomously in suitable cells.” Parvo manifests itself in canines in the form of vomiting and diarrhea that dehydrates the animal. Death almost always follows. Humans, walking throughout the shelter, can have this virus adhere to their footwear and unknowingly spread the virus. The Parvo virus can exist on floors, cages, and clothing for months and can be carried outside the shelter unless disinfected. The AFVAS does not warn visitors of this potential hazard to animals. The state appointed Executive Director, a Humane Officer, stated that a “disinfectant box” should be used. However, it is not being used.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Inform personnel and visitors of the hazard of the Parvo virus by posting signs. Provide a box or platform to disinfect shoes as employees and the public enter and exit the facility. This box must contain disinfectants and germicides such as RX-75 or RX-44 PLUS, both of which have been shown to be effective against Parvo.
F2:
The metal roof above the kennels supports a misting system that provides water mist to keep the larger dogs cool during warm weather. This misting system is attached to the electrical flex conduit that provides electricity to the fluorescent tube fixtures. The fixtures are not designed for outdoor use, and many fluorescent tubes were missing. The misting system has corroded the light fixtures and can possibly cause an electrical short and fire.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Provide a well-lighted and safe facility using approved outdoor waterproof light fixtures.
F3:
During a tour of AFVAS, it was observed that large dogs were restricted from normal movement such as being able to lie down, turn around, and sit normally. The cause of the restriction is a large sleeping box inside the kennel. One dog was sitting on top of his sleeping box because of the lack of room to move.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Provide room for larger dogs by removing the sleeping box and putting down a pad and blanket as weather permits.
F4:
It has been reported that when it rains the AFVAS becomes flooded. Because of poor drainage, it is necessary to sand bag areas and use pumps to drain the water accumulations. The AFVAS grounds become muddy and are dangerous to work in and difficult to safely park a vehicle. • Riverside County Department of Building and Safety, Environmental Compliance Division, recently has been issued a state storm water permit. This permit requires storm water pollution compliance inspections to be conducted at all commercial facilities, including kennels. These inspections began in 2007, and will continue in 2008. No inspection of the AFVAS has been performed as of the date of this report.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Riverside County Department of Building and Safety, Environmental Compliance Division, must, without delay, perform an initial inspection of AFVAS to determine if they are in compliance with all state and local storm water quality requirements. AFVAS management must identify potential and actual sources of pollutants at the AFVAS and insure they do not contaminate nearby waterways that might receive drainage. Correct and redirect drainage to eliminate flooding during the rainy period.
F5:
AFVAS does not have smoke detectors and/or fire alarm systems installed and operating in their trailers. 2
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
Install smoke detectors and a fire alarm system in all structures at AFVAS.
F6:
The entrance to the AFVAS does not have address numbers visible from the street or the parking lot. The address does not register in computer programs, such as Mapquest.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
AFVAS must post an identifying and clearly visible address sign at the street entrance. Report Issued: 06/18/08 Report Public: 06/20/08 Response Due: 09/16/08 3
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
A structure fire occurred on State Highway 243 in Pine Cove on the evening of December 9, 2007. The Cal Fire relief crew at Pine Cove Station #23 was the first responder to the fire. The firefighters did not immediately utilize the engine’s on-board computer and initially were unable to locate the nearest fire hydrant. This confusion led to a PCWD employee being unnecessarily called out to help locate the hydrant. 1
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Cal Fire Battalion Chief for the Pine Cove station must review the procedure to ensure assigned personnel and relief crews are proficient in the use of the engine’s on-board computer in locating fire hydrants in the Pine Cove area.
F2:
On the night of the structure fire, a Cal Fire, off-duty firefighter, called the PCWD and requested the assistance of a water district employee to aid in locating the nearest hydrant. The firefighter made this call from his home, based upon information he had gleaned listening to a scanner radio. The call to the PCWD was made without first confirming the need for assistance from the on-scene Incident Commander.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Cal Fire must ensure personnel understand that no community service agencies are to be contacted for assistance unless authorized by the on- scene Incident Commander or other recognized authority. 2
F3:
A PCWD employee responded to the request for assistance at the structure fire that night. When approaching the fire scene, he drove over a charged fire hose without authorization. This is a violation of California Vehicle Code §21708.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Manager of the PCWD must instruct all employees regarding the California Vehicle Codes §21707 - §21709, pertaining to vehicle operation around fire hoses and safety zones. Employees must be instructed not to proceed into an incident safety zone without authorization by an on-scene fire or police authority.
F4:
The PCWD employee responded to the incident in his personal vehicle rather than his assigned district vehicle. This was not a violation of PCWD policy. However, his personal vehicle had no marking designating it as a district vehicle and also had no flashing amber light to be displayed when parked at the scene of an emergency.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
PCWD must develop a policy requiring the use of district vehicles when responding to emergency situations. PCWD must install a permanent or portable amber light on all district vehicles. PCWD must provide to designated employees, a portable flashing amber light and a magnetic sign, to be displayed, if due to an emergency, they use their personal vehicle.
F5:
At the time of the Pine Cove fire incident, the Idyllwild Fire Department laid a fire hose across the road. This hose was poorly marked and not easily visible to on-coming traffic.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The Idyllwild Fire Department must critique this incident and further define their procedure for marking a fire hose crossing a road to ensure it is visible to on-coming traffic. This will increase the safety factor for all personnel and equipment involved in the incident.
F6:
An Idyllwild firefighter, on that night, threw a trash can and hit the personal vehicle of the PCWD employee who had just driven over the fire hose. This firefighter’s action resulted in damage to the employee’s vehicle and a verbal confrontation with the district employee. Throwing an object at a moving vehicle is a misdemeanor violation of California Vehicle Code §23110.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
The Idyllwild Fire Chief must instruct department personnel in the legal aspects of their actions, both physical and verbal, toward others and their personal property, while on duty. Report Issued: 06/25/08 Report Public: 06/27/08 Response Due: 09/23/08 3
Findings & Recommendations
10 findings
F1:
Audits: California Government Code §26909 requires special districts to submit annual audited financial statements to the County Auditor-Controller. Information obtained from the District’s management personnel revealed that “due to inadequate management practices, incomplete and mismanaged accounting records, outdated and unusable computer software, and unqualified accounting personnel, the District has not submitted audited financial statements for the years 2004, 2005, and 2006”. On June 12, 2007, the Riverside County Auditor-Controller (RCAC) sent a letter to the District regarding the overdue audited financial statements for the subject years. The District did not reply. RCAC sent a second letter in October 2007, to inform the District that RCAC would perform the audits if financial statements were not received in their office by December 31, 2007. The RCAC, General Manager and Legal Counsel for the District met in October 2007 to develop a work plan (see Board Minutes of November 8, 2007).
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Audits: The Board must immediately eliminate obstacles and comply with Government Code §26909 requiring annual audits. Specifically, replace outdated and unusable accounting software, keep accounting software current, and hire qualified accounting personnel. RCAC take appropriate action with the District for failure to comply with Government Code §26909.
