Gran Jurado del Condado de Riverside

2011-2012

11 informes

From the annual report
The consolidated year-end volume. The individual investigations it contains are listed separately below.
📑 Year-End Report
View the full annual report (PDF)
The full consolidated volume; individual reports are listed below.
Individual reports (11)
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 5 hallazgos
F1: The impetus for a bond issue was to retrofit and expand the hospital’s physical plant. District “Measure A” General Obligation bond, a $108 million issue, initiated by the District board, was passed by mail-in ballot in March 2006. The bond issue was to upgrade the facilities with a dual purpose. The first was to comply with California Senate Bill 1953, passed in 1994, requiring seismic retrofit by 2013. The second was the need for expansion as the result of a District 50- year plan developed in 2004. In addition to the retrofit, the bond funds were to be used to finance a new intensive care unit, an emergency department, a six-story patient tower, a helicopter pad, an updated information technology system, and a central plant that included emergency boilers and chillers. The original estimate for the project was $126 million, yet a bond measure of $108 million was pursued, with the difference coming from the Hospital Foundation. In 2007, after many months of planning, it was apparent the $108 million bond issue would not cover the scope of the project as it was presented to voters. It is currently estimated that an additional $184 million will be needed to construct the six-story patient tower and complete the project. Sworn testimony revealed that several factors appeared to contribute to the disconnect between the requested bond money amount and the final projected cost to complete the project as it was presented. Among the factors were:  The inability to acquire necessary funding to prepare detailed construction plans that led to inaccurate cost projections and appears to have played a significant role.  Expenditure of additional funds to meet newly-expanded state regulations by California’s Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD).  Plan changes to facilitate better utilization of the projected facilities. According to District “Measure A” oversight annual report of August 2011: Pre-construction costs for architectural drawings, cost estimates, Office of Statewide Hospital [sic] Planning and Development (OSHPD) and city fees, Inspector of Record (IOR) fees, testing and inspection, and soils report before the construction could begin, total $1,875,546. Patient Satisfaction – Employee Partnership
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1: In the event a new bond measure is pursued, at a minimum, the District must:  Review its goals, growth patterns, and predictions to see what expansion is necessary.  Pursue every avenue of possible funding before asking the voters to pass another bond measure.  Include verifiable estimates for the actual cost and scope of the project.  Ensure care is taken not to inflate the projection of the final product to be covered by the bond, when information is given to the public via public relations releases.
F2: The Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) survey asks patients about their experiences with medical, surgical, or maternity care during their hospital stay. This survey was developed by a partnership of public and private organizations. It was funded by the Federal Government, specifically the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. CMS oversees the administration of the HCAHPS survey, as well as the analysis of the data. This analysis is designed to ensure fair comparisons among hospitals and provides a national standard for collecting and reporting patients’ perspectives. Profiles of the measures of satisfaction for the hospital can be seen in survey Attachments 1 and 2. By most measures, the Hospital ranks low on these scales in the national, state, and local venues. When it comes to working with Medicare and Medicaid, which are large sources of healthcare funding, it is found to be prudent, if not essential, for hospitals to successfully meet the criteria, which are deemed important to these programs. With the impending healthcare changes due in 2014, the results of the HCAHPS surveys become increasingly important because Medicare reimbursement will be adjusted based on performance. The weighting in the formula to calculate scores will include 30 percent for HCAHPS scores. Healthcare System Boards
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2: Hospital administration must disseminate patient satisfaction survey indicator results to staff and seek feedback on ways to improve patient’s healthcare experience and to alleviate those issues that present problems. Solutions must take into account all aspects of hospital functioning, including the number and expertise of personnel and the equipment necessary to fulfill their duties. The Hospital must continue to improve the current employee satisfaction survey, especially as it relates to patient concerns expressed in the HCAHPS survey. The administration needs to provide an in-service training program to continually explore ways to improve staff-patient interactions, as studies have shown a strong staff-patient relationship is key to a successful healing process.
F3: Sworn testimony revealed there is public confusion regarding the powers, responsibilities, accountabilities, and finances of the District and Hospital Boards. Although the System is comprised of two separate bodies, they are thought of as one. Often there is a public perception of comingling, whether it be duties or finances. Chief Executive Officer (CEO)
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3: Through the use of the Internet, brochures and/or other public relations tools, the System must make the public aware of the separation of the District and Hospital Boards’ authorities, as well as how they work together. It is essential that a clear delineation must be made to show the public the powers, responsibilities, accountabilities, and finances of the two boards. The District and Hospital Boards must ensure that neither the perception nor fact of possible comingling occurs, especially with finances. 5
F4: As of March 2011, the Hospital CEO was appointed to the Hospital Board as the 14th voting member. Sworn testimony revealed a public perception that the inclusion of the CEO, as a Hospital employee and voting member of the Hospital Board, presents a conflict of interest. Previously the Hospital Board consisted of 13 members. With the addition of the CEO, there is an even number of voting members, which could lead to a voting impasse. Audit/Finance
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R4: Although legal for the CEO to be a voting member of the board, consideration must be given to the possibility of eliciting the CEO’s expertise in a staff advisory capacity only. This would eliminate the appearance, to the public, of a conflict of interest.
F5: The tax receipts and expenditures of the District are separated on internal documents. However, they are presented with other revenue-generating entities in the audit, and the Grand Jury was unable to ascertain from documents provided how tax dollars are spent. The District does not adequately account for taxpayer monies separately from the Hospital operating revenue stream, and as a result does not show in sufficient detail that tax monies are used for their specific designated purpose. This makes it difficult for the public to determine precisely how its tax monies are being spent. 4
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R5: In the interest of transparency, the District must account for all tax revenues on a line-item basis, allowing the taxpayers to follow the revenue and identify the appropriate expenditure of funds. Tax receipts and expenditures should be published in print and posted on-line, making them easily available to taxpayers. They must be audited separately from other revenue and expenditure streams. Report Issued: 06/19/12 Report Public: 06/21/12 Response Due: 06/17/12 6 Attachment 1 7 Attachment 2 8
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 6 hallazgos
F1: Sworn testimony heard by the Grand Jury revealed that nine of the scheduled internal audits for FY 2010/2011 were not completed due to a lack of manpower and/or due to the fact that they were not mandated. Only one of these audits was carried over to the FY 2011/2012 Internal Audit Plan. Two of the internal audits in the FY 2010/2011 plan were prompted by employee complaints via the Countywide “Speak Out!” program that focuses on fraud, waste, and abuse. A “Speak Out!” complaint, concerning the excessive use of overtime in the Sheriff’s Department, prompted an investigative audit to be scheduled in FY 2010/2011. This audit, along with eight other scheduled audits, was eventually cancelled for either lack of manpower or because they were not mandated. It is the considered judgment of this Grand Jury that because it is law, lack of manpower is not an excuse for failure to perform these audits. Further, no concern about this failure has been expressed by the County Executive Office, Board, or the Auditor-Controller’s Office. The decision to cancel planned audits due to lack of manpower or because they are not mandated may be construed as a disservice to the taxpayers, as well as to the Board and department directors. Special Districts
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1: It is important that taxpayers know that County departments are managed without a waste of resources, especially during years where revenues have been seriously reduced. The Board must fund and authorize staffing levels commensurate with the tasks required by Board Resolution 83-338 and California Government Code §25250. The increased manpower must be provided in the FY 2012/2013 budget. In the interim, the Audit Division must prioritize tasks and reinstate the eight audits that were cancelled due to lack of manpower or not mandated. The Board and the Auditor/Controller must use whatever resources are necessary to comply with the California Government Code.
F2: Another function of the Audit Division is to ensure that all special districts in the County receive an annual financial audit. These audits are usually performed by public accounting firms. The Government Accounting Standards Board Statement No. 34 requires the inclusion of a Management Discussion and Analysis, which is a simple explanation of the results of the audit that can be easily understood. The Audit Division monitors and reviews these financial statements to ensure that they are conducted as required by Government Code §26909(a) and §6505(d). The Audit Division is not proactively pursuing delinquent audits of special districts, thereby placing at risk the fiduciary responsibility of these special district boards that are accountable to the taxpayers. The Audit Division has failed to review these special district audits in depth and ensure that recommended corrective actions were taken within a reasonable time frame. This results in the Auditor-Controller having no positive influence on the financial practices of special districts, a deficiency with unknown consequences. Certain special districts have been habitually delinquent, as much as two to five years, in conducting their mandated annual audits. In the case of one special 3 district, Idyllwild Fire Protection District, the Management Discussion and Analysis was omitted from the report to the Audit Division at the request of the special district board. This omission violates Government Accounting Standard Board Statement No. 34, the rights of taxpayers to know the financial status of their district. The Audit Division’s present procedures require that reminder letters be sent to all special districts that are delinquent beyond twelve months after the end of the fiscal year. The timing of these letters, in effect, grants the delinquent special district an additional six months beyond the due date mandated by Government Code §26909(a)(2) and §6505(d). Policies and Procedures
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2: The Audit Division must accelerate issuance of reminder letters by initiating the first letter within six months after the end of the fiscal year. The second reminder shall be mailed in April and the final reminder shall be sent no later than June 15. This change in procedure would assure taxpayers that special districts serving them are in compliance with the requirements of California Government Code §26909(a)(2) and §6505(d). The Auditor-Controller must review submitted audits from special districts and take the initiative to ensure that special district boards are taking corrective action on disclosed financial and performance deficiencies.
F3: The Audit Division is operating with a draft copy of its policies and procedures, a document that has been dormant, in draft stage since July 2009. This deficiency was previously noted in a peer review report by the San Diego Auditor- Controller’s Office in 2006. When an internal audit of a County department is initiated by the Audit Division, the first request is that the department provide a copy of its policies and procedures. If they are non-existent, it becomes a major finding. Operational Review
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3: The Auditor-Controller must immediately finalize policies and procedures to guide the internal audit activity.
F4: In July 2011, the Auditor-Controller retained IntelliBridge Partners, an outside consulting firm, to perform an operational review of the Audit Division. The purpose of the review was to assess the County’s efficiency and effectiveness in audit planning, execution, and reporting process, as well as to examine the Audit Division’s organizational structure. This review was produced at a cost of $38,000. It was similar in content and recommendations to the peer review assessment of 2006 conducted by the San Diego Auditor-Controller’s Office. The peer review cost nothing. The contracted consulting firm recommended: • working with the Board to revise Resolution 83-338 from auditing each County department every two years to auditing County departments based upon risk-based management criteria (e.g., high risks of fraud, waste, abuse or having a high potential to identify cost savings, or to enhance service delivery.) • hiring an audit chief executive from outside of the County that has experience in conducting all types of audits (e.g., internal, financial, performance, and compliance) and has a demonstrated track record of working with key stakeholders to produce cost savings and enhance 4 service delivery. (Note: The Auditor-Controller did not follow this
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R4: The Board and the Auditor-Controller must recognize that the July 2011, IntelliBridge Partners review was faulty in recommending that the Auditor- Controller work with the Board to replace Resolution 83-338. This resolution was passed to comply with California Government Code §25250, which mandates County departments be audited biennially. This policy delegates the mandated audit authority to the Auditor-Controller. The Auditor-Controller’s Office, using only the risk assessment methodology proposed by IntelliBridge Partners, would be ignoring the biennial requirement of California law. The Board must reject this methodology.
