Gran Jurado del Condado de Riverside

2015-2016

12 informes

Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 3 hallazgos
F1: The NYTD Gift Card logs examined by the Grand Jury were not in accordance with DPSS policy. DPSS Policy 23-41 (dated 11-15-2002) Gift Certificates and Gift Cards (GC) states in part: The log must provide appropriate space to record the customer’s name, case #, ID#, GC#, and amount, etc., or whatever is used to establish the recipient of the GC as a customer and not an employee or friend of the requester. There must be a space for the signature of the person that unlocks the safe or file cabinet, because the same person will witness the acquiring of the Gift Card by the requester. In many cases, the gift card logs did not contain customer ID numbers, gift card numbers, case numbers, gift card amounts, date gift card issued, date gift card received, or signature of the issuing authority. 2
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1: Rewrite and enforce current department policy on the distribution of gift cards to ensure safeguards are in place to eliminate the risk of theft, fraudulent use and/or misuse. The revised policy to include a standardized template for the tracking of gift cards that encompasses all elements identified in DPSS Policy 23-41. Revise department policy to include monthly management oversight of the distribution of gift cards and subsequent documentation (logs) to ensure department policies are adhered to and required information is complete and accurately documented.
F2: DPSS lacks a clear and concise process for tracking undeliverable gift cards. Gift card logs from 2015 indicate some gift cards were “undeliverable” due to the inability to locate the recipient. In other cases, the logs indicated the cards were “pending delivery.” In either case, no further information of the final disposition of the card was provided. The final disposition of several cards was unclear.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2: Revise DPSS Policy 23-41 to include a clear and concise process for tracking gift cards from receipt to final disposition. The revised policy to provide direction for the tracking and disposition of gift cards including those identified as undeliverable or pending delivery.
F3: The process of purchasing gift cards for the NYTD Program is not cost effective. NYTD gift cards are purchased through a third party broker. As a result, unnecessary sales tax, mailing, handling and processing fees are incurred by DPSS.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3: Establish or revise department policy to eliminate the use of third party brokers to procure gift cards, thereby incurring unnecessary taxes and shipping and processing fees. Procure gift cards directly from vendors or retailers to minimize costs and manage quantities that would prevent acquiring excess cards. Report Issued: 06/21/2016 Report Public: 06/23/2016 Response Due: 09/19/2016 3
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 3 hallazgos
F1: The NYTD Gift Card logs examined by the Grand Jury were not in accordance with DPSS policy. DPSS Policy 23-41 (dated 11-15-2002) Gift Certificates and Gift Cards (GC) states in part: The log must provide appropriate space to record the customer’s name, case #, ID#, GC#, and amount, etc., or whatever is used to establish the recipient of the GC as a customer and not an employee or friend of the requester. There must be a space for the signature of the person that unlocks the safe or file cabinet, because the same person will witness the acquiring of the Gift Card by the requester. In many cases, the gift card logs did not contain customer ID numbers, gift card numbers, case numbers, gift card amounts, date gift card issued, date gift card received, or signature of the issuing authority. 2
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1: Rewrite and enforce current department policy on the distribution of gift cards to ensure safeguards are in place to eliminate the risk of theft, fraudulent use and/or misuse. The revised policy to include a standardized template for the tracking of gift cards that encompasses all elements identified in DPSS Policy 23-41. Revise department policy to include monthly management oversight of the distribution of gift cards and subsequent documentation (logs) to ensure department policies are adhered to and required information is complete and accurately documented.
F2: DPSS lacks a clear and concise process for tracking undeliverable gift cards. Gift card logs from 2015 indicate some gift cards were “undeliverable” due to the inability to locate the recipient. In other cases, the logs indicated the cards were “pending delivery.” In either case, no further information of the final disposition of the card was provided. The final disposition of several cards was unclear.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2: Revise DPSS Policy 23-41 to include a clear and concise process for tracking gift cards from receipt to final disposition. The revised policy to provide direction for the tracking and disposition of gift cards including those identified as undeliverable or pending delivery.