F2:
Unpaid Invoices: Review of records, invoices, and sworn testimony revealed that the District owes $3,073,410 to a local engineering firm. The unpaid invoices number approximately 428 and cover a period from April 2004 through October
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Unpaid Invoices: The Board must develop policies and procedures for ensuring timely payment of invoices from vendors and contractors. A list or ledger of unpaid invoices must be provided to the Board for review at their monthly meeting. The policy should include steps to be taken when an invoice is in dispute. Establish a time frame for payment. Invoices in excess of $1,000 go to the full Board of Directors for review.
F3:
Brown Act: The minutes of the Board Meeting of November 14, 2007, pages 3938 and 3939, revealed the Board’s admission of violations of the Brown Act. The following are examples: • On October 11, 2006, a substantial raise in salary for the General Manager was discussed and approved in closed session of the Board meeting. Investigation revealed that in that meeting, the General Manager requested an increase in salary to $177,648 that he wanted as part of his new contract. The General Manager’s salary increased 97% in two years. The Board discussed and voted for approval of the salary increase in closed session. This salary increase should have been voted on and disclosure made in open session. 2 • A change of leadership occurred at a Board meeting on October 10, 2007, and 3911. The outcome of the change was well known by the public prior to the meeting indicating an agreement had already been made by some Board members, and it had leaked to the public. This is evidenced by public comments made at the meeting prior to the agenda item coming to the floor. The public indicated they knew in advance that the current president and vice president were going to be replaced and were in disagreement with the action that was yet to take place. • Legal counsel reported that agreements had been reviewed for four housing units belonging to the District. The review dated back to the year 2000 and that there were amendments made to these agreements in 2004 and 2006, in closed session, without Board approval or public comment. Reference the Board Minutes of December 12, 2007, .
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Brown Act: The Ralph M. Brown Act, of 1953, requires public bodies to give 72-hours notice of their meetings in advance, hold them publicly, and deliberate and vote on most issues in a public forum. When the Board is in doubt whether or not an issue or circumstance may be violating the Brown Act, they must seek legal advice in advance of acting.
F4:
The District misused public funds. The following are examples: Education and Training: • Over $4,000 of District funds was paid for an employee, who is also the son of a management official, to attend pre-requisite courses leading to a degree in Civil Engineering, prior to executing a contract to cover the agreement. While attending school he is allowed to work hours ranging from 8 to 40 per week, while receiving full-time salary and benefits. The General Manager and the employee signed a contract in April 2007, without approval of the Board or public knowledge. Payment of these expenses is a violation of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated 2006-
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The District Misused Public Funds Education and Training: The Board must establish District policy concerning reimbursement of training and education expenses contained in the District’s MOU. Discontinue payment of the educational expenses for employees who do not meet the conditions contained in the District’s MOU. Require reimbursement from the employees for all non-job related courses and expenses. If an engineer is required, the District must contract for a qualified engineer to perform the engineering duties. Travel and Training • The Board must implement a policy for the General Manager to follow in the selection of employees for training. The criteria for selection of an employee to attend a conference must be made objectively, and established in advance. Training should be to qualify, and develop employees, not for performance recognition. • International and out-of-state travel should require Board approval before the fact. District Housing: The Board must follow the IRS code as written in publication 15-B “Employer’s Tax to Fringe benefits” (for use in 2008). The District employees’ families must be removed from the District houses due to dangers of fire and flood. Delinquent Customers: The Board must establish a written policy in dealing with delinquent accounts and ensure the policy is followed equitably, showing no favoritism. The Board must establish safeguards and take action when a customer, residential or commercial, becomes delinquent in paying their water bill. District Credit Card: Adopt a credit card policy similar to the Riverside County Board of Supervisors’ policy A-62. Use of credit cards must not be used to conduct staff meetings at local restaurants at the cost of taxpayers.
F5:
Contracts: • The District does not have a written policy or procedure for obtaining Board approval for awarding of contracts. The practices of awarding and obtaining Board approval for contracts are inconsistent. Requests for proposals are issued for contracts involving, for example, Zone Tanks and Outfitting Wells, but not for landscaping and building contracts. • The District has an open-ended landscape agreement, dated August 2006, with a landscaping firm, the owner of which is the father of one of the District’s senior management officials, to landscape approximately 10-acres at the District’s 80-acre Recharge Facility, excluding cost of materials. From August 2006 to December 2007, the District paid the landscaping firm a cumulative amount of $1,627,325. • At the regular Board meeting of November 8, 2006, , a statement from the General Manager was recorded that this landscaping firm was the low bidder. The General Manager indicated a labor contract was negotiated with this landscaping firm to avoid paying prevailing wages. Investigation led to the fact that there was no Request for Proposals sent out by the District and no bids were received for the landscaping of the Recharge Facility. The District leased employees and equipment from the landscaping firm. 5 • A contract was issued on December 14, 2005, to an architectural firm for consulting services for the remodel/new construction of the District’s administration building. The minutes of the regular meeting of the Board on June 8, 2005, the Board approved a Master Plan for the building and, when asked if the project would go out to public bid, management replied in the affirmative. However, no competitive bidding occurred. Public Contract Code Section 20561 does not require public bidding when approved by the Board in advance, however, Board approval was not given. The Board did approve $1,500 for a Proposed Master Plan, $1,000 for a Master Plan and retainer of $37,000 for Phases I and II. The preliminary cost estimates were $2,743,675. Due to the discovery of unsafe conditions in the building to be remodeled, the scope of the work changed from remodel to new construction. The architectural firm said the cost would be different. A new contract was not issued and the new cost is unknown. • Under the architectural firm’s original contract of December 7, 2005, Phase III states in part: Bidding and Negotiation: a. Supply bidding Construction Documents to the various Plan Check rooms; b. Answer, in writing, all General Contractor Request for information questions, issue all project addendums; c. Assist Beaumont-Cherry Valley Water District with the Public Bidding process and review the General Contractor’s bidding forms and submittals; and d. Attend and Chair the Project bid Opening Meeting. Public bidding did not occur in the selection of the general contractor or any of the numerous subcontractors. • At a Special Board Meeting on April 30, 2008, the cost of the new administration building was reported to be between $3.8 and $4 million. However, review of invoices submitted for payment by contractors and sub-contractors, revealed a conservative estimate for the cost of the building is $5.3 million. 6
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
Contracts: The Board must develop policies and procedures for awarding contracts and competitive bidding for large expenditures over $10,000 to be approved by the Board prior to issue, such as the construction of the District’s administration building. The Public Contract Code must be followed in word and spirit, allowing for fair competition in bidding among vendors and contractors, avoiding the appearance of favoritism, and rendering the greatest potential value. The General Manager must not assume ‘carte blanche’ status and must request guidance from the Board. 10
F6:
Investments: • The Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) is the only investment account in which the District participates. In May 2007, the closing balance for the month was $8,589,322.39. As of April 2008, the closing balance was $2,104,228.93, a difference of $6,485,093.46. There is no policy and procedure concerning District investments and the Board does not review the existing investment on a regular basis.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
Investments: The Board must develop policies and procedures for District investment programs, including regular review by the Board, and discussed at public meetings. The Board must recognize the downward financial spiral and control spending.