F5: Prior to September, 2009 the County lacked a fraud policy and hotline. Such a policy is required by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (The Institute) and California Government Code §53087.6. The Institute issued two statements on Auditing Standards SAS 99 and SAS 115, which mandate the need to establish a fraud hotline. These requirements were noted as significant deficiencies by outside auditors in management letters in the years 2005 through
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R5: Prior to September, 2009 the County lacked a fraud policy and hotline. Such a policy is required by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (The Institute) and California Government Code §53087.6. The Institute issued two statements on Auditing Standards SAS 99 and SAS 115, which mandate the need to establish a fraud hotline. These requirements were noted as significant deficiencies by outside auditors in management letters in the years 2005 through
F6: Sworn testimony given to the Grand Jury, as well as written documentation, were replete with issues involving Audit Division management: • lack of training for auditors, • turnover of personnel, • tardiness of audits, • insufficient number of auditors to cover Countywide obligations, • auditors burdened with non-auditing responsibilities, and • Audit Division intimidating work environment.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R6: Sworn testimony given to the Grand Jury, as well as written documentation, were replete with issues involving Audit Division management: • lack of training for auditors, • turnover of personnel, • tardiness of audits, • insufficient number of auditors to cover Countywide obligations, • auditors burdened with non-auditing responsibilities, and • Audit Division intimidating work environment. Recommendations Riverside County Board of Supervisors Riverside County Auditor-Controller Riverside County Executive Office Riverside County Human Resources Department
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 6 hallazgos
F1: Sworn testimony heard by the Grand Jury revealed that nine of the scheduled internal audits for FY 2010/2011 were not completed due to a lack of manpower and/or due to the fact that they were not mandated. Only one of these audits was carried over to the FY 2011/2012 Internal Audit Plan. Two of the internal audits in the FY 2010/2011 plan were prompted by employee complaints via the Countywide “Speak Out!” program that focuses on fraud, waste, and abuse. A “Speak Out!” complaint, concerning the excessive use of overtime in the Sheriff’s Department, prompted an investigative audit to be scheduled in FY 2010/2011. This audit, along with eight other scheduled audits, was eventually cancelled for either lack of manpower or because they were not mandated. It is the considered judgment of this Grand Jury that because it is law, lack of manpower is not an excuse for failure to perform these audits. Further, no concern about this failure has been expressed by the County Executive Office, Board, or the Auditor-Controller’s Office. The decision to cancel planned audits due to lack of manpower or because they are not mandated may be construed as a disservice to the taxpayers, as well as to the Board and department directors. Special Districts
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1: It is important that taxpayers know that County departments are managed without a waste of resources, especially during years where revenues have been seriously reduced. The Board must fund and authorize staffing levels commensurate with the tasks required by Board Resolution 83-338 and California Government Code §25250. The increased manpower must be provided in the FY 2012/2013 budget. In the interim, the Audit Division must prioritize tasks and reinstate the eight audits that were cancelled due to lack of manpower or not mandated. The Board and the Auditor/Controller must use whatever resources are necessary to comply with the California Government Code.
F2: Another function of the Audit Division is to ensure that all special districts in the County receive an annual financial audit. These audits are usually performed by public accounting firms. The Government Accounting Standards Board Statement No. 34 requires the inclusion of a Management Discussion and Analysis, which is a simple explanation of the results of the audit that can be easily understood. The Audit Division monitors and reviews these financial statements to ensure that they are conducted as required by Government Code §26909(a) and §6505(d). The Audit Division is not proactively pursuing delinquent audits of special districts, thereby placing at risk the fiduciary responsibility of these special district boards that are accountable to the taxpayers. The Audit Division has failed to review these special district audits in depth and ensure that recommended corrective actions were taken within a reasonable time frame. This results in the Auditor-Controller having no positive influence on the financial practices of special districts, a deficiency with unknown consequences. Certain special districts have been habitually delinquent, as much as two to five years, in conducting their mandated annual audits. In the case of one special 3 district, Idyllwild Fire Protection District, the Management Discussion and Analysis was omitted from the report to the Audit Division at the request of the special district board. This omission violates Government Accounting Standard Board Statement No. 34, the rights of taxpayers to know the financial status of their district. The Audit Division’s present procedures require that reminder letters be sent to all special districts that are delinquent beyond twelve months after the end of the fiscal year. The timing of these letters, in effect, grants the delinquent special district an additional six months beyond the due date mandated by Government Code §26909(a)(2) and §6505(d). Policies and Procedures
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2: The Audit Division must accelerate issuance of reminder letters by initiating the first letter within six months after the end of the fiscal year. The second reminder shall be mailed in April and the final reminder shall be sent no later than June 15. This change in procedure would assure taxpayers that special districts serving them are in compliance with the requirements of California Government Code §26909(a)(2) and §6505(d). The Auditor-Controller must review submitted audits from special districts and take the initiative to ensure that special district boards are taking corrective action on disclosed financial and performance deficiencies.
F3: The Audit Division is operating with a draft copy of its policies and procedures, a document that has been dormant, in draft stage since July 2009. This deficiency was previously noted in a peer review report by the San Diego Auditor- Controller’s Office in 2006. When an internal audit of a County department is initiated by the Audit Division, the first request is that the department provide a copy of its policies and procedures. If they are non-existent, it becomes a major finding. Operational Review
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3: The Auditor-Controller must immediately finalize policies and procedures to guide the internal audit activity.
F4: In July 2011, the Auditor-Controller retained IntelliBridge Partners, an outside consulting firm, to perform an operational review of the Audit Division. The purpose of the review was to assess the County’s efficiency and effectiveness in audit planning, execution, and reporting process, as well as to examine the Audit Division’s organizational structure. This review was produced at a cost of $38,000. It was similar in content and recommendations to the peer review assessment of 2006 conducted by the San Diego Auditor-Controller’s Office. The peer review cost nothing. The contracted consulting firm recommended: • working with the Board to revise Resolution 83-338 from auditing each County department every two years to auditing County departments based upon risk-based management criteria (e.g., high risks of fraud, waste, abuse or having a high potential to identify cost savings, or to enhance service delivery.) • hiring an audit chief executive from outside of the County that has experience in conducting all types of audits (e.g., internal, financial, performance, and compliance) and has a demonstrated track record of working with key stakeholders to produce cost savings and enhance 4 service delivery. (Note: The Auditor-Controller did not follow this
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R4: The Board and the Auditor-Controller must recognize that the July 2011, IntelliBridge Partners review was faulty in recommending that the Auditor- Controller work with the Board to replace Resolution 83-338. This resolution was passed to comply with California Government Code §25250, which mandates County departments be audited biennially. This policy delegates the mandated audit authority to the Auditor-Controller. The Auditor-Controller’s Office, using only the risk assessment methodology proposed by IntelliBridge Partners, would be ignoring the biennial requirement of California law. The Board must reject this methodology.
F5: Prior to September, 2009 the County lacked a fraud policy and hotline. Such a policy is required by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (The Institute) and California Government Code §53087.6. The Institute issued two statements on Auditing Standards SAS 99 and SAS 115, which mandate the need to establish a fraud hotline. These requirements were noted as significant deficiencies by outside auditors in management letters in the years 2005 through
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R5: Prior to September, 2009 the County lacked a fraud policy and hotline. Such a policy is required by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (The Institute) and California Government Code §53087.6. The Institute issued two statements on Auditing Standards SAS 99 and SAS 115, which mandate the need to establish a fraud hotline. These requirements were noted as significant deficiencies by outside auditors in management letters in the years 2005 through
F6: Sworn testimony given to the Grand Jury, as well as written documentation, were replete with issues involving Audit Division management: • lack of training for auditors, • turnover of personnel, • tardiness of audits, • insufficient number of auditors to cover Countywide obligations, • auditors burdened with non-auditing responsibilities, and • Audit Division intimidating work environment.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R6: Sworn testimony given to the Grand Jury, as well as written documentation, were replete with issues involving Audit Division management: • lack of training for auditors, • turnover of personnel, • tardiness of audits, • insufficient number of auditors to cover Countywide obligations, • auditors burdened with non-auditing responsibilities, and • Audit Division intimidating work environment. Recommendations Riverside County Board of Supervisors Riverside County Auditor-Controller Riverside County Executive Office Riverside County Human Resources Department
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 5 hallazgos
F1: Sworn testimony from multiple witnesses, coupled with an unscheduled visit to the TAP/MAP site, confirmed that no written recruitment policies and procedures or formal job training is provided to TAP/MAP recruiters. These recruiters seek out and place temporary employees for the County. The lack of these written procedures was originally identified in the Riverside County Internal Audit Report 2004-22 of January 29, 2005. The former HR director, in his written response, assured the Riverside County Board of Supervisors (Board) that written procedures would be developed and used. Seven years later the written procedures are yet to be published. Current management responded, under oath, that “written policies and procedures are not a high priority.” Currently, procedures are given verbally and change frequently without notice. Verbal procedures are not applied equally to all TAP/MAP recruiters. Claims were made that management overlooks mistakes made by favored employees, but not for others. In sworn testimony TAP/MAP recruiters testified that they are unsure of their duties and fearful they will be reprimanded or terminated for doing the wrong thing. Bullying
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1: TAP/MAP management must immediately discontinue verbalizing ambiguous policies and procedures; written policies and procedures must be established. They must be applied equally to all personnel and be provided to each employee at the time of hire.