F3: The process of purchasing gift cards for the NYTD Program is not cost effective. NYTD gift cards are purchased through a third party broker. As a result, unnecessary sales tax, mailing, handling and processing fees are incurred by DPSS.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3: Establish or revise department policy to eliminate the use of third party brokers to procure gift cards, thereby incurring unnecessary taxes and shipping and processing fees. Procure gift cards directly from vendors or retailers to minimize costs and manage quantities that would prevent acquiring excess cards. Report Issued: 06/21/2016 Report Public: 06/23/2016 Response Due: 09/19/2016 3
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 4 hallazgos
F1: In January 2006 the Chamber was given a 50 year lease by the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Banning for the property located at 60 East Ramsey Street in Banning, California. The rent agreed to was $1.00 per year, for a period of 50 years. The lease requires the Chamber to name Banning as an additional insured and the payee on an insurance policy for the building. An amendment to the lease was subsequently signed by the same parties, which transferred an existing lease between Banning and the Southern California Gas Company to the Chamber. As part of the amendment the Chamber is required to establish a minimum $10,000 maintenance fund. Neither action has been taken by the Chamber. During an interview, the Executive Director of the Chamber stated that he was not aware of any amendment to the lease and therefore had no knowledge of the requirement to establish a maintenance fund. He also stated he was unaware of the lease requirement to modify the insurance coverage. The Executive Director did not provide evidence to indicate the maintenance fund had been created, or that the insurance coverage had been modified. The Executive Director, while serving as President, was the representative who signed the lease and the amendment to the lease on the part of the Chamber. To date, the Banning City Council has not required that the maintenance fund be established or the Chamber to modify their insurance coverage naming Banning as the payee for any claim for damages to the building.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1: Unless the Chamber complies with the requirements of the Lease and of Amendment Number One to the Lease Agreement to add Banning to their insurance policy as the payee for any claim on the property, and to establish a minimum $10,000 maintenance fund, Banning should formally cancel the existing lease between the Community Redevelopment Agency of Banning and the Chamber. Action taken on this lease is to be made part of the open agenda at the next Banning City Council meeting following either compliance by the Chamber, or 90 days, whichever comes first. That Banning discuss its lease proposals in the open agenda portion of the Banning City Council meetings prior to agreeing to such proposals. Those discussions to include total costs to Banning both in waived rent to the lessee, as well as in waived rents that result from modifying existing leases. That Banning formalize its financial dealings and not utilize handshakes or past practices with other entities. That Banning develop written policies and procedures necessary to review contracts and/or leases to ensure compliance. 4
F2: Utility bills incurred between 2006 and 2013 were not paid by the Chamber. A review of documents and interviews with City Council members and officers of the Chamber revealed that these bills were waived based upon a handshake agreement between the Banning City Council and the Chamber. After waiver of these utility bills was made public, Banning legal counsel determined only the previous three years could be collected. The amount for the previous three years was $15,795.25. The Banning City Council directed that correspondence with the Chamber be initiated requesting repayment of the $15,795.25. In response to the request, the Chamber offered to make repayment at the rate of $32.10 per month over the remaining 492 months (41 years) of the current lease. This offer was not accepted by Banning and a member of the City Council was appointed to continue negotiations with the Chamber regarding repayment of the debt for the utility bills. After more than one year no agreement has been reached regarding the repayment and the debt remains. 3
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2: That Banning reach an agreement with the Chamber for the payment of the past due utility bills in the amount of $15,795.25. That such agreement be reached no later than 90 days after the receipt of this report, and made a part of the open agenda at the next Banning City Council meeting after agreement has been reached.
F3: The sublease with the Southern California Gas Company that was transferred to the Chamber had 13 years remaining at a payment of $2,047.50 per month, for a total of $319,410.00. This is the amount that Banning ceded to the Chamber. This is in addition to a lease on the property for $1.00 per year for 50 years. The Chamber made a proposal to the Southern California Gas Company for a reduced rental rate if the Southern California Gas Company paid the entire 13 years in remaining rent in advance. The Southern California Gas Company agreed to this offer and issued a check in the amount of $212,616.00 payable to the “Banning Chamber of Commerce” dated June 6, 2006.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3: If the lease between the Community Redevelopment Agency of Banning and the Chamber is cancelled, that Banning seek repayment from the Chamber of the remaining prorated amount of the sublease with the Southern California Gas Company.
F4: The Executive Director of the Chamber has a judgment against him in the amount of $74,434.37 payable to Banning. This judgment was dated May 12, 2010, and was issued on March 8, 2011. To date this judgment has not been paid and Banning has not collected on the judgment.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R4: That Banning take the necessary legal action against the Executive Director of the Chamber for the payment of the judgment against him payable to Banning. Payment to include any and all interest accrued to date on the original judgment amount. Action taken by Banning to be made part of the open agenda at the next City Council meeting following payment of judgment by the Executive Director of the Chamber, or 90 days, whichever comes first.
Recomendaciones adicionales 1

No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.