F7:
Nepotism: The District has a conspicuous presence of nepotism within the organization. Interviews revealed that nepotism has promoted an erosion of confidence within the District and the community regarding the integrity and efficiency of the Board, management, and its’ employees. Investigation revealed that most other water districts such as Rancho California Water District, Metropolitan Water District, and Eastern Municipal Water District, have a clear policy of no nepotism. Examples of nepotism: • A married couple working under the same supervisor with access to District funds. • A father supervising his son. • A father who is a superintendent and a son who is receiving a paid education.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
Nepotism: The Board must develop and implement a policy that will prevent any future nepotism within the District.
F8:
Conflict of Duties and Errors: • The General Manager serves as Secretary and Treasurer to the Board and attends all closed meetings. This arrangement adds to the current atmosphere of mistrust that exists between the Board and the General Manager, see pages 3 and 6 of The Governance Report of November 14, 2007. This report was requested by the Board and District Manager to attempt to achieve an effective working relationship. In addition, the General Manager has neglected his Treasurer role by not recognizing numerous accounting errors made by staff personnel and failing to provide annual audits to the RCAC. Complaints from the public and within the Board have been made that meetings are too lengthy due to the many questions, explanations, and corrections being made. Reference minutes of the regular meeting of the Board of February 13, 2008, , and August 22, 2007, . • The General Manager does not always respond to Board members’ requests for inclusion of agenda items to the agenda, even when submitted on time. As of February 13, 2008, as recorded in the minutes, the Board members are not now allowed to request inclusion of agenda item to a Board’s agenda.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
Conflict of Duties and Errors: • The Board must maintain a separation of powers when selecting a Secretary and Treasurer. For this reason the General Manager should not serve in either of these capacities. The selectee for either of these positions must not be an employee of the District. The duties and responsibilities of these positions should be spelled out in a Board policy manual. • Planning agenda for Board meetings is the joint responsibility of the General Manager and the Board. Board members must be allowed to place topics on the agenda of their own meeting.
F9:
Policies and Procedures Manual: A Riverside County Grand Jury Report of 1998, recommended development of a policies and procedures manual. When the policies and procedures manual was requested on or about November 2, 2007, by the current Grand Jury, the District’s General Manager reported that they did not have a policies and procedures manual. On or about November 30, 2007, the Grand Jury, received the manual in the mail from the District without explanation. An interview revealed that the manual, dated 1998, was found and given, anonymously, to a Board director, see minutes of the regular Board meeting November 2007, . The Board and management have operated independently without access to their own policies and procedures and without updating or revising them since approximately January 2000.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
Policies and Procedures Manual: The Board must demonstrate that their operations conform to all statutes and regulations under state law, as reflected in their policies and procedures manual. Policies and procedures must focus on governance, ethics, Board conduct, conflict of interest, district finances, and reserves. This list is not all-inclusive. The 1998 policy and procedure manual has been available for eight years. It is recommended that a complete review be made by the Board to update, change and abide by the policies. The manual should be updated by the General Manager, reviewed by the District’s legal counsel, and voted on by the Board for approval and implementation. 11
F10:
Board/Employee Training: A District employee wrongly accused a Board Director of harassment. Harassment is a form of discrimination that violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended. It is defined as unwelcome conduct that is based on race, color, sex, religion, national origin, disability, and/or age. The District’s harassment policy adopted August 1998 contains further definitions, guidelines and procedures for filing a complaint. The Director’s conduct did not meet the criteria of these directives. The District’s policy states, “all communications regarding any type of harassment are to be kept in strict confidence.” It further states, “each allegation of harassment will be thoroughly and confidentially investigated by the General Manager and will include a written statement from the alleged harasser”. The General Manager did not keep the communications of the alleged harassment in confidence and did not obtain a written statement from the Director; rather he requested that the complaint be read in a public meeting and required the Director to make a public apology. 8
Related Recommendations (1)
R10:
Board/Employee Training: The Board should institute an annual training program for key management personnel and the review of all policies and procedures including discrimination and harassment procedures. Review the policies that employees must follow when filing a complaint to the General Manager. The General Manager must keep complaints confidential. The General Manager must deal with the Board in a positive and respectful manner and within appropriate time limits. Report Issued: 06/23/08 Report Public: 06/25/08 Response Due: 09/22/08 12
Findings & Recommendations
10 findings
F1:
Audits: California Government Code §26909 requires special districts to submit annual audited financial statements to the County Auditor-Controller. Information obtained from the District’s management personnel revealed that “due to inadequate management practices, incomplete and mismanaged accounting records, outdated and unusable computer software, and unqualified accounting personnel, the District has not submitted audited financial statements for the years 2004, 2005, and 2006”. On June 12, 2007, the Riverside County Auditor-Controller (RCAC) sent a letter to the District regarding the overdue audited financial statements for the subject years. The District did not reply. RCAC sent a second letter in October 2007, to inform the District that RCAC would perform the audits if financial statements were not received in their office by December 31, 2007. The RCAC, General Manager and Legal Counsel for the District met in October 2007 to develop a work plan (see Board Minutes of November 8, 2007).
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Audits: The Board must immediately eliminate obstacles and comply with Government Code §26909 requiring annual audits. Specifically, replace outdated and unusable accounting software, keep accounting software current, and hire qualified accounting personnel. RCAC take appropriate action with the District for failure to comply with Government Code §26909.
F2:
Unpaid Invoices: Review of records, invoices, and sworn testimony revealed that the District owes $3,073,410 to a local engineering firm. The unpaid invoices number approximately 428 and cover a period from April 2004 through October
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Unpaid Invoices: The Board must develop policies and procedures for ensuring timely payment of invoices from vendors and contractors. A list or ledger of unpaid invoices must be provided to the Board for review at their monthly meeting. The policy should include steps to be taken when an invoice is in dispute. Establish a time frame for payment. Invoices in excess of $1,000 go to the full Board of Directors for review.
F3:
Brown Act: The minutes of the Board Meeting of November 14, 2007, pages 3938 and 3939, revealed the Board’s admission of violations of the Brown Act. The following are examples: • On October 11, 2006, a substantial raise in salary for the General Manager was discussed and approved in closed session of the Board meeting. Investigation revealed that in that meeting, the General Manager requested an increase in salary to $177,648 that he wanted as part of his new contract. The General Manager’s salary increased 97% in two years. The Board discussed and voted for approval of the salary increase in closed session. This salary increase should have been voted on and disclosure made in open session. 2 • A change of leadership occurred at a Board meeting on October 10, 2007, and 3911. The outcome of the change was well known by the public prior to the meeting indicating an agreement had already been made by some Board members, and it had leaked to the public. This is evidenced by public comments made at the meeting prior to the agenda item coming to the floor. The public indicated they knew in advance that the current president and vice president were going to be replaced and were in disagreement with the action that was yet to take place. • Legal counsel reported that agreements had been reviewed for four housing units belonging to the District. The review dated back to the year 2000 and that there were amendments made to these agreements in 2004 and 2006, in closed session, without Board approval or public comment. Reference the Board Minutes of December 12, 2007, .