F2: The Grand Jury initiated an investigation into the alleged existence of bullying within the TAP/MAP unit. After an extensive examination, it is the considered judgment of the Grand Jury that workplace bullying by supervisors and managers has become pervasive in the TAP/MAP section of HR. Bullying by leads (a supervisor without administrative duties) and supervisors in TAP/MAP is causing fear and intimidation among employees, as reported in seven complaints. The County has no written policy or employee training specifically directed against 2 bullying in the workplace. A group of TAP/MAP recruiters are frequently and routinely referred to as “the wild, wild, West” in a negative manner by management assigned to TAP/MAP in 2010-2011. Under oath before the Grand Jury, one HR manager admitted to coining the phrase “wild, wild, West.” These targeted employees view this reference as verbal abuse and feel it isolates them from other employees. Former TAP/MAP recruiters testified they have escaped supervisor bullying by leaving their positions, while others testified they feel trapped in their positions and fear termination. Others testified they have asked for transfer or demotion; their requests have been ignored or denied. Sworn testimony revealed that during the period 2007 through 2011, senior TAP/MAP recruiters’ performance was judged by their supervisors and managers overseeing the unit as “out of control,” “doing their own thing,” abusing time and attendance regulations, taking long breaks, and making errors. Customer surveys taken during the same time period contradict the supervisory judgment. These surveys show that various departments using the services of TAP/MAP recruiters were provided a high quality of service. It is these same senior recruiters who were targeted and labeled “the wild, wild West.” Data received from HR by the Grand Jury showed the results of the annual HR Customer Satisfaction Survey clearly demonstrate that on a scale of one to five, with five being the highest score and one the lowest, the TAP/MAP unit scored very high over the five calendar years surveyed. HR Customer Satisfaction Survey TAP/MAP Quality of Service Calendar Survey Percent Percent Approval Year Responses Approval of 4 or 5 2007 27 89 67 2008 24 92 54 2009 41 94 63 2010 41 93 66 2011 25 100 76 Workplace Admonitions
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2: The Board must issue a policy against bullying for all branches of County government. The Board must establish an independent process to report cases of bullying. 5 a. This policy must require the County to consider workplace bullying unacceptable and it will not be tolerated under any circumstances. This includes, but is not limited to:
F3: Documentation provided by HR management for calendar year 2011 indicated seven out of thirteen TAP/MAP recruiters have been placed on a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) and/or a Medical/Certification (MED/CERT) requirement. These employees were in the targeted group labeled “the wild, wild West.” After reviewing documents the Grand Jury found that the language contained in them 3 showed disrespect to employees beyond what would be considered reasonable, (e.g., in order to meet the MED/CERT requirement, an employee must leave his/her sick bed and report to a doctor’s office, thus exposing others to the illness. On some occasions, a doctor may ask that a child not be brought into the doctor’s office for the child’s well-being, as well as the well-being of others.) PIPs and MED/CERTS are being used as punitive rather than corrective measures. Disciplinary letters are written by TAP/MAP management and are placed in employee’s official personnel files; however, letters of appreciation, commendation, and thank you, are not. This indicates disregard and lack of recognition for quality work performed by these employees. Documentation provided by complainants, and verified by documentation obtained from HR management, confirmed that formal and informal disciplinary letters and memorandums written by TAP/MAP management were written in an unduly negative, condescending, and accusatory manner. A similar issue was addressed in Grand Jury Report 2004-2005, “Riverside County Regional Medical Center Human Resources and Employee Relations,” in which the respondent admitted to this practice. Employees interviewed testified that when employees freely admit to their supervisors about making inadvertent errors, they are later reprimanded and accused of making the mistakes intentionally. The Grand Jury reviewed extensive documentation, which showed that employees are reprimanded for minor infractions, e.g., not responding in a timely manner to an email from a department. Witnesses stated that recruitment packages submitted for review to a lead or supervisor before a new hire’s documentation is finalized, have later been found to contain errors; however, blame is assigned to the recruiter, not to the reviewing supervisor. Investigations are initiated for serious infractions without telling employees why they are being investigated and without evidence that they were involved. It was confirmed by testimony from numerous witnesses that HR management, at all levels, was aware of the bullying behavior; however, no corrective action was taken. It was also discovered and documented by an email, that a supervisor had violated California Labor Code §230.8 by denying a recruiter a short period of time off at the end of the workday to attend her daughter’s honor roll award at school. It had been requested four weeks in advance of the event and denied two weeks later by the supervisor. Two recruiters testified that they were stressed enough to take extended stress leave due to the hostile work environment. Evaluations
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3: Exhibiting nonverbal displays of intimidation (e.g., staring, glaring, finger pointing, and eye rolls toward target(s)),
F4: Grand Jury Reports 1991-1992, 2001-2002, 2003-2004 and a study by an outside consultant reported a failure to conduct timely, annual, written performance evaluations. Despite acknowledgment by HR of this failure and despite the mandate contained in County Policy C-21, performance evaluations are frequently not being conducted by managers and supervisors. In some cases, years have elapsed since the last written evaluation. TAP/MAP recruiters have assumed they were performing at least satisfactorily until, without warning and after years of not receiving a performance rating, they are given an unsatisfactory performance evaluation followed by a PIP. It is the considered judgment of the Grand Jury, from review of the records, that it is when a disciplinary action is anticipated, that TAP/MAP supervisors conduct a performance evaluation. County Policy C-21 states that it is of the utmost importance that the employee receives a performance evaluation annually. Management Training
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R4: Undermining the opinions of a target(s) in a public setting,
F5: Sworn testimony by HR management revealed that supervisors and managers are not required to complete a comprehensive supervisorial or managerial training course, which is offered by the County. Further testimony noted that without sound and comprehensive supervisorial and managerial training, a supervisor or manager can put the County at risk by making an error in administering a law or policy. The HR Center for Government Excellence provides two academies covering comprehensive supervisorial and managerial training that are not being used to their greatest potential. This training is provided to departments at minimal cost.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R5: Excluding or social isolating of target(s),
Recomendaciones adicionales 3

No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.

R6: Displaying apparent uncontrolled mood swings,
R7: Spreading malicious rumors about the target(s), and
R8: Making excessive demands of the target(s). b. The County must encourage and require employees to report workplace bullying. Managers and supervisors must ensure that employees who make complaints, or witness bullying, are not victimized or subjected to retaliation. c. Reports of workplace bullying must be treated seriously and investigated promptly, confidentially, and impartially. Employees found to be in violation of the newly-written bullying policy will be subjected to provisions of Riverside County HR levels of corrective action, per County of Riverside Manager and Supervisors Disciplinary Process Manual.
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 8 hallazgos
F1: Grand Jury interviews of current and former employees, testifying under oath, indicated the management team claims to have a long memory. An employee labeled as “not a team player” is viewed less favorably for advancement opportunities while other, less qualified people, are hired and/or promoted because they are in the right “clique”. Grand Jury investigation revealed a lack of communication exists between senior management and line staff. It was further substantiated through interviews with current and former employees of the Department, as well as County Human Resources Department (HR) managers, that the work environment of the Department is hostile. Since Fiscal Year 2006, there have been 21 harassment and/or discrimination complaints filed against the Department. Thirteen resulted in an HR investigation for misconduct. According to sworn testimony, senior management, as well as some supervisors, are deemed unapproachable. Also, according to those interviewed, this atmosphere is pervasive in the field, i.e., the Badlands and the Lamb Canyon landfills. The County of Riverside “Speak Out!” program has been developed to engage the participation of employees and the public to help meet the commitment to maintaining the highest level of ethics and integrity in all County operations. It is intended to be used to help the County eliminate fraud, waste, and abuse by using “Speak Out!” to report concerns. Everyone has free, unlimited access to the anonymous and confidential third- party reporting system powered by “MySafeWorkplace.” This service is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week via the Internet. Examples of the types of incidents that can be reported through “Speak Out!” including the following: • Fraud • Waste • Abuse • Ethic Violations • Retaliation • Discrimination • Safety Violations The website further states: “Retaliation of any sort will not be tolerated by the County of Riverside in accordance with California Labor Code 1102.5 and 1106.” Corrective and Disciplinary Action
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1: The County must publicize the existence of “Speak Out!” to all Waste Management Department employees, as well as provide frequent information about this program to County employees and County residents.
F2: Definitions of County HR’s first steps of corrective action per County of Riverside Managers and Supervisors Disciplinary Process Manual include: • Directive Memorandum informs employee or group of employees how to complete a task or what the rules are and directs employee to perform correctly in the future. • Corrective Memorandum is a warning memorandum, which informs an employee that, even after previous direction, a task is still being completed incorrectly or improper behaviors are still occurring. • Corrective Counseling Confirmation Memorandum is a warning summary memo from a formal counseling interview which includes dialogue between supervisor and employees. • Written Reprimand is the first, formal disciplinary step. Waste Management Department Policy A-10 (1e) states: Supervisors shall maintain files on direct reports to document items related to behavior, discipline, and attendance. These documents/notes shall not be kept longer than twelve (12) months. Sworn testimony given to this Grand Jury indicated those interviewed fear incidents, documented in Directive Memorandums, Corrective Memorandums, and Corrective Counseling Confirmation memorandums, which are not formal 2 disciplinary action, may be brought up beyond one year and used as a springboard into disciplinary action. Copies of these written notices are kept in the supervisor’s file. Ongoing Training
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2: The County HR Department must receive a copy of all written memorandums, i.e., Directive Memorandums, Corrective Memorandums, and Corrective Counseling Confirmation Memorandums. HR must dispose of these copies after one year. Department supervisors must adhere to Waste Management Department Policy A-10, “Records Retention.”
F3: Board Policy C-23 (1) “Disciplinary Process Policy” states: Agency/department heads, managers, and supervisors shall attend a disciplinary process training program administered by Human Resources prior to or within 90 days of appointment. As attested by HR, Department managers and supervisors attend mandatory refresher training every two years on Discipline Process, Sexual Harassment, Family Medical Leave Act, Workplace Violence, and Management Harassment Prevention. Based on testimony received, this biennial training fails to address sufficiently the skills requisite to perform the complex supervisorial and managerial responsibilities of the position. Department management has been advised by HR that “employees need to be appreciated” and the Department environment needs “to be about promoting motivation and improving culture.” The Center for Government Excellence is a County-wide resource for performance solutions, providing quality programs that anticipate and meet the changing needs of Riverside County. These programs strive to build a sustainable culture of continuous learning and excellence in Riverside County. According to sworn testimony given to the Grand Jury about the Center for Government Excellence, this center is underutilized. Annual Performance Evaluation Report
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3: Agency/department heads, managers, and supervisors must receive mandatory training by the Center for Government Excellence, focusing on the areas provided in the “Better Riverside County Supervisor Competency Clusters”: • Communicating Effectively • Inspiring Others • Managing Diverse Relationships • Being Open and Receptive HR will document and ensure there is frequent and ongoing training of supervisors and managers, which is provided by the Center for Government Excellence in its Management and Supervisory Excellence Academies.
F4: Board Policy C-21 (2) “Annual Performance Evaluation Reports” states: Agency/department managers shall prepare, or cause to be prepared, a written, confidential evaluation of the performance of each regular employee assigned to their management responsibility. Evaluations shall be in a form prescribed by the agency/department, as reviewed by Human Resources, but shall comply with the principles encompassed in this policy. To substantiate sworn testimony, this Grand Jury requested and received access to the Employee Performance Management System. Investigation of information retrieved from this system revealed annual performance evaluations are not performed in a timely manner throughout the County, and at times, not at all. Board Policy C-21 (3) states: The frequency of evaluations prescribed by this policy shall be as follows: (b) All…regular employees of Riverside County shall be evaluated on an annual basis, approximately on the anniversary of their initial employment with county or on the anniversary of promotion or entry into their current job classification. Department Policy B-12 states, in part: “…on or near the anniversary date of current job classification entry.” Interviews conducted by the Grand Jury, coupled with random checks of Department employee personnel files, revealed that the Department is in violation of these policies. Board Policy C-21 (5, d)
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R4: Board Policy C-21 and Department Policy B-12 must be enforced, holding managers and supervisors accountable for failure to comply. The Riverside County Executive Office must require HR to devise, or cause to be devised, a tracking system to identify upcoming annual employee evaluations. This procedure must provide a specific completion date. Failure on the part of department management to adhere to the completion date will result in formal disciplinary action.