R5: That Chamber Directors request the resignation of the Executive Director unless the amount due under the judgment against him is paid to Banning. The current situation poses a conflict of interest and is in direct conflict with the Chamber mission statement of “cooperative interaction among business, government and community.” Report Issued: 04/25/2016 Report Public: 04/27/2016 Response Due: 07/25/2016 5
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 2 hallazgos
F1: The CCA is not, and has never been, a cemetery district per LAFCO. Furthermore, the CCA had lost its non-profit status with the FTB in 2007. The Grand Jury investigation discovered that the Assessor erroneously assigned three parcels of land at the CCA as a cemetery district. After the Grand Jury met and discussed with the assessor’s office, the assessor sent a letter to the CCA board informing them they owe the current year (2015) property taxes plus the previous three years property taxes unless the CCA revives its non-profit status with the State and the County. Additionally, the assessor has no policies or procedures in place to review the tax exempt or non-profit organization’s status. City of Corona
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1: The Assessor establish a policy and procedure to annually review organizations within the County that are given a property tax exemption or have filed and received a non-profit status with the State. The policies and procedures will assure these organizations are still entitled to their property tax exemption or non-profit status. The assessor establish a procedure for citizens to report or file a complaint when citizens suspect an organization is no longer entitled to its tax exemption.
F2: The Grand Jury found the CCA, despite the loss of its non-profit status in 2007, was not required to pay for its city business license annual renewal. The CCA status had not been reviewed by the City of Corona for at least 10 years. The Grand Jury interviewed the Corona City Manager concerning the lack of policies for issuing business licenses to non-profit businesses. The City Manager was asked if the non-profit status given to businesses within the City of Corona was ever rechecked and verified. He answered “I don’t know, but that’s a good question.” 3
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2: The City of Corona establish policies and procedures for the verification of non-profit status of organizations to avoid oversight. Report Issued: 06/21/2016 Report Public: 06/23/2016 Response Due: 09/19/2016 4
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 6 hallazgos
F1: Riverside County Code Enforcement cases take an inordinate length of time to resolve. The multi-year time frames typical to conclude code enforcement cases adversely affect the citizens of Riverside County who rely on Code Enforcement to timely correct offensive and dangerous property problems in their neighborhoods and commercial districts. As pointed out in two successive audits by the Riverside County Auditor- Controller’s office, the long delays also prevent Riverside County from timely collecting outstanding fines and fees. Investigations extended without legitimate cause ultimately result in unreasonable cost recovery charges being assessed to property owners. Testimony by line supervisors revealed the fact that they also carried an enforcement caseload, which inhibits their supervisory obligations. INABILITY TO HAVE ERRONEOUS FINES REFUNDED The grading-without-a-permit hearing that Grand Jury members observed, as mentioned above, had an anomaly. The property owner received an SOAC showing that he owed $1,872 in labor charges for Code Enforcement’s involvement. Those charges were removed when the Hearing Officer determined that no permit was required for the emergency brush clearance. However, there was no procedure in place for the property owner to be reimbursed $300 in administrative citation fines he paid during the 2 ½-year investigation. The property owner asked the Hearing Officer about refunding the fines, and he was told that the Hearing Officer had no authority to refund fines. The Hearing Officer then told the property owner, “If I were you, I would be writing a nasty letter to someone.” The Grand Jury subsequently interviewed Riverside County Code Enforcement administrative personnel at the supervisor, manager, and code official levels and they confirmed that there is no policy or procedure in place for returning erroneously-charged fines to exonerated property owners. Both expert witnesses interviewed stated that their jurisdictions’ code enforcement departments always refund fines under these circumstances because “it was the right thing to do.”
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1: Riverside County Code Enforcement cases take an inordinate length of time to resolve. The multi-year time frames typical to conclude code enforcement cases adversely affect the citizens of Riverside County who rely on Code Enforcement to timely correct offensive and dangerous property problems in their neighborhoods and commercial districts. As pointed out in two successive audits by the Riverside County Auditor- Controller’s office, the long delays also prevent Riverside County from timely collecting outstanding fines and fees. Investigations extended without legitimate cause ultimately result in unreasonable cost recovery charges being assessed to property owners. Testimony by line supervisors revealed the fact that they also carried an enforcement caseload, which inhibits their supervisory obligations. INABILITY TO HAVE ERRONEOUS FINES REFUNDED The grading-without-a-permit hearing that Grand Jury members observed, as mentioned above, had an anomaly. The property owner received an SOAC showing that he owed $1,872 in labor charges for Code Enforcement’s involvement. Those charges were removed when the Hearing Officer determined that no permit was required for the emergency brush clearance. However, there was no procedure in place for the property owner to be reimbursed $300 in administrative citation fines he paid during the 2 ½-year investigation. The property owner asked the Hearing Officer about refunding the fines, and he was told that the Hearing Officer had no authority to refund fines. The Hearing Officer then told the property owner, “If I were you, I would be writing a nasty letter to someone.” The Grand Jury subsequently interviewed Riverside County Code Enforcement administrative personnel at the supervisor, manager, and code official levels and they confirmed that there is no policy or procedure in place for returning erroneously-charged fines to exonerated property owners. Both expert witnesses interviewed stated that their jurisdictions’ code enforcement departments always refund fines under these circumstances because “it was the right thing to do.”