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Brown Act: The Ralph M. Brown Act, of 1953, requires public bodies to give 72-hours notice of their meetings in advance, hold them publicly, and deliberate and vote on most issues in a public forum. When the Board is in doubt whether or not an issue or circumstance may be violating the Brown Act, they must seek legal advice in advance of acting.
F4:
The District misused public funds. The following are examples: Education and Training: • Over $4,000 of District funds was paid for an employee, who is also the son of a management official, to attend pre-requisite courses leading to a degree in Civil Engineering, prior to executing a contract to cover the agreement. While attending school he is allowed to work hours ranging from 8 to 40 per week, while receiving full-time salary and benefits. The General Manager and the employee signed a contract in April 2007, without approval of the Board or public knowledge. Payment of these expenses is a violation of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated 2006-
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The District Misused Public Funds Education and Training: The Board must establish District policy concerning reimbursement of training and education expenses contained in the District’s MOU. Discontinue payment of the educational expenses for employees who do not meet the conditions contained in the District’s MOU. Require reimbursement from the employees for all non-job related courses and expenses. If an engineer is required, the District must contract for a qualified engineer to perform the engineering duties. Travel and Training • The Board must implement a policy for the General Manager to follow in the selection of employees for training. The criteria for selection of an employee to attend a conference must be made objectively, and established in advance. Training should be to qualify, and develop employees, not for performance recognition. • International and out-of-state travel should require Board approval before the fact. District Housing: The Board must follow the IRS code as written in publication 15-B “Employer’s Tax to Fringe benefits” (for use in 2008). The District employees’ families must be removed from the District houses due to dangers of fire and flood. Delinquent Customers: The Board must establish a written policy in dealing with delinquent accounts and ensure the policy is followed equitably, showing no favoritism. The Board must establish safeguards and take action when a customer, residential or commercial, becomes delinquent in paying their water bill. District Credit Card: Adopt a credit card policy similar to the Riverside County Board of Supervisors’ policy A-62. Use of credit cards must not be used to conduct staff meetings at local restaurants at the cost of taxpayers.
F5:
Contracts: • The District does not have a written policy or procedure for obtaining Board approval for awarding of contracts. The practices of awarding and obtaining Board approval for contracts are inconsistent. Requests for proposals are issued for contracts involving, for example, Zone Tanks and Outfitting Wells, but not for landscaping and building contracts. • The District has an open-ended landscape agreement, dated August 2006, with a landscaping firm, the owner of which is the father of one of the District’s senior management officials, to landscape approximately 10-acres at the District’s 80-acre Recharge Facility, excluding cost of materials. From August 2006 to December 2007, the District paid the landscaping firm a cumulative amount of $1,627,325. • At the regular Board meeting of November 8, 2006, , a statement from the General Manager was recorded that this landscaping firm was the low bidder. The General Manager indicated a labor contract was negotiated with this landscaping firm to avoid paying prevailing wages. Investigation led to the fact that there was no Request for Proposals sent out by the District and no bids were received for the landscaping of the Recharge Facility. The District leased employees and equipment from the landscaping firm. 5 • A contract was issued on December 14, 2005, to an architectural firm for consulting services for the remodel/new construction of the District’s administration building. The minutes of the regular meeting of the Board on June 8, 2005, the Board approved a Master Plan for the building and, when asked if the project would go out to public bid, management replied in the affirmative. However, no competitive bidding occurred. Public Contract Code Section 20561 does not require public bidding when approved by the Board in advance, however, Board approval was not given. The Board did approve $1,500 for a Proposed Master Plan, $1,000 for a Master Plan and retainer of $37,000 for Phases I and II. The preliminary cost estimates were $2,743,675. Due to the discovery of unsafe conditions in the building to be remodeled, the scope of the work changed from remodel to new construction. The architectural firm said the cost would be different. A new contract was not issued and the new cost is unknown. • Under the architectural firm’s original contract of December 7, 2005, Phase III states in part: Bidding and Negotiation: a. Supply bidding Construction Documents to the various Plan Check rooms; b. Answer, in writing, all General Contractor Request for information questions, issue all project addendums; c. Assist Beaumont-Cherry Valley Water District with the Public Bidding process and review the General Contractor’s bidding forms and submittals; and d. Attend and Chair the Project bid Opening Meeting. Public bidding did not occur in the selection of the general contractor or any of the numerous subcontractors. • At a Special Board Meeting on April 30, 2008, the cost of the new administration building was reported to be between $3.8 and $4 million. However, review of invoices submitted for payment by contractors and sub-contractors, revealed a conservative estimate for the cost of the building is $5.3 million. 6
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
Contracts: The Board must develop policies and procedures for awarding contracts and competitive bidding for large expenditures over $10,000 to be approved by the Board prior to issue, such as the construction of the District’s administration building. The Public Contract Code must be followed in word and spirit, allowing for fair competition in bidding among vendors and contractors, avoiding the appearance of favoritism, and rendering the greatest potential value. The General Manager must not assume ‘carte blanche’ status and must request guidance from the Board. 10
F6:
Investments: • The Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) is the only investment account in which the District participates. In May 2007, the closing balance for the month was $8,589,322.39. As of April 2008, the closing balance was $2,104,228.93, a difference of $6,485,093.46. There is no policy and procedure concerning District investments and the Board does not review the existing investment on a regular basis.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
Investments: The Board must develop policies and procedures for District investment programs, including regular review by the Board, and discussed at public meetings. The Board must recognize the downward financial spiral and control spending.
F7:
Nepotism: The District has a conspicuous presence of nepotism within the organization. Interviews revealed that nepotism has promoted an erosion of confidence within the District and the community regarding the integrity and efficiency of the Board, management, and its’ employees. Investigation revealed that most other water districts such as Rancho California Water District, Metropolitan Water District, and Eastern Municipal Water District, have a clear policy of no nepotism. Examples of nepotism: • A married couple working under the same supervisor with access to District funds. • A father supervising his son. • A father who is a superintendent and a son who is receiving a paid education.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
Nepotism: The Board must develop and implement a policy that will prevent any future nepotism within the District.