F5: Board Policy C-21 (5, d) “Employee Performance Evaluation Reports” states: Anytime an agency/department anticipates giving an employee an overall rating of unacceptable or improvement needed, the agency/department should notify Human Resources and seek its review and support of the evaluation. Zero Tolerance Standard
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R5: Board Policy C-21 (5, d) “Employee Performance Evaluation Reports” must be reworded to say “will” instead of “should.”
F6: The Board has the following policy regarding behavior “…implied…indirect…that subjects another individual to emotional distress.” Board Policy C-27 “Workplace Violence, Threats and Securities” states: The County of Riverside does not tolerate any type of workplace violence committed by or against employees. Employees are prohibited from making threats or engaging in violent activities. The list of zero tolerance behaviors with regard to threats and/or violence shall include, but not be limited to, the following proactive measures and/or prohibited behaviors:
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R6: In accordance with Board Policy C-27, managers and/or supervisors, as well as other employees who are guilty of using derogatory, racially-inflammatory 6 remarks and/or behavior must be subject to appropriate corrective action and follow-up disciplinary action per the Zero Tolerance policy. The Board will enforce Policy C-27 II “Zero Tolerance Standard” Enforcement: b. All reports of threats and violent behavior, implied, actual, direct, or indirect, will be documented and investigated. Such documentation shall include a narrative of the incident including names and other appropriate identification of the parties involved, verbal comments made or a description of the violent behavior, witness names, and witness statements. The Board will enforce Policy C-27 III “Responsibilities” D (see Attachment 2). (Also see Recommendations 1 & 4) Report Issued: 06/13/12 Report Public: 06/15/12 Response Due: 09/11/12 7 Administrative Division The Administrative Division provides support services for the daily push, pack, and cover operations of the landfill. This includes: • Administrative Services (transfer station and contract oversight) • Administrative Support (Legislative Analysis, Training, Recruitments, Personnel, Document Management) • Information Technology (Network Administration, Database Administration, Web Development, Software Development) • Planning • Safety • Fleet (Fleet Administration, Equipment Procurement, Store Warehouse, Equipment and Vehicle Maintenance) • Gate Fee • Accounting, (General Accounting and Reporting, Accounts Payable, Accounts Receivable, Asset Management, Purchasing, Budget and Financial Analysis) • Payroll Engineering/Operations Division The Department oversees many active, inactive and closed landfill sites that the Engineering/Operations Division must design, permit, construct, operate and maintain. When one thinks about the work performed, thoughts immediately go to the Badlands and Lamb Canyon Landfills, (the) major active sites. However, there are still many inactive and officially closed landfill sites that require equal or even greater amounts of time in permitting and maintenance than (the) major active landfill sites do. Most activities are performed in-house, with little use of consultants. Activities include: • Design (preparing grading plans, hydrology studies, soil loss analysis, seismic and stability studies, hydraulic calculations, traffic plans, designing state of the art liner systems, etc.) • Permitting (preparing necessary documents to obtain permits and operating the site in compliance with federal and state landfill regulations) Attachment 1 8 • Construction Management (preparing contract documents, performing construction oversight of public works contracts, etc.) • Operations (overseeing the daily “push, pack, and cover” operation of burying refuse) • Refuse Control (litter control, illegal Dumping Cleanup Program, Post Closure Maintenance) Environmental Division The Environmental Division oversees a variety of support activities to the daily push, pack, and cover operations at the site. This includes: • Environmental monitoring To control landfill gas, the Department’s Air/Gas Section designs, o permits, operates, and maintains landfill gas collection and flare stations, and performs air quality monitoring. To protect ground and surface water from contamination, the o Department’s Water Section designs, permits, operates, and maintains groundwater monitoring and remediation systems and performs groundwater and surface water sampling. Leachate management. o • Load Check Program • Traffic Direction Program • Recycling at the Landfills • Household Hazardous Waste Collection Program • Recycling (AB 939 Compliance, Business Recycling and Household Recycling Public Education) • Composting Program Attachment 1 9 Workplace Violence, Threats and Securities C-27 III. RESPONSIBILITIES D. Agency/district/department heads must:
F7: Ensure that all work sites and work practices within the agency/district/department areas of responsibility are reviewed for the purpose of providing employee security and protection from the potential of reasonably foreseeable violent action.
Página 10
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R7: Ensure that all work sites and work practices within the agency/district/department areas of responsibility are reviewed for the purpose of providing employee security and protection from the potential of reasonably foreseeable violent action.
F1986: The Board elected to account for Department activity as an enterprise fund, a business-type activity, responsible for funding operations from user fees. The operation became a special district in 1994 and remained so until 1998 when it again became a County department. Most of the individuals hired during this time continue to be County employees. As of this writing, there are more than 200 employees in the Department. Over half of them are in the field, working at the landfills or performing support activities of landfill operations. The Department has three divisions: Administration, Engineering/Operations, and Environmental. Each division has multiple branches. (See Attachment 1) The focus of this investigation is on the work environment in the Riverside County Waste Management Department. Findings Hostile Work Environment 1. Grand Jury interviews of current and former employees, testifying under oath, indicated the management team claims to have a long memory. An employee labeled as “not a team player” is viewed less favorably for advancement opportunities while other, less qualified people, are hired and/or promoted because they are in the right “clique”. Grand Jury investigation revealed a lack of communication exists between senior management and line staff. It was further substantiated through interviews with current and former employees of the Department, as well as County Human Resources Department (HR) managers, that the work environment of the Department is hostile. Since Fiscal Year 2006, there have been 21 harassment and/or discrimination complaints filed against the Department. Thirteen resulted in an HR investigation for misconduct. According to sworn testimony, senior management, as well as some supervisors, are deemed unapproachable. Also, according to those interviewed, this atmosphere is pervasive in the field, i.e., the Badlands and the Lamb Canyon landfills. The County of Riverside “Speak Out!” program has been developed to engage the participation of employees and the public to help meet the commitment to maintaining the highest level of ethics and integrity in all County operations. It is intended to be used to help the County eliminate fraud, waste, and abuse by using “Speak Out!” to report concerns. Everyone has free, unlimited access to the anonymous and confidential third- party reporting system powered by “MySafeWorkplace.” This service is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week via the Internet. Examples of the types of incidents that can be reported through “Speak Out!” including the following: • Fraud • Waste • Abuse • Ethic Violations • Retaliation • Discrimination • Safety Violations The website further states: “Retaliation of any sort will not be tolerated by the County of Riverside in accordance with California Labor Code 1102.5 and 1106.” Corrective and Disciplinary Action 2. Definitions of County HR’s first steps of corrective action per County of Riverside Managers and Supervisors Disciplinary Process Manual include: • Directive Memorandum informs employee or group of employees how to complete a task or what the rules are and directs employee to perform correctly in the future. • Corrective Memorandum is a warning memorandum, which informs an employee that, even after previous direction, a task is still being completed incorrectly or improper behaviors are still occurring. • Corrective Counseling Confirmation Memorandum is a warning summary memo from a formal counseling interview which includes dialogue between supervisor and employees. • Written Reprimand is the first, formal disciplinary step. Waste Management Department Policy A-10 (1e) states: Supervisors shall maintain files on direct reports to document items related to behavior, discipline, and attendance. These documents/notes shall not be kept longer than twelve (12) months. Sworn testimony given to this Grand Jury indicated those interviewed fear incidents, documented in Directive Memorandums, Corrective Memorandums, and Corrective Counseling Confirmation memorandums, which are not formal 2 disciplinary action, may be brought up beyond one year and used as a springboard into disciplinary action. Copies of these written notices are kept in the supervisor’s file. Ongoing Training 3. Board Policy C-23 (1) “Disciplinary Process Policy” states: Agency/department heads, managers, and supervisors shall attend a disciplinary process training program administered by Human Resources prior to or within 90 days of appointment. As attested by HR, Department managers and supervisors attend mandatory refresher training every two years on Discipline Process, Sexual Harassment, Family Medical Leave Act, Workplace Violence, and Management Harassment Prevention. Based on testimony received, this biennial training fails to address sufficiently the skills requisite to perform the complex supervisorial and managerial responsibilities of the position. Department management has been advised by HR that “employees need to be appreciated” and the Department environment needs “to be about promoting motivation and improving culture.” The Center for Government Excellence is a County-wide resource for performance solutions, providing quality programs that anticipate and meet the changing needs of Riverside County. These programs strive to build a sustainable culture of continuous learning and excellence in Riverside County. According to sworn testimony given to the Grand Jury about the Center for Government Excellence, this center is underutilized. Annual Performance Evaluation Report 4. Board Policy C-21 (2) “Annual Performance Evaluation Reports” states: Agency/department managers shall prepare, or cause to be prepared, a written, confidential evaluation of the performance of each regular employee assigned to their management responsibility. Evaluations shall be in a form prescribed by the agency/department, as reviewed by Human Resources, but shall comply with the principles encompassed in this policy. To substantiate sworn testimony, this Grand Jury requested and received access to the Employee Performance Management System. Investigation of information retrieved from this system revealed annual performance evaluations are not performed in a timely manner throughout the County, and at times, not at all. Board Policy C-21 (3) states: The frequency of evaluations prescribed by this policy shall be as follows: (b) All…regular employees of Riverside County shall be evaluated on an annual basis, approximately on the anniversary of their initial employment with county or on the anniversary of promotion or entry into their current job classification. Department Policy B-12 states, in part: “…on or near the anniversary date of current job classification entry.” Interviews conducted by the Grand Jury, coupled with random checks of Department employee personnel files, revealed that the Department is in violation of these policies. Board Policy C-21 (5, d) 5. Board Policy C-21 (5, d) “Employee Performance Evaluation Reports” states: Anytime an agency/department anticipates giving an employee an overall rating of unacceptable or improvement needed, the agency/department should notify Human Resources and seek its review and support of the evaluation. Zero Tolerance Standard 6. The Board has the following policy regarding behavior “…implied…indirect…that subjects another individual to emotional distress.” Board Policy C-27 “Workplace Violence, Threats and Securities” states: The County of Riverside does not tolerate any type of workplace violence committed by or against employees. Employees are prohibited from making threats or engaging in violent activities. The list of zero tolerance behaviors with regard to threats and/or violence shall include, but not be limited to, the following proactive measures and/or prohibited behaviors: 1. Engaging or allowing engagement in violent conduct or making threats of violence, implied, actual, direct, or indirect, or causing actual physical injury to another person at a county workplace or in connection with the conduct of county business. 4 2. Any aggressive or hostile behavior that creates a reasonable fear of injury to another person or subjects another individual to emotional distress. During the Grand Jury interview process with current and former Department employees and other County employees, this Grand Jury was advised of several incidents in which derogatory, racially- inflammatory remarks and/or behavior have been reported and/or documented. Instances cited: • During sworn testimony from separate sources and independent Grand Jury investigation, it was found there is a history in the Department regarding racial discrimination. In 1989 an African-American equipment operator filed a grievance with his union against a supervisor at the Badlands landfill. After that filing, this supervisor’s son-in-law, a Department employee since 1982 and a current Lamb Canyon project supervisor, followed the equipment operator to a gas station and called him a derogatory racial term. There is also reference to a restraining order against the father-in-law by this same equipment operator. On May 21, 1990, a lawsuit (Case Number 2052431) was filed by the equipment operator against the County of Riverside “for damages for discrimination on the basis of race.” • A review of Department personnel files by this Grand Jury revealed a reprimand of a former Department employee. This reprimand, issued September 20, 2004, followed an eight-day investigation conducted by HR, which found the employee guilty of making stereotypical racial comments about African-Americans to an African-American who took offense. At that time, the employee’s direct supervisor, a current Lamb Canyon supervisor, refused to sign the reprimand. • According to three sworn sources, an operations and maintenance supervisor at Lamb Canyon is known for using racial slurs regarding Department employees of African-American descent. • Two of these independent sources claim an additional operations and maintenance supervisor is known for using racial slurs against African- Americans working in the Department. • One of these sources, a former Department employee who is African- American, testified under oath he was told, “You get your black ass out there and eat in that trailer.” This former equipment operator said, “The trailer is crawling with rats and cats and their droppings, as well as insects.” He further testified he was “called a nigger” and “was treated like a nigger” during his eight years with the Department, up through November 2011. Recommendations Riverside County Board of Supervisors Riverside County Human Resources Riverside County Executive Office Riverside County Waste Management Department 1. The County must publicize the existence of “Speak Out!” to all Waste Management Department employees, as well as provide frequent information about this program to County employees and County residents.