F8:
Conflict of Duties and Errors: • The General Manager serves as Secretary and Treasurer to the Board and attends all closed meetings. This arrangement adds to the current atmosphere of mistrust that exists between the Board and the General Manager, see pages 3 and 6 of The Governance Report of November 14, 2007. This report was requested by the Board and District Manager to attempt to achieve an effective working relationship. In addition, the General Manager has neglected his Treasurer role by not recognizing numerous accounting errors made by staff personnel and failing to provide annual audits to the RCAC. Complaints from the public and within the Board have been made that meetings are too lengthy due to the many questions, explanations, and corrections being made. Reference minutes of the regular meeting of the Board of February 13, 2008, , and August 22, 2007, . • The General Manager does not always respond to Board members’ requests for inclusion of agenda items to the agenda, even when submitted on time. As of February 13, 2008, as recorded in the minutes, the Board members are not now allowed to request inclusion of agenda item to a Board’s agenda.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
Conflict of Duties and Errors: • The Board must maintain a separation of powers when selecting a Secretary and Treasurer. For this reason the General Manager should not serve in either of these capacities. The selectee for either of these positions must not be an employee of the District. The duties and responsibilities of these positions should be spelled out in a Board policy manual. • Planning agenda for Board meetings is the joint responsibility of the General Manager and the Board. Board members must be allowed to place topics on the agenda of their own meeting.
F9:
Policies and Procedures Manual: A Riverside County Grand Jury Report of 1998, recommended development of a policies and procedures manual. When the policies and procedures manual was requested on or about November 2, 2007, by the current Grand Jury, the District’s General Manager reported that they did not have a policies and procedures manual. On or about November 30, 2007, the Grand Jury, received the manual in the mail from the District without explanation. An interview revealed that the manual, dated 1998, was found and given, anonymously, to a Board director, see minutes of the regular Board meeting November 2007, . The Board and management have operated independently without access to their own policies and procedures and without updating or revising them since approximately January 2000.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
Policies and Procedures Manual: The Board must demonstrate that their operations conform to all statutes and regulations under state law, as reflected in their policies and procedures manual. Policies and procedures must focus on governance, ethics, Board conduct, conflict of interest, district finances, and reserves. This list is not all-inclusive. The 1998 policy and procedure manual has been available for eight years. It is recommended that a complete review be made by the Board to update, change and abide by the policies. The manual should be updated by the General Manager, reviewed by the District’s legal counsel, and voted on by the Board for approval and implementation. 11
F10:
Board/Employee Training: A District employee wrongly accused a Board Director of harassment. Harassment is a form of discrimination that violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended. It is defined as unwelcome conduct that is based on race, color, sex, religion, national origin, disability, and/or age. The District’s harassment policy adopted August 1998 contains further definitions, guidelines and procedures for filing a complaint. The Director’s conduct did not meet the criteria of these directives. The District’s policy states, “all communications regarding any type of harassment are to be kept in strict confidence.” It further states, “each allegation of harassment will be thoroughly and confidentially investigated by the General Manager and will include a written statement from the alleged harasser”. The General Manager did not keep the communications of the alleged harassment in confidence and did not obtain a written statement from the Director; rather he requested that the complaint be read in a public meeting and required the Director to make a public apology. 8
Related Recommendations (1)
R10:
Board/Employee Training: The Board should institute an annual training program for key management personnel and the review of all policies and procedures including discrimination and harassment procedures. Review the policies that employees must follow when filing a complaint to the General Manager. The General Manager must keep complaints confidential. The General Manager must deal with the Board in a positive and respectful manner and within appropriate time limits. Report Issued: 06/23/08 Report Public: 06/25/08 Response Due: 09/22/08 12
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
10 findings
F1:
On October 10, 2006, an incident occurred regarding a sick child at the Idyllwild School (K-8). After calling ‘911’, the school could not produce the current school year parental consent form. The school requested the sick child be transported to a hospital by Idyllwild Fire Department ambulance and paramedics. 2
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Idyllwild School must develop and implement a safeguard procedure to ensure they have signed parental consent forms on file for the current school year for all students attending the school.
F2:
Idyllwild Fire Department paramedics responded to a ‘911’ call concerning the sick child at the Idyllwild School. Paramedics refused to transport the child to the hospital, as requested by the school principal who was in contact with the Hemet Unified School District nurse. The decision not to transport was made by paramedics without contacting an approved base or receiving hospital. Riverside County EMS Policy 5500 requires contact with a hospital base station before field personnel can clear a call. A written memorandum from EMS dated July 17, 2007, to paramedic provider agencies and hospitals regarding ‘medical clearance’ of patients in the field, further enforces this policy.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The fire department must, in future cases involving pediatric patients where there is any question or disagreement on transport, contact a base station for direction. If no contact can be made, they must follow county EMS policy as, reinforced in an EMS memorandum dated July 17, 2007, and transport the patient. This practice will reduce both the health and liability risks to the patient and the fire department.
F3:
A scheduled meeting between the principal of the Idyllwild School, members of the Hemet Unified School District, and the Fire Chief for the Idyllwild Fire Department concerning the transporting of a sick child has not yet taken place. Several meetings were scheduled, however, for various reasons these meetings were cancelled by the Fire Chief, and not rescheduled by him.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Both the Fire Chief and the Principal of the Idyllwild School must schedule a meeting. This meeting is necessary to formulate a joint policy on when, and by whose authority; a sick or injured student will be transported by ambulance to the hospital or emergency treatment center. In addition to the Fire Chief and the Principal of the school, other designated attendees must include representatives of the Hemet Unified School District and the President of the Idyllwild Fire District Commission.
F4:
The Grand Jury has determined, through a series of interviews, that members of the fire department and commission have attempted various forms of intimidation. The attempted intimidation occurred against individuals who spoke out against the department, department policy, or certain members of the fire department. The following examples were obtained during sworn testimony: • Members of the public have expressed that they felt intimidated at the Fire Commission Meetings due to the number of uniformed fire department personnel in attendance at a given meeting. Fire department personnel also made intimidating statements to attendees during and after the meeting. • Members of the public have stated they felt intimidated by fire department vehicles repeatedly parking in front or near their homes or businesses for long periods of time and for no apparent reason. • A business owner has testified that he felt threatened regarding actions taken over an on-going easement issue with the fire department, concerning access by fire apparatus.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The Fire Commission must direct the Fire Chief to conduct specific training sessions for fire department personnel to ensure understanding and compliance with department policy on interactions and relations with the public. Also, the fire department personnel and Commission members must remember that they are servants of the public and always conduct themselves in a professional manner, which reflects positively on themselves and the department.
F5:
The Idyllwild Fire Department has conducted practice burns without first obtaining a ‘burn control number’ from the South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD). This constitutes a violation of AQMD Rule 444, amended December 21, 2001. They also burned a vehicle in the spring of 2007, which is also a violation of AQMD policy. AQMD does not authorize a practice burn of any vehicle. 3
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The fire department must review current AQMD Policies and Procedures to ensure that they are in compliance with all policies and directives regarding practice burns.
F6:
At the October 23, 2007 Board Meeting, the IFPD Board violated the Brown Act, Section 54957(b)(i), by discussing the Fire Chief’s contract relating to compensation in closed session. The Brown Act only allows discussion in closed session of “the appointment, employment, evaluation of performance, discipline, or dismissal of a public employee”.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
The Commission members must review the Brown Act to ensure compliance at all future meetings. If the Commission has any questions regarding the Brown Act, they must confer with legal counsel prior to conducting the meeting. 5
F7:
The Grand Jury learned, from testimony given by several expert witnesses, that due to the size of the department and the low volume of medical calls, it is difficult for the paramedics at the Idyllwild Fire Department to maintain their clinical assessment skills.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
The fire department must establish a program with local hospital emergency rooms for their paramedics to work with doctors and nurses to maintain and improve their clinical assessment skills. A second option would be to implement ‘ride alongs’ with busier departments to observe and assist with various medical emergency intervention procedures.
F8:
The Idyllwild Fire Department does not have a skilled grant writer, making it difficult to apply for the various grants available.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
The fire department must identify an individual as their grant writer and send that individual to one or more of the various classes available on grant writing in order to maximize their potential for receiving grant monies.
F9:
The fire department has been remiss in their security and validation of documents and records, as evidenced by the following examples: • A former member of the fire department was accused of having falsified certifications, which were signed by the chief, but were dated prior to the chief’s employment by the fire department. • Another member of the fire department was accused of removing documents from the department and releasing them to a third party. A police report was filed on this incident.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
The Commission, working together with the Fire Chief, must develop policies and procedures to ensure the security of all department documents and records. The president of the board must appoint a committee of at least two board members, who, with the Chief, would verify all certifications of department personnel to guarantee that they are authentic and current. The committee will report, in open session, the results of this inspection to the Commission. The commission must intensify its efforts to ensure that fire department personnel are compliant with their state and county certifications.
F10:
The fire department currently exists as an individual entity in a high fire risk area otherwise serviced by several county, state, and federal fire resources. This results in the need for numerous mutual aide incidents, both fire and medical, which can lead to a more complex response effort. This complexity adds a further element of risk for the residents of the mountain communities when a major emergency occurs. 4
Related Recommendations (1)
R10:
The IFPD Commission, in conjunction with Riverside County Fire, Riverside County EMS, and representatives of CSA 38, must explore the feasibility of all fire and medical aide services in the Idyllwild / Pine Cove area being combined under one agency, Riverside County Fire Department. Report Issued: 06/25/08 Report Public: 06/27/08 Response Due: 09/23/08 6
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F1:
Board Minutes show that during fiscal year 2006-2007, an Academy Board Member, who should have recused him/herself, voted to approve warrants, which resulted in direct financial benefit to two family members. One family member received warrants totaling $5,499 and the other member received a warrant in the amount of $22,000. In addition, the Board Member voted to approve warrant payments totaling $77,190 to a fee-based non-profit organization in which the Board Member is a corporate officer. The Board Member actions are in direct violation of Article VII, Section II – Self Dealing of the Academy Bylaws, that states: “No individual shall vote on any issue, motion or resolution which directly or indirectly inures to his or her benefit financially except as permitted by law. For purposes of California non-profit corporations law applicable to public benefit corporation, a conflicted director must first disclose the nature of his or her interest, and thereafter may be counted in order to qualify a quorum and may participate in the discussion (but not the voting) of such issue, motion or resolution, all as subject to 5230 eq seq. of the California Corporation Code or any successor statute.” Furthermore, the Board Member’s action was also in violation of the Conflict of Interest Code. Board Policy 07-05-3, Articles III specifies Board Members as “designated employees”. Article V states that: “No designated employee shall make, participate in, or try to use his/her position to influence a Charter School decision which he/she knows or has reason to know will have a reasonably material financial effect, distinguishable from its effect on the public generally, on the official member of his or her immediate family.”
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Board must comply immediately with Article VIII, Section II – Self Dealing of the Academy’s Bylaws and Conflict of Interest Code, Board Policy 07-05.3.
F2:
On June 6, 2006, the Academy Principal terminated the services of the Parent Advisory Council (PAC) Volunteer Coordinator. On June 12, 2007, the Board dissolved the PAC as well as the School Advisory Committee (SAC) and attempted to replace both parental involvement committees with a Parent Teacher Association (PTA). However, the President of the 23rd District PTA in Riverside County declined to organize a PTA unit at the Academy, due to “lack of cohesive leadership team for the unit, and need for inclusiveness amongst those who may serve as PTA Officers and 2 Chairman”. The Board action is in violation of Section 4 of the Academy’s Charter, that states: “We will use multiple means to ensure parental involvement. First, parents will be represented on the school’s Governing Board, Second, parents will be included on a Parent Advisory Council and a School Advisory Committee, ensuring a voice on important school decisions.”
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Board must reinstate PAC and SAC and restore parental involvement as required by Section 4 of the Academy Charter in order to ensure that parents have a voice on important school decisions.
F3:
In March 2007, two Board Members, one Administrator and two Teachers, attended an off-site charter school conference. Expenses for this conference were not paid with the Academy’s business credit card, which had a limit of $1,000. A Board Member paid the conference expenses with a non-affiliated business credit card from a non-profit corporation in which the Board Member serves as a corporate officer. This transaction is substantiated by a reimbursement warrant.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Board Members must immediately discontinue the practice of using personal or non-affiliated business credit cards to pay Academy business expenses. Additionally, the Board must immediately authorize the Business Manager to obtain an increase for the Academy’s credit card and develop a policy and procedure for its use, including a list of approved users. Any Board Member who has enriched themselves or any organization they control through self-dealing and use of non-Academy credit card, must account for any profits made from such transactions and repay the Academy.
F4:
Board Minutes reveal that Board Members, whose terms are expiring, participated in the discussion and voted on their new term of office. A San Jacinto Unified School District Report, dated October 19, 2007, states that “Good judgment would suggest that the individual member abstain while the board voted on his or her new term”.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Amend By-Laws to state that a Board Member whose term of office is expiring must recuse themselves from any discussion or voting on their reappointment to the Board.
F5:
Even though the Riverside County Office of Education and San Jacinto Unified School District performed their minimum statutory oversight responsibilities, our review of the Academy’s management practices through documents and interviews indicate misuse of public funds. The following examples are cited: • An unlicensed landscape contractor, who is related to a Board Member, was paid $70,000 to install the lawn in the quad area for elementary grade level children. • A Board Member made purchases on behalf of the Academy with a non-affiliated business credit card belonging to another organization. The Board Member then personally charged the Academy an 8.5% administration fee for the use of the card, while also receiving a rebate on the purchase from the credit card company. Payment for the administration fee and rebate were made to the non-affiliated business organization in which that Board Member is a corporate officer. 3 • A purchase request dated December 21, 2006, for $1,225 was approved to buy gift cards for the Board and staff members in violation of Article XVI, Section 6 of the California Constitution. An incorrect expense code was used for this transaction.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The Riverside County Office of Education and the San Jacinto Unified School District intensify its oversight responsibility by: a. The Riverside County Office of Education as authorized by California Education Code §1241.5(c) conduct a focused audit of the Academy’s fiscal practices and take necessary corrective action. b. The San Jacinto Unified School District designate a staff member to serve on the Academy’s Board or identify a staff member to attend Board meetings as a representative and receive copies of all agendas and minutes, as required by the California State Education Code Section 47604.32 and 47604.4 6 c. The Governing Board of the San Jacinto Unified School District set a public meeting for hearing the Academy’s response to the Grand Jury Report.