Página 1
Recomendaciones adicionales 1

No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.

R8: Undertake appropriate discipline as determined by Human Resources. Attachment 2 10
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 6 hallazgos
F1: Grand Jury interviews of current and former employees, testifying under oath, indicated the management team claims to have a long memory. An employee labeled as “not a team player” is viewed less favorably for advancement opportunities while other, less qualified people, are hired and/or promoted because they are in the right “clique”. Grand Jury investigation revealed a lack of communication exists between senior management and line staff. It was further substantiated through interviews with current and former employees of the Department, as well as County Human Resources Department (HR) managers, that the work environment of the Department is hostile. Since Fiscal Year 2006, there have been 21 harassment and/or discrimination complaints filed against the Department. Thirteen resulted in an HR investigation for misconduct. According to sworn testimony, senior management, as well as some supervisors, are deemed unapproachable. Also, according to those interviewed, this atmosphere is pervasive in the field, i.e., the Badlands and the Lamb Canyon landfills. The County of Riverside “Speak Out!” program has been developed to engage the participation of employees and the public to help meet the commitment to maintaining the highest level of ethics and integrity in all County operations. It is intended to be used to help the County eliminate fraud, waste, and abuse by using “Speak Out!” to report concerns. Everyone has free, unlimited access to the anonymous and confidential third- party reporting system powered by “MySafeWorkplace.” This service is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week via the Internet. Examples of the types of incidents that can be reported through “Speak Out!” including the following: • Fraud • Waste • Abuse • Ethic Violations • Retaliation • Discrimination • Safety Violations The website further states: “Retaliation of any sort will not be tolerated by the County of Riverside in accordance with California Labor Code 1102.5 and 1106.” Corrective and Disciplinary Action
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1: The County must publicize the existence of “Speak Out!” to all Waste Management Department employees, as well as provide frequent information about this program to County employees and County residents.
F2: Definitions of County HR’s first steps of corrective action per County of Riverside Managers and Supervisors Disciplinary Process Manual include: • Directive Memorandum informs employee or group of employees how to complete a task or what the rules are and directs employee to perform correctly in the future. • Corrective Memorandum is a warning memorandum, which informs an employee that, even after previous direction, a task is still being completed incorrectly or improper behaviors are still occurring. • Corrective Counseling Confirmation Memorandum is a warning summary memo from a formal counseling interview which includes dialogue between supervisor and employees. • Written Reprimand is the first, formal disciplinary step. Waste Management Department Policy A-10 (1e) states: Supervisors shall maintain files on direct reports to document items related to behavior, discipline, and attendance. These documents/notes shall not be kept longer than twelve (12) months. Sworn testimony given to this Grand Jury indicated those interviewed fear incidents, documented in Directive Memorandums, Corrective Memorandums, and Corrective Counseling Confirmation memorandums, which are not formal 2 disciplinary action, may be brought up beyond one year and used as a springboard into disciplinary action. Copies of these written notices are kept in the supervisor’s file. Ongoing Training
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2: The County HR Department must receive a copy of all written memorandums, i.e., Directive Memorandums, Corrective Memorandums, and Corrective Counseling Confirmation Memorandums. HR must dispose of these copies after one year. Department supervisors must adhere to Waste Management Department Policy A-10, “Records Retention.”
F3: Board Policy C-23 (1) “Disciplinary Process Policy” states: Agency/department heads, managers, and supervisors shall attend a disciplinary process training program administered by Human Resources prior to or within 90 days of appointment. As attested by HR, Department managers and supervisors attend mandatory refresher training every two years on Discipline Process, Sexual Harassment, Family Medical Leave Act, Workplace Violence, and Management Harassment Prevention. Based on testimony received, this biennial training fails to address sufficiently the skills requisite to perform the complex supervisorial and managerial responsibilities of the position. Department management has been advised by HR that “employees need to be appreciated” and the Department environment needs “to be about promoting motivation and improving culture.” The Center for Government Excellence is a County-wide resource for performance solutions, providing quality programs that anticipate and meet the changing needs of Riverside County. These programs strive to build a sustainable culture of continuous learning and excellence in Riverside County. According to sworn testimony given to the Grand Jury about the Center for Government Excellence, this center is underutilized. Annual Performance Evaluation Report
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3: Agency/department heads, managers, and supervisors must receive mandatory training by the Center for Government Excellence, focusing on the areas provided in the “Better Riverside County Supervisor Competency Clusters”: • Communicating Effectively • Inspiring Others • Managing Diverse Relationships • Being Open and Receptive HR will document and ensure there is frequent and ongoing training of supervisors and managers, which is provided by the Center for Government Excellence in its Management and Supervisory Excellence Academies.
F4: Board Policy C-21 (2) “Annual Performance Evaluation Reports” states: Agency/department managers shall prepare, or cause to be prepared, a written, confidential evaluation of the performance of each regular employee assigned to their management responsibility. Evaluations shall be in a form prescribed by the agency/department, as reviewed by Human Resources, but shall comply with the principles encompassed in this policy. To substantiate sworn testimony, this Grand Jury requested and received access to the Employee Performance Management System. Investigation of information retrieved from this system revealed annual performance evaluations are not performed in a timely manner throughout the County, and at times, not at all. Board Policy C-21 (3) states: The frequency of evaluations prescribed by this policy shall be as follows: (b) All…regular employees of Riverside County shall be evaluated on an annual basis, approximately on the anniversary of their initial employment with county or on the anniversary of promotion or entry into their current job classification. Department Policy B-12 states, in part: “…on or near the anniversary date of current job classification entry.” Interviews conducted by the Grand Jury, coupled with random checks of Department employee personnel files, revealed that the Department is in violation of these policies. Board Policy C-21 (5, d)
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R4: Board Policy C-21 and Department Policy B-12 must be enforced, holding managers and supervisors accountable for failure to comply. The Riverside County Executive Office must require HR to devise, or cause to be devised, a tracking system to identify upcoming annual employee evaluations. This procedure must provide a specific completion date. Failure on the part of department management to adhere to the completion date will result in formal disciplinary action.
F5: Board Policy C-21 (5, d) “Employee Performance Evaluation Reports” states: Anytime an agency/department anticipates giving an employee an overall rating of unacceptable or improvement needed, the agency/department should notify Human Resources and seek its review and support of the evaluation. Zero Tolerance Standard
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R5: Board Policy C-21 (5, d) “Employee Performance Evaluation Reports” must be reworded to say “will” instead of “should.”
F6: The Board has the following policy regarding behavior “…implied…indirect…that subjects another individual to emotional distress.” Board Policy C-27 “Workplace Violence, Threats and Securities” states: The County of Riverside does not tolerate any type of workplace violence committed by or against employees. Employees are prohibited from making threats or engaging in violent activities. The list of zero tolerance behaviors with regard to threats and/or violence shall include, but not be limited to, the following proactive measures and/or prohibited behaviors:
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R6: In accordance with Board Policy C-27, managers and/or supervisors, as well as other employees who are guilty of using derogatory, racially-inflammatory 6 remarks and/or behavior must be subject to appropriate corrective action and follow-up disciplinary action per the Zero Tolerance policy. The Board will enforce Policy C-27 II “Zero Tolerance Standard” Enforcement: b. All reports of threats and violent behavior, implied, actual, direct, or indirect, will be documented and investigated. Such documentation shall include a narrative of the incident including names and other appropriate identification of the parties involved, verbal comments made or a description of the violent behavior, witness names, and witness statements. The Board will enforce Policy C-27 III “Responsibilities” D (see Attachment 2). (Also see Recommendations 1 & 4) Report Issued: 06/13/12 Report Public: 06/15/12 Response Due: 09/11/12 7 Administrative Division The Administrative Division provides support services for the daily push, pack, and cover operations of the landfill. This includes: • Administrative Services (transfer station and contract oversight) • Administrative Support (Legislative Analysis, Training, Recruitments, Personnel, Document Management) • Information Technology (Network Administration, Database Administration, Web Development, Software Development) • Planning • Safety • Fleet (Fleet Administration, Equipment Procurement, Store Warehouse, Equipment and Vehicle Maintenance) • Gate Fee • Accounting, (General Accounting and Reporting, Accounts Payable, Accounts Receivable, Asset Management, Purchasing, Budget and Financial Analysis) • Payroll Engineering/Operations Division The Department oversees many active, inactive and closed landfill sites that the Engineering/Operations Division must design, permit, construct, operate and maintain. When one thinks about the work performed, thoughts immediately go to the Badlands and Lamb Canyon Landfills, (the) major active sites. However, there are still many inactive and officially closed landfill sites that require equal or even greater amounts of time in permitting and maintenance than (the) major active landfill sites do. Most activities are performed in-house, with little use of consultants. Activities include: • Design (preparing grading plans, hydrology studies, soil loss analysis, seismic and stability studies, hydraulic calculations, traffic plans, designing state of the art liner systems, etc.) • Permitting (preparing necessary documents to obtain permits and operating the site in compliance with federal and state landfill regulations) Attachment 1 8 • Construction Management (preparing contract documents, performing construction oversight of public works contracts, etc.) • Operations (overseeing the daily “push, pack, and cover” operation of burying refuse) • Refuse Control (litter control, illegal Dumping Cleanup Program, Post Closure Maintenance) Environmental Division The Environmental Division oversees a variety of support activities to the daily push, pack, and cover operations at the site. This includes: • Environmental monitoring To control landfill gas, the Department’s Air/Gas Section designs, o permits, operates, and maintains landfill gas collection and flare stations, and performs air quality monitoring. To protect ground and surface water from contamination, the o Department’s Water Section designs, permits, operates, and maintains groundwater monitoring and remediation systems and performs groundwater and surface water sampling. Leachate management. o • Load Check Program • Traffic Direction Program • Recycling at the Landfills • Household Hazardous Waste Collection Program • Recycling (AB 939 Compliance, Business Recycling and Household Recycling Public Education) • Composting Program Attachment 1 9 Workplace Violence, Threats and Securities C-27 III. RESPONSIBILITIES D. Agency/district/department heads must:
Recomendaciones adicionales 2

No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.