F6:
During an approved and scheduled teachers’ training session on November 19, 2007, with a paid consultant, the Principal and Assistant Principal removed teachers from the training session to conduct performance evaluations.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
The Academy’s Administration establish a policy to support staff development and teachers in-service training sessions, held on the campus. The administrators demonstrate support by actively participating in the sessions and discontinue the practice of removing teachers from training sessions to conduct performance evaluations.
F7:
The level of safety and sanitary conditions provided by the Academy Administrators for staff and students did not meet the Department of Health and Safety Standards, Local Fire Marshal and Building Code requirements. Listed below are a number of unsafe and unsanitary conditions supported by interviews, a tour of the facility on October 31, 2007 and photographs. • Porta-potties that were used over a two-year timeframe were not cleaned and serviced regularly, which resulted in unsanitary conditions. (Reference photos on pages 8 and 9.) • A wooden ramp constructed to provide access to restrooms located in a temporary trailer failed resulting in a student falling through the structure. • The sports field used by secondary level students consists of an uneven hard clay surface with cracks and crevices. This presents a dangerous condition for playing sports and could increase Academy liability. (Reference photos on .) • After spending over $70,000 for sod and hydro seed, the playground area for elementary grade children shows dirt patches and uneven surfaces with the presence of ridges. These conditions are due to the absence of proper soil preparation resulting in the lack of water retention and nutrients to support and sustain the lawn. (Reference photos on .) • Use of classrooms without receiving a Certificate of Occupancy from the City of San Jacinto.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
The Board must comply with Section 6 of the Academy Charter, which states, “The school will maintain a safe and healthy work and school environment. O.S.H.A. and the Department of Health and Safety regulations will be maintained and local Fire Marshal and Building Codes relating to private schools will be followed…” Also, “a safety inspection of the grounds and facilities will occur on a monthly basis”.
F8:
The Academy does not have a policy or procedure requiring vendors working at the Academy to document arrival/departure time and verification of services rendered. 4
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
The Academy’s Business Manager develop a policy and procedure for Board approval that require vendors working on the campus grounds or in Academy buildings to document, verify arrival times, departure times and job completion.
F9:
Contracts for services and building projects were awarded without a formal bidding process. Other interested and qualified vendors were denied the opportunity to bid on the job. Documents reviewed indicated: • Bid Splitting – Table 1 below shows the two separate contract amounts and warrant payments to an electrical contractor who performed work at the Academy without formal competitive bidding. The contract amounts are just below $15,000 and if exceeded, require formal competitive bidding. Splitting or separating the electrical project into smaller jobs evaded the provisions of Public Contract Law Section 20116, that states: “It shall be unlawful to split or separate into smaller work orders or projects any work, project, service, or purchase for the purpose of evading the provisions of this article requiring contracting after competitive bidding”. Table 1 WARRANT PAYMENTS TO AN ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR PERCENT TIME PERIOD CONTRACT AMOUNT PAYMENTS INCREASE July 2006-June 2007 $14,500 $16,300 12.4% Jan. 2007-March 2007 $14,900 $19,040 27.8% TOTAL $29,400 $35,340 20.2% • The business office manager failed to ensure that all expenditures are reported to the Board in the cash flow and budget analysis. • Selecting and paying an unlicensed contractor who did not have the qualifications to perform the work. • In violation of Public Contract Law, Section 20111 and Education Code 39802, The Board during fiscal year 2006-2007 selected a non-profit corporation, in which a Board Member is President/CEO, to provide services that exceed $15,000 without a written contract. 5
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
The Academy’s Business Manager develop a bidding policy for the Board’s approval that includes a formal closed bidding process allowing all qualified and interested contractors/vendors an equal opportunity to effectively compete for the job. Report Issued: 05/05/08 Report Public: 05/07/08 Response Due: 08/04/08 7 San Jacinto Valley Academy – Porta-Potties at end of sports field. Unsanitary conditions. San Jacinto Valley Academy – Porta-Potties at end of sports field. Unsanitary conditions. San Jacinto Valley Academy. - Sports Field. - Uneven Surface 10
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F1:
Board Minutes show that during fiscal year 2006-2007, an Academy Board Member, who should have recused him/herself, voted to approve warrants, which resulted in direct financial benefit to two family members. One family member received warrants totaling $5,499 and the other member received a warrant in the amount of $22,000. In addition, the Board Member voted to approve warrant payments totaling $77,190 to a fee-based non-profit organization in which the Board Member is a corporate officer. The Board Member actions are in direct violation of Article VII, Section II – Self Dealing of the Academy Bylaws, that states: “No individual shall vote on any issue, motion or resolution which directly or indirectly inures to his or her benefit financially except as permitted by law. For purposes of California non-profit corporations law applicable to public benefit corporation, a conflicted director must first disclose the nature of his or her interest, and thereafter may be counted in order to qualify a quorum and may participate in the discussion (but not the voting) of such issue, motion or resolution, all as subject to 5230 eq seq. of the California Corporation Code or any successor statute.” Furthermore, the Board Member’s action was also in violation of the Conflict of Interest Code. Board Policy 07-05-3, Articles III specifies Board Members as “designated employees”. Article V states that: “No designated employee shall make, participate in, or try to use his/her position to influence a Charter School decision which he/she knows or has reason to know will have a reasonably material financial effect, distinguishable from its effect on the public generally, on the official member of his or her immediate family.”
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Board must comply immediately with Article VIII, Section II – Self Dealing of the Academy’s Bylaws and Conflict of Interest Code, Board Policy 07-05.3.
F2:
On June 6, 2006, the Academy Principal terminated the services of the Parent Advisory Council (PAC) Volunteer Coordinator. On June 12, 2007, the Board dissolved the PAC as well as the School Advisory Committee (SAC) and attempted to replace both parental involvement committees with a Parent Teacher Association (PTA). However, the President of the 23rd District PTA in Riverside County declined to organize a PTA unit at the Academy, due to “lack of cohesive leadership team for the unit, and need for inclusiveness amongst those who may serve as PTA Officers and 2 Chairman”. The Board action is in violation of Section 4 of the Academy’s Charter, that states: “We will use multiple means to ensure parental involvement. First, parents will be represented on the school’s Governing Board, Second, parents will be included on a Parent Advisory Council and a School Advisory Committee, ensuring a voice on important school decisions.”
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Board must reinstate PAC and SAC and restore parental involvement as required by Section 4 of the Academy Charter in order to ensure that parents have a voice on important school decisions.
F3:
In March 2007, two Board Members, one Administrator and two Teachers, attended an off-site charter school conference. Expenses for this conference were not paid with the Academy’s business credit card, which had a limit of $1,000. A Board Member paid the conference expenses with a non-affiliated business credit card from a non-profit corporation in which the Board Member serves as a corporate officer. This transaction is substantiated by a reimbursement warrant.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Board Members must immediately discontinue the practice of using personal or non-affiliated business credit cards to pay Academy business expenses. Additionally, the Board must immediately authorize the Business Manager to obtain an increase for the Academy’s credit card and develop a policy and procedure for its use, including a list of approved users. Any Board Member who has enriched themselves or any organization they control through self-dealing and use of non-Academy credit card, must account for any profits made from such transactions and repay the Academy.
F4:
Board Minutes reveal that Board Members, whose terms are expiring, participated in the discussion and voted on their new term of office. A San Jacinto Unified School District Report, dated October 19, 2007, states that “Good judgment would suggest that the individual member abstain while the board voted on his or her new term”.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Amend By-Laws to state that a Board Member whose term of office is expiring must recuse themselves from any discussion or voting on their reappointment to the Board.
F5:
Even though the Riverside County Office of Education and San Jacinto Unified School District performed their minimum statutory oversight responsibilities, our review of the Academy’s management practices through documents and interviews indicate misuse of public funds. The following examples are cited: • An unlicensed landscape contractor, who is related to a Board Member, was paid $70,000 to install the lawn in the quad area for elementary grade level children. • A Board Member made purchases on behalf of the Academy with a non-affiliated business credit card belonging to another organization. The Board Member then personally charged the Academy an 8.5% administration fee for the use of the card, while also receiving a rebate on the purchase from the credit card company. Payment for the administration fee and rebate were made to the non-affiliated business organization in which that Board Member is a corporate officer. 3 • A purchase request dated December 21, 2006, for $1,225 was approved to buy gift cards for the Board and staff members in violation of Article XVI, Section 6 of the California Constitution. An incorrect expense code was used for this transaction.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The Riverside County Office of Education and the San Jacinto Unified School District intensify its oversight responsibility by: a. The Riverside County Office of Education as authorized by California Education Code §1241.5(c) conduct a focused audit of the Academy’s fiscal practices and take necessary corrective action. b. The San Jacinto Unified School District designate a staff member to serve on the Academy’s Board or identify a staff member to attend Board meetings as a representative and receive copies of all agendas and minutes, as required by the California State Education Code Section 47604.32 and 47604.4 6 c. The Governing Board of the San Jacinto Unified School District set a public meeting for hearing the Academy’s response to the Grand Jury Report.
F6:
During an approved and scheduled teachers’ training session on November 19, 2007, with a paid consultant, the Principal and Assistant Principal removed teachers from the training session to conduct performance evaluations.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
The Academy’s Administration establish a policy to support staff development and teachers in-service training sessions, held on the campus. The administrators demonstrate support by actively participating in the sessions and discontinue the practice of removing teachers from training sessions to conduct performance evaluations.
F7:
The level of safety and sanitary conditions provided by the Academy Administrators for staff and students did not meet the Department of Health and Safety Standards, Local Fire Marshal and Building Code requirements. Listed below are a number of unsafe and unsanitary conditions supported by interviews, a tour of the facility on October 31, 2007 and photographs. • Porta-potties that were used over a two-year timeframe were not cleaned and serviced regularly, which resulted in unsanitary conditions. (Reference photos on pages 8 and 9.) • A wooden ramp constructed to provide access to restrooms located in a temporary trailer failed resulting in a student falling through the structure. • The sports field used by secondary level students consists of an uneven hard clay surface with cracks and crevices. This presents a dangerous condition for playing sports and could increase Academy liability. (Reference photos on .) • After spending over $70,000 for sod and hydro seed, the playground area for elementary grade children shows dirt patches and uneven surfaces with the presence of ridges. These conditions are due to the absence of proper soil preparation resulting in the lack of water retention and nutrients to support and sustain the lawn. (Reference photos on .) • Use of classrooms without receiving a Certificate of Occupancy from the City of San Jacinto.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
The Board must comply with Section 6 of the Academy Charter, which states, “The school will maintain a safe and healthy work and school environment. O.S.H.A. and the Department of Health and Safety regulations will be maintained and local Fire Marshal and Building Codes relating to private schools will be followed…” Also, “a safety inspection of the grounds and facilities will occur on a monthly basis”.
F8:
The Academy does not have a policy or procedure requiring vendors working at the Academy to document arrival/departure time and verification of services rendered. 4
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
The Academy’s Business Manager develop a policy and procedure for Board approval that require vendors working on the campus grounds or in Academy buildings to document, verify arrival times, departure times and job completion.
F9:
Contracts for services and building projects were awarded without a formal bidding process. Other interested and qualified vendors were denied the opportunity to bid on the job. Documents reviewed indicated: • Bid Splitting – Table 1 below shows the two separate contract amounts and warrant payments to an electrical contractor who performed work at the Academy without formal competitive bidding. The contract amounts are just below $15,000 and if exceeded, require formal competitive bidding. Splitting or separating the electrical project into smaller jobs evaded the provisions of Public Contract Law Section 20116, that states: “It shall be unlawful to split or separate into smaller work orders or projects any work, project, service, or purchase for the purpose of evading the provisions of this article requiring contracting after competitive bidding”. Table 1 WARRANT PAYMENTS TO AN ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR PERCENT TIME PERIOD CONTRACT AMOUNT PAYMENTS INCREASE July 2006-June 2007 $14,500 $16,300 12.4% Jan. 2007-March 2007 $14,900 $19,040 27.8% TOTAL $29,400 $35,340 20.2% • The business office manager failed to ensure that all expenditures are reported to the Board in the cash flow and budget analysis. • Selecting and paying an unlicensed contractor who did not have the qualifications to perform the work. • In violation of Public Contract Law, Section 20111 and Education Code 39802, The Board during fiscal year 2006-2007 selected a non-profit corporation, in which a Board Member is President/CEO, to provide services that exceed $15,000 without a written contract. 5
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
The Academy’s Business Manager develop a bidding policy for the Board’s approval that includes a formal closed bidding process allowing all qualified and interested contractors/vendors an equal opportunity to effectively compete for the job. Report Issued: 05/05/08 Report Public: 05/07/08 Response Due: 08/04/08 7 San Jacinto Valley Academy – Porta-Potties at end of sports field. Unsanitary conditions. San Jacinto Valley Academy – Porta-Potties at end of sports field. Unsanitary conditions. San Jacinto Valley Academy. - Sports Field. - Uneven Surface 10