R7: Ensure that all work sites and work practices within the agency/district/department areas of responsibility are reviewed for the purpose of providing employee security and protection from the potential of reasonably foreseeable violent action.
R8: Undertake appropriate discipline as determined by Human Resources. Attachment 2 10
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 2 hallazgos
F1: During interviews with employees, city officials, and citizens of the City, it was identified that several of the city positions are filled with paid employees and other positions are filled by contracted vendors. The City website (www.CityofWildomar.org) and the organizational chart do not identify which positions are filled by city employees (with city paid benefits) and which positions are contracted personnel (without city paid benefits). Lack of identification has caused confusion with residents of the City. 1
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1: Transparency requires that city positions held by a contracted person, company, or any entity other than a city employee shall be identified as a contracted position on the City web page and the City organizational chart. The chart must be posted on the City legal notice board.
F2: The City documented purchasing procedure is Ordinance No. 25 which covers both professional and consulting services. Within the procedure are the following sub-sections to which the city has failed to adhere: §3.06.110: “SEALED BID PROCEDURE FOR PURCHASES GREATER THAN $50,000.” §3.06.110 (a) (1): Public notice. The City Clerk shall cause notices inviting bids to be published at least twice in a newspaper of general circulation ten days before the date of opening of bids, with the second publication occurring at least five days after the first, or posted for ten days in three public places in the City that have been designated by the City Council. §3.06.110 (c): …Bids shall be opened in public at the time and place stated in the public notice… §3.07.030: “CONSULTING CONTRACTS OVER $50,000” A contract for consulting services valued over fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) must be entered into by use of a competitive sealed proposals. Proposals for the contract shall be solicited through a Request for Proposal. § (a) Public Notice. Public notice of the Request for Proposals shall be given in the same manner as provided in section 3.06.110 (a). [sic] During the grand jury interviewing process, a contracted department head and a city official stated the amended contract dated August 10, 2011, for community services, was awarded to Diamond W Events Inc. based on prior work relations with the City. This contract was for $87,600 per year and therefore in violation of the purchasing ordinance §3.06.110 and §3.07.030. In the Grand Jury Report of 2009-2010 Diamond W Events, was listed as a finding. The City had awarded the original contract, dated October 20, 2009, to Diamond W Events without competitive bidding as required by purchasing procedure Ordinance No. 25. The current renegotiated contract between the city and Diamond W Events was entered into without following Ordinance No. 25 as it applies. During the investigation, the Grand Jury requested to see documentation that would identify any other bids submitted on this contract. The City did not present any such documents. A review of the current contract awarded to Diamond W Events identifies rates to be used that over a yearly contract would exceed $50,000. 2
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2: Contracts for contracted services and city positions must be advertised, bid on by qualified interested parties, and then awarded to the lowest qualified bidder, in accordance with the City Purchasing Procedure Ordinance No. 25, §3.07.030. Report Issued: 04/18/2012 Report Public: 04/23/2012 Response Due: 07/17/2012 3
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 8 hallazgos
F1: In July, 2011, DMH was advised in a 2010-2011 Grand Jury report and was notified by the Institute of Medical Quality that the medical/mental health staffing levels in county jails needed to be restored to 2007 levels, in order to be in compliance with Title 15, Chapter 4, Article 9. As of this writing, the Grand Jury learned through sworn testimony that during the eight months following the 2010- 2011 Grand Jury report, DMH staffing levels were allowed to decrease even further. This was a result of transferring experienced, mental-health, registered nurses out of the jails before licensed clinician replacements were available. The 2012 RCDMH organizational chart reflects currently there are 21 vacant positions out of 40 positions funded with adult detention facilities and three vacant positions out of nine funded in the juvenile facilities. The same chart shows staffing in adult non-detention mental health facilities as having only one vacant position. The Grand Jury learned from sworn testimony that all have the same credentials, but non-detention clinicians have not completed the required background investigation as required by Title 15. The same issues exist in juvenile facilities, which also experienced staff reductions in 2009. The current 2011-2012 budget has not restored the juvenile facilities staffing of 2007. The Grand Jury learned from sworn testimony that filling vacant positions in DMH has been made even more difficult due to the non-competitive salary structure. Annual Performance Evaluations
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1: RCDMH must maintain required staffing levels in detention facilities by ensuring existing mental health staff, outside of detention facilities, can be transferred temporarily into detention facilities until full-time replacements can be secured. RCDMH must perform a comparative salary survey of other agencies and adjust salary structures accordingly.
F2: Through sworn testimony, the Grand Jury learned that up to 60 percent of DMH staff working in detention facilities have not received annual performance evaluations as required by Riverside County Board of Supervisors Policy C-21. Communication within Detention Mental Health
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2: RCDMH must ensure that DMH workers have annual performance evaluations as directed by Riverside County Policy C-21.
F3: The Grand Jury learned that some detention mental health workers are fearful of communicating with supervisors and/or managers about urgent work-related issues for fear of retaliation. Testimony also revealed that a number of Juvenile DMH clinicians have had onsite visits by their supervisors as few as three times a year. Temporary Replacement of Mental Health Workers
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3: DMH supervisors and managers must be given appropriate training as dictated by Riverside County Policy C-23 to ensure they are afforded access to information regarding the requirements and responsibilities of their positions. RCDMH and DMH department heads, managers, and supervisors must receive mandatory follow-up training by the Center for Government Excellence, focusing on the areas provided in the “Better Riverside County Supervisor Competency Clusters”:  Communicating Effectively,  Inspiring Others,  Managing Diverse Relationships, and  Being Open and Receptive. The County Human Resources Department will not only document, but must ensure there is frequent and ongoing training of supervisors and managers, provided by the Center for Government Excellence in its Management and Supervisory Excellence Academies. RCDMH must implement a suggestion program to encourage open communication between administrators and DMH workers. When DMH supervisors are not located in the same geographical area as the clinicians, the supervisors must make frequent visits to the worksite to assist, direct and oversee the operation of DMH workers at the detention facility.
F4: There is an insufficient number of qualified RCDMH personnel to fill vacancies that may arise in DMH. The requirement for level-one security in the jails makes a temporary assignment impossible when the appropriate level-one background investigation required is not completed. (Currently, juvenile facilities do not require a level-one security background check.) The requirements for a background check are the responsibility of the employing departments (i.e., RCDMH, Riverside County Regional Medical Center, and Riverside County Office of Education.) The background check consists of a fingerprint check for possible criminal background, physical exam, drug/alcohol screening, and education and licensure verification. Probation has the authority, through Title 15, Section 1400, to deny any person permission to work with juveniles; however, Probation is not provided with any background or security information obtained in the investigation. Juvenile Detention Administration Consolidation
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R4: RCDMH must provide qualified backup mental-health staff for temporary assignment to detention facilities. These individuals must have the appropriate security clearance and be compensated appropriately if and when they are transferred to detention facilities. 6
F5: Current organizational charts of RCDMH show that the administration of the five juvenile detention facilities in Riverside County are under three administrators based on their geographical location. The staffing of DMH workers under these three administrators represents approximately two to five percent of their staffing, as they are also responsible for over 100 other employees. This situation does not allow effective personnel management among facilities as needed or free communication with Probation or within DMH. Memorandum of Agreement for Juvenile Facilities
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R5: RCDMH must consolidate juvenile DMH personnel positions under one administration.
F6: Sworn testimony from various sources in the RCDMH, DMH and Probation revealed mental-health-care services for in-custody juveniles lacks an adequate number of therapists and clerical assistants. This prevents provide mental-health services from being effective, as required by Title 15. The Probation director is responsible for the security of everyone in a juvenile facility per Title 15, but is not authorized access to the results of the findings of pre-employment investigation conducted by another agency for their employees. Pre-employment background checks for RCDMH, Riverside County Regional Medical Center, and Riverside County Department of Education employees that work in juvenile custody areas are being conducted by the person’s employing department without the Probation’s involvement. In addition, it was brought to the attention of the Grand Jury, through sworn testimony, that in some juvenile facilities mental-health records are not being completed in a timely manner as directed by Title 15, Section 1406, which states that the examination and paper work must be completed in 96 hours. Referral Process in Adult Detention
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R6: DMH and Probation must develop a Memorandum of Agreement that addresses the staffing, security level, and scope of work issues required to address the needs of the juvenile population meeting the requirements of Title 15. Probation and RCDMH shall initiate an independent study possibly through the Institute of Medical Quality, a subsidiary of the California Medical Association, that completed a similar study for the Riverside County Jails.
F7: Sworn testimony by mental health workers and correctional staff indicate procedures for generating and tracking mental health referrals in the adult detention facilities as being insufficient in their compliance with Title 15, Division 1, Chapter 1, Subchapter 4. Current problems are: • delays in notifying DMH of problems, concerns and requests for service, • significant backlogs of adult referrals, particularly with the new AB109 transfers, • no visual tracking or status reporting of referrals, and • collected data does not separate critical requests from routine, thereby making the severity of a problem difficult to ascertain. Gaps in Coverage
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R7: The Sheriff’s Department and DMH must establish a committee to revamp the current referral and reporting process to separate the urgent requests from the routine.
F8: The Grand Jury learned, through sworn testimony, that mental-health crisis management has been reported by DMH to have gaps in its mental-health coverage. Outlying juvenile detention facilities often do not have mental-health coverage in the after-hours. Transportation of an individual requires by law, at least two officers. This takes the officers away from the facility for up to six hours. This may require outside assistance such as, but not limited to, fire department paramedics and ambulance services. 5
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R8: RCDMH must establish a backup plan to move DMH clinicians rather than moving the patient. It must further utilize an existing video system or install a video conferencing system at these outlying facilities connecting them to a location where services can be provided. Report Issued: 6/11/12 Report Public: 6/13/12 Response Due: 9/10/12 7
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 5 hallazgos
F1: The College promotes itself as “a leader in providing …public safety training” and advertises its Public Safety Academy that claims to provide “well defined academic programs leading to degrees and certificates in …Basic Peace Officer Training”. The “Program Overview” states: At the College of the Desert Public Safety Academy (COD-PSA) you can complete the POST Certified Training which is required to become a Full- Time Peace Officer or a Reserve Police Officer. The Academy further lists the three required classes in the Module Training Program and orientation dates which include a date “pending” for Module I, followed by the cost breakdown of the three modules and “Total Estimated Costs $3,223.” From the published information it would appear that an interested applicant could become a fully-trained peace officer through the College’s program. The College is not currently certified to offer Module I Training. In a letter dated May 12, 2011, the Riverside County Sheriff’s Office (RSO) outlined to the College administration, the basic requirements for a “long-term, collaboration and effective law enforcement training program with College of the Desert”. Included in the letter were these requirements: GENERAL REQUIREMENTS • All aspects of training conducted in collaboration with the Sheriff must be coordinated solely through the commander of the Ben Clark Training Center (BCTC). The Sheriff’s Training Center is responsible for any coordination with POST, or application of POST requirements. • Scheduling of all POST courses can be made in close collaboration with COD. However, the RSO must be able to conduct training that spans more than one traditional college semester and starts and/or finishes at a time not traditional to other college courses. RSO must have the authority to schedule training in order to minimize operational costs. • Advisory input for academy operations must be made through RSO Academy Advisory Committee, which already contains the members of COD PSA’s. It is critical that Basic Academy operations are consistent in 2 both fulltime and modular formats. …The current overlapping committees create confusion and duplication. MODULAR ACADEMY REQUIREMENTS • RSO must certify and coordinate all modules of the academy. RSO certifies a whole academy not just a module. Producing only one part of a POST Regular Basic Course does not serve the interest of the greater law enforcement community. There must be unity of command to insure [sic] accountability. • No Deviation from POST Standards. Operations, oversight and management of the academy must meet POST standards and RSO standards… At this time there are no active negotiations between the College and the Sheriff. Academy Curriculum
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1: The College must obtain a POST Certification for Module I. This can be accomplished by obtaining its own Certification from POST or through an agreement with the County Sheriff, similar to the agreement between Riverside Community College District and the Ben Clark Training Center. 4
F2: Through interviews with all the chiefs and commanders of law enforcement agencies in the Coachella Valley, which utilize most of the graduates of the Academy, the Grand Jury learned that there is a lack of effectiveness in classroom instruction at the Academy. This ineffectiveness is attributed to outdated instructional methods and curriculum being used. The Grand Jury found that only one Academy graduate of all three peace officer training modules in the past five years is still employed in the Coachella Valley. Some chiefs stated that recruits were unprepared to pass the probationary period, after receiving training at the Academy. During its investigation, the Grand Jury learned that some instructors at the Academy are teaching classes that lack relevance to the students’ required training. An example of this lack of relevancy is an eight-hour course about the history of the handgun. Other instructors do nothing more than show videos, thus limiting and/or totally eliminating opportunities for class participation and providing no follow-up to the pseudo-instruction. POST trains highly qualified law enforcement personnel, who are subject matter experts in quality orientation instruction, to become mentors to those instructing at law enforcement academies and regional training centers throughout the state. The POST Master Instructor Certification Course is a two-year program to train and certify law enforcement personnel in developing curriculum and modern methods of delivery of that material. These master instructors train the trainers at academies and training centers. They are used by POST training agencies to assist their instructors to improve their curriculum and teaching techniques in the classroom. Advisory Committee
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2: The Academy staff must be proactive in providing effective, up-to-date instruction and curriculum to their students. To accomplish this, the Academy must utilize POST Master Instructors.
F3: POST mandates that police academies have an advisory committee with local law enforcement leaders. Interviews with the nine members of the Advisory Committee revealed a number of problems with the committee: • Membership a. One did not know he was a member of the committee. b. One was not sure he was a member of the committee. c. One said he was a member in name only. • The majority are not sure of their duties or responsibilities. • Members agree that meetings are not held on a regular basis. Most indicate they had not been to or rarely attend meetings. • Committee members, in general, think the committee is ineffective because there is little interaction between the committee and the Academy. Information Accuracy
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3: The College must reorganize the Advisory Committee to make it effective. The members must be made aware of their duties and responsibilities. The College must involve the committee by seeking and considering ideas and advice from the committee regarding Academy programs. Meetings, with pre-published agendas, must be held quarterly, at a minimum. They must be held on regularly designated dates and times and meet at one specific location (ideally on the College campus).
F4: The Academy publicizes that it provides the training necessary for the three levels of peace officer training. Currently, the Academy does not offer Module I through which a student can become a sworn peace officer. It leaves the impression on its website, as of June 11, 2012, that the program is, or soon will be, available. From sworn testimony the Grand Jury concluded that this practice is misleading to potential students.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R4: The College must immediately correct literature, including Internet sites, which incorrectly indicate that complete training to become a peace officer is available. Report Issued: 06/25/12 Report Public: 06/27/12 Response Due: 09/23/12 5
F1966: The College offers certificates and two-year Associate of Arts and Associate of Science degrees. The current student population is approximately 10,200. During 2011-2012, the College received approximately $23 million property tax revenue from Riverside County, a portion of which goes to the Public Safety Academy (Academy). The Academy, founded at the College on January 1, 2001, offers basic peace officer training. In the past, the Ben Clark Training Center (BCTC) had partnered with the Academy to provide additional training courses to supplement the College’s Basic Peace Officer Training program. To complete the peace officer safety certification training, required to become a full-time peace officer, there are three Module Training Programs: • BPOT-061 Basic Peace Officer Training Module III • BPOT-062 Basic Peace Officer Training Module II • BPOT-063 Basic Peace Officer Training Module I The Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) is a state agency, which regulates training required to become a peace officer in California. POST also certifies training centers that provide basic academy training and advanced officer training. This report addresses issues with the Academy. Findings POST Certification 1. The College promotes itself as “a leader in providing …public safety training” and advertises its Public Safety Academy that claims to provide “well defined academic programs leading to degrees and certificates in …Basic Peace Officer Training”. The “Program Overview” states: At the College of the Desert Public Safety Academy (COD-PSA) you can complete the POST Certified Training which is required to become a Full- Time Peace Officer or a Reserve Police Officer. The Academy further lists the three required classes in the Module Training Program and orientation dates which include a date “pending” for Module I, followed by the cost breakdown of the three modules and “Total Estimated Costs $3,223.” From the published information it would appear that an interested applicant could become a fully-trained peace officer through the College’s program. The College is not currently certified to offer Module I Training. In a letter dated May 12, 2011, the Riverside County Sheriff’s Office (RSO) outlined to the College administration, the basic requirements for a “long-term, collaboration and effective law enforcement training program with College of the Desert”. Included in the letter were these requirements: GENERAL REQUIREMENTS • All aspects of training conducted in collaboration with the Sheriff must be coordinated solely through the commander of the Ben Clark Training Center (BCTC). The Sheriff’s Training Center is responsible for any coordination with POST, or application of POST requirements. • Scheduling of all POST courses can be made in close collaboration with COD. However, the RSO must be able to conduct training that spans more than one traditional college semester and starts and/or finishes at a time not traditional to other college courses. RSO must have the authority to schedule training in order to minimize operational costs. • Advisory input for academy operations must be made through RSO Academy Advisory Committee, which already contains the members of COD PSA’s. It is critical that Basic Academy operations are consistent in 2 both fulltime and modular formats. …The current overlapping committees create confusion and duplication. MODULAR ACADEMY REQUIREMENTS • RSO must certify and coordinate all modules of the academy. RSO certifies a whole academy not just a module. Producing only one part of a POST Regular Basic Course does not serve the interest of the greater law enforcement community. There must be unity of command to insure [sic] accountability. • No Deviation from POST Standards. Operations, oversight and management of the academy must meet POST standards and RSO standards… At this time there are no active negotiations between the College and the Sheriff. Academy Curriculum 2. Through interviews with all the chiefs and commanders of law enforcement agencies in the Coachella Valley, which utilize most of the graduates of the Academy, the Grand Jury learned that there is a lack of effectiveness in classroom instruction at the Academy. This ineffectiveness is attributed to outdated instructional methods and curriculum being used. The Grand Jury found that only one Academy graduate of all three peace officer training modules in the past five years is still employed in the Coachella Valley. Some chiefs stated that recruits were unprepared to pass the probationary period, after receiving training at the Academy. During its investigation, the Grand Jury learned that some instructors at the Academy are teaching classes that lack relevance to the students’ required training. An example of this lack of relevancy is an eight-hour course about the history of the handgun. Other instructors do nothing more than show videos, thus limiting and/or totally eliminating opportunities for class participation and providing no follow-up to the pseudo-instruction. POST trains highly qualified law enforcement personnel, who are subject matter experts in quality orientation instruction, to become mentors to those instructing at law enforcement academies and regional training centers throughout the state. The POST Master Instructor Certification Course is a two-year program to train and certify law enforcement personnel in developing curriculum and modern methods of delivery of that material. These master instructors train the trainers at academies and training centers. They are used by POST training agencies to assist their instructors to improve their curriculum and teaching techniques in the classroom. Advisory Committee 3. POST mandates that police academies have an advisory committee with local law enforcement leaders. Interviews with the nine members of the Advisory Committee revealed a number of problems with the committee: • Membership a. One did not know he was a member of the committee. b. One was not sure he was a member of the committee. c. One said he was a member in name only. • The majority are not sure of their duties or responsibilities. • Members agree that meetings are not held on a regular basis. Most indicate they had not been to or rarely attend meetings. • Committee members, in general, think the committee is ineffective because there is little interaction between the committee and the Academy. Information Accuracy 4. The Academy publicizes that it provides the training necessary for the three levels of peace officer training. Currently, the Academy does not offer Module I through which a student can become a sworn peace officer. It leaves the impression on its website, as of June 11, 2012, that the program is, or soon will be, available. From sworn testimony the Grand Jury concluded that this practice is misleading to potential students.
Página 1
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 4 hallazgos
F1: The College promotes itself as “a leader in providing …public safety training” and advertises its Public Safety Academy that claims to provide “well defined academic programs leading to degrees and certificates in …Basic Peace Officer Training”. The “Program Overview” states: At the College of the Desert Public Safety Academy (COD-PSA) you can complete the POST Certified Training which is required to become a Full- Time Peace Officer or a Reserve Police Officer. The Academy further lists the three required classes in the Module Training Program and orientation dates which include a date “pending” for Module I, followed by the cost breakdown of the three modules and “Total Estimated Costs $3,223.” From the published information it would appear that an interested applicant could become a fully-trained peace officer through the College’s program. The College is not currently certified to offer Module I Training. In a letter dated May 12, 2011, the Riverside County Sheriff’s Office (RSO) outlined to the College administration, the basic requirements for a “long-term, collaboration and effective law enforcement training program with College of the Desert”. Included in the letter were these requirements: GENERAL REQUIREMENTS • All aspects of training conducted in collaboration with the Sheriff must be coordinated solely through the commander of the Ben Clark Training Center (BCTC). The Sheriff’s Training Center is responsible for any coordination with POST, or application of POST requirements. • Scheduling of all POST courses can be made in close collaboration with COD. However, the RSO must be able to conduct training that spans more than one traditional college semester and starts and/or finishes at a time not traditional to other college courses. RSO must have the authority to schedule training in order to minimize operational costs. • Advisory input for academy operations must be made through RSO Academy Advisory Committee, which already contains the members of COD PSA’s. It is critical that Basic Academy operations are consistent in 2 both fulltime and modular formats. …The current overlapping committees create confusion and duplication. MODULAR ACADEMY REQUIREMENTS • RSO must certify and coordinate all modules of the academy. RSO certifies a whole academy not just a module. Producing only one part of a POST Regular Basic Course does not serve the interest of the greater law enforcement community. There must be unity of command to insure [sic] accountability. • No Deviation from POST Standards. Operations, oversight and management of the academy must meet POST standards and RSO standards… At this time there are no active negotiations between the College and the Sheriff. Academy Curriculum
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1: The College must obtain a POST Certification for Module I. This can be accomplished by obtaining its own Certification from POST or through an agreement with the County Sheriff, similar to the agreement between Riverside Community College District and the Ben Clark Training Center. 4
F2: Through interviews with all the chiefs and commanders of law enforcement agencies in the Coachella Valley, which utilize most of the graduates of the Academy, the Grand Jury learned that there is a lack of effectiveness in classroom instruction at the Academy. This ineffectiveness is attributed to outdated instructional methods and curriculum being used. The Grand Jury found that only one Academy graduate of all three peace officer training modules in the past five years is still employed in the Coachella Valley. Some chiefs stated that recruits were unprepared to pass the probationary period, after receiving training at the Academy. During its investigation, the Grand Jury learned that some instructors at the Academy are teaching classes that lack relevance to the students’ required training. An example of this lack of relevancy is an eight-hour course about the history of the handgun. Other instructors do nothing more than show videos, thus limiting and/or totally eliminating opportunities for class participation and providing no follow-up to the pseudo-instruction. POST trains highly qualified law enforcement personnel, who are subject matter experts in quality orientation instruction, to become mentors to those instructing at law enforcement academies and regional training centers throughout the state. The POST Master Instructor Certification Course is a two-year program to train and certify law enforcement personnel in developing curriculum and modern methods of delivery of that material. These master instructors train the trainers at academies and training centers. They are used by POST training agencies to assist their instructors to improve their curriculum and teaching techniques in the classroom. Advisory Committee
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2: The Academy staff must be proactive in providing effective, up-to-date instruction and curriculum to their students. To accomplish this, the Academy must utilize POST Master Instructors.
F3: POST mandates that police academies have an advisory committee with local law enforcement leaders. Interviews with the nine members of the Advisory Committee revealed a number of problems with the committee: • Membership a. One did not know he was a member of the committee. b. One was not sure he was a member of the committee. c. One said he was a member in name only. • The majority are not sure of their duties or responsibilities. • Members agree that meetings are not held on a regular basis. Most indicate they had not been to or rarely attend meetings. • Committee members, in general, think the committee is ineffective because there is little interaction between the committee and the Academy. Information Accuracy
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3: The College must reorganize the Advisory Committee to make it effective. The members must be made aware of their duties and responsibilities. The College must involve the committee by seeking and considering ideas and advice from the committee regarding Academy programs. Meetings, with pre-published agendas, must be held quarterly, at a minimum. They must be held on regularly designated dates and times and meet at one specific location (ideally on the College campus).
F4: The Academy publicizes that it provides the training necessary for the three levels of peace officer training. Currently, the Academy does not offer Module I through which a student can become a sworn peace officer. It leaves the impression on its website, as of June 11, 2012, that the program is, or soon will be, available. From sworn testimony the Grand Jury concluded that this practice is misleading to potential students.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R4: The College must immediately correct literature, including Internet sites, which incorrectly indicate that complete training to become a peace officer is available. Report Issued: 06/25/12 Report Public: 06/27/12 Response Due: 09/23/12 5
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 10 hallazgos
F1: Proposition 10 states that children to be served will be from “prenatal stage to five years of age.” The First 5 California Commission has determined for its use, “to five years of age” means until the sixth birthday. Individual county commissions are permitted to use their own discretion on the age requirement for eligibility, as long as it’s under six years of age. Materials distributed from the First 5 programs in all 58 California counties differ in how they apply this eligibility. In Riverside County, First 5 has materials and publications that state:  0-5  0 to 5  0 through 5  Under 5  Prenatal stage to 5 2 After interviews with First 5 staff and commissioners, we found they were inconsistent in their understanding and application of the age requirement. Funding Eligibility
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1: First 5 must be consistent with the interpretation and application of eligibility for the children being funded. All literature, publications, and terminology must be consistent in the wording of eligibility. All First 5 commissioners and First 5 staff must adhere to this interpretation.
F2: Grand Jury testimony indicated there is confusion as to the extension or termination of a child’s eligibility to continue coverage by a program when the child reaches the maximum age during the period of contract service. Legal counsel from First 5 California stated that the decision regarding this aspect is left to each county organization. Organization and Process
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2: First 5 must define in a written policy terms for either extending or terminating assistance when a child reaches the maximum age of the defined eligibility in the middle of a contract. This policy must be consistent with the definition of child age eligibility to be utilized by First 5 commissioners, staff, and vendors throughout Riverside County.
F3: Since the inception of First 5, there have been significant changes in the relationship between First 5 and Riverside County. In the beginning, First 5 was a quasi-independent “special district” within Riverside County, not administratively under any department. In 2009, the Riverside County Board of Supervisors placed First 5 as a division under DPSS. The RFP process, by which potential grantees applied for funding, was handled directly by First 5 through FY 2010/2011. Under the current funding cycle FY 2011/2012, RFP’s are now initiated by First 5 and returned to the Riverside County Purchasing Department (Purchasing) for processing. Document Control
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3: First 5 and/or Purchasing shall prepare a clear and concise written procedure for the preparation of RFP applications to ensure the process and time-lines are the same for all applicants. First 5 and/or Purchasing shall educate potential grantees regarding the use of county purchasing procedures and the process for initiating and returning RFP applications, by offering workshops and published instructional materials. The Commission shall create a committee comprised of selected commissioners and staff to study how the new procedures impact the contracts division of First 5 and its future operations and responsibilities.
F4: Sworn testimony revealed there are allegations of document tampering and mismanagement of both computer and hardcopy files, including grants and contracts. Financial / Auditing
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R4: Because of the confidential nature of information in the First 5 files, accountability, tracking, and security must be ensured. First 5 must create a tracking procedure to identify by whom and when a file (computer and/or hardcopy) is accessed by any member of the staff or management. 6
F5: Multi-year grants are awarded and funds are set aside for full payment. First 5 receives money annually to cover these grants. The funds set aside for each grant are not tracked separately. Balances due on contracts are not adjusted and, as a result, unspent funds are not reallocated for new projects. Testimony revealed there was a total fund balance of over 60 million dollars. Concerns were expressed over the excessive amount kept in the reserve and not being used to fund children’s programs. Grand Jury interviews revealed that several fiscal administrators warned management of the threat that the State of California would appropriate 3 funds that were in reserves, some of which were tagged for future programs. First 5 staff, who are not auditors, perform mini-audits on selected funded programs. Auditing procedures are designed to form a validation of financial statements, and may not reveal all weaknesses in policies or procedures that exist. Information Technology
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R5: Each contract or grant must be audited by a certified auditor. Unspent funds which are not allotted for specific programs must be allocated for expansion of current or new projects/programs. The First 5 Commission shall appoint a finance committee comprised of at least five members to oversee and review the budget prepared by First 5 staff. The finance committee must be comprised of community persons with expertise in finance and auditing. This committee must be independent of First 5 staff and report directly to the commission. This committee must note any discrepancies or budgetary items with which First 5 staff disagrees and must point these out before the budget is presented to the commission. The finance committee shall review administrative costs as part of the annual budget review and determine if existing numbers are reasonable. The committee shall review statements of cash flow and returns on investments. It shall also review the annual financial audit report. The finance committee will make recommendations before acceptance by the commission. Once established, the finance committee will initiate and oversee a forensic audit, rather than the typical method of only reviewing random samples of selected accounting records.
F6: There is no requirement for First 5 to utilize Riverside County Information Technology Department (IT) resources. At the present time First 5 contracts with an outside vendor. Communication
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R6: Prior to renewal of the current outside vendor information technology contract, First 5 shall compare and document the use of an outside vendor versus the use of Riverside County IT services. Cost to First 5 and coordination with DPSS, as well as security elements, must be considered in the documentation.
F7: A DPSS staff report of interviews with First 5 staff, conducted from July 9, 2009 through July 22, 2009, states, “There is a perceived lack of communication from the top down.” Several of the staff members interviewed mentioned a major concern regarding communication and better information feedback. Current testimony revealed poor communication continues in a number of areas between:  First 5 staff and administration.  Staff/administration and the commission.  Staff/administration and the grantees.  Staff/administration and the community at large. Management / Staff Relations
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R7: The administration shall give credence to all viewpoints promulgated by staff. The staff must be clear and concise with information given to grantees. Communication with grantees must be documented and confirmed with both staff and grantees. First 5 shall inform the community and potential grantees through the use of local workshops and publications as to the programs First 5 offers.
F8: The Grand Jury investigation revealed management bias and favoritism when staff recommendations were modified prior to presentation to the Commission. Further investigation revealed that neither staff nor management understands the First 5 Commission’s policies and procedures related to staff complaints, grievances, and the resolution of internal conflicts. Testimony revealed this confusion has led to low morale and fear of job loss. Supplanting
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R8: First 5 will implement a transparent management style that promotes teamwork and exchange of all views between and among staff, administration, and the commission. Original recommendations made by staff and management, prior to any modification, must be presented to the commission prior to approval. Administration and staff must review and adhere to all policies and procedures.
F9: California Proposition 10, Section 30131.4 states: All moneys raised pursuant to taxes imposed by Section 30131.2 shall be appropriated and expended only for the purposes expressed in the California Children and Families Act, and shall be used only to supplement existing levels of service and not to fund existing levels of service. No moneys in the California Children and Families Trust Fund shall be used to supplant state or local General Fund money for any purpose. Under First 5 grant guidelines, a grant applicant must assure First 5 that funding of any kind will supplement, not supplant, existing programs. Sworn testimony revealed supplanting has allegedly occurred in funded programs. Conflict of Interest
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R9: First 5 staff, administration, and commissioners, as well as potential grantees must follow policies and procedures when funds are allocated, to ensure supplanting does not occur as defined by California Proposition 10, Section 30131.4. Grantees must certify non-supplantation in their applications for funding. First 5 must not allow grantees to re-title existing programs that are funded by other sources.
F10: Each First 5 county commission in California consists of members appointed by the county board of supervisors. All county commissions must include one member from the board of supervisors, the county health officer, and one member from a local government health-related service agency. The commission’s structure could be perceived as causing conflicts of interest in the awarding of contracts in their areas of knowledge and interests. Though apparent care is taken to recuse those affected, testimony revealed there is a continuing perception on the part of community members, providers, and even some staff that conflicts of interest are not fully addressed. 5
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R10: The Riverside County Board of Supervisors must appoint commissioners not affiliated with agencies most likely to be awarded significant funding, except those positions required by Proposition 10. To avoid the perception of conflict of interest, staff and commissioners must be transparent and publicly disclose and/or discuss the pertinent content of a recommended proposal and the voting results in applicant selection. Current methods used to identify and recuse persons with possible conflicts of interest must be strengthened. Report Issued: 04/18/2012 Report Public: 04/23/2012 Response Due: 07/17/2012 8