F2: There is no policy or procedure in place to return fines previously paid when a property owner is exonerated of any violation of county ordinances. BARRIERS TO CITIZEN COMPLAINTS REGARDING CODE ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL The Riverside County Board of Supervisors recognizes the value of comments and complaints from the public for the improvement of public services to County residents. To this end, the Board established County of Riverside, California Board of Supervisors policy number A-56: Standards and Procedures for Public Complaints and Inquiries. Among the provisions of this policy are the following: • County employees are to respond within 72 hours to complaints and inquiries from the public • The person making the complaint or inquiry should be told how long it would take to resolve the issues • In each department, complaints and inquiries must be logged when they are received. Departments will maintain a log that includes a case number, the name of the person making the complaint or inquiry, the date and time it was received, the date and time of the initial follow-up contact, and the resolution. Logs should be maintained for a minimum of one year 7 • If the complaining party is dissatisfied with the resolution, department logs must briefly explain why a complaint or inquiry could not be resolved to the person’s satisfaction It came to the Grand Jury’s attention that the above Board of Supervisors’ policy is not being followed when it was learned that a Code Enforcement Officer was subjected to an administrative investigation and potential discipline for documenting a citizen’s personnel complaint. The Grand Jury conducted a thorough inspection of the “Code Enforcement Policies and Procedures” manual. Nothing was found relating to accepting or investigating complaints or inquiries from the public. The only policy pertaining to input from the public was policy number 1.1.1, Customer Satisfaction Surveys that complies with Board Policy A- 49, Customer Satisfaction Performance Policy. Attached to the policy was a brochure titled How Are We Doing, which is not a complaint form. No Code Enforcement policy that complies with the mandates of Board Policy A-56 was found. During sworn interviews, supervisorial and administrative Code Enforcement officials told us there is no policy in that department regarding the acceptance, logging, review, investigation, or resolution of inquiries and complaints from the public. No complaint/inquiry form exists. Some witnesses said that a complaining citizen would be referred to the field supervisor of the employee; however, nothing is in place to ensure that the matter would be documented or properly handled. Also, no records are kept to enable department managers to track the number and type of complaints in a certain district or against a particular employee.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2: There is no policy or procedure in place to return fines previously paid when a property owner is exonerated of any violation of county ordinances. BARRIERS TO CITIZEN COMPLAINTS REGARDING CODE ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL The Riverside County Board of Supervisors recognizes the value of comments and complaints from the public for the improvement of public services to County residents. To this end, the Board established County of Riverside, California Board of Supervisors policy number A-56: Standards and Procedures for Public Complaints and Inquiries. Among the provisions of this policy are the following: • County employees are to respond within 72 hours to complaints and inquiries from the public • The person making the complaint or inquiry should be told how long it would take to resolve the issues • In each department, complaints and inquiries must be logged when they are received. Departments will maintain a log that includes a case number, the name of the person making the complaint or inquiry, the date and time it was received, the date and time of the initial follow-up contact, and the resolution. Logs should be maintained for a minimum of one year 7 • If the complaining party is dissatisfied with the resolution, department logs must briefly explain why a complaint or inquiry could not be resolved to the person’s satisfaction It came to the Grand Jury’s attention that the above Board of Supervisors’ policy is not being followed when it was learned that a Code Enforcement Officer was subjected to an administrative investigation and potential discipline for documenting a citizen’s personnel complaint. The Grand Jury conducted a thorough inspection of the “Code Enforcement Policies and Procedures” manual. Nothing was found relating to accepting or investigating complaints or inquiries from the public. The only policy pertaining to input from the public was policy number 1.1.1, Customer Satisfaction Surveys that complies with Board Policy A- 49, Customer Satisfaction Performance Policy. Attached to the policy was a brochure titled How Are We Doing, which is not a complaint form. No Code Enforcement policy that complies with the mandates of Board Policy A-56 was found. During sworn interviews, supervisorial and administrative Code Enforcement officials told us there is no policy in that department regarding the acceptance, logging, review, investigation, or resolution of inquiries and complaints from the public. No complaint/inquiry form exists. Some witnesses said that a complaining citizen would be referred to the field supervisor of the employee; however, nothing is in place to ensure that the matter would be documented or properly handled. Also, no records are kept to enable department managers to track the number and type of complaints in a certain district or against a particular employee.
F3: Code Enforcement has no policy, procedure, complaint forms, complaint logs, or anything else to enable that department to follow the directives of Board Policy Number A-56 to adequately address citizen complaints and inquiries. PERCEPTION OF INTERFERENCE BY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS IN CODE CASES The Board of Supervisors is the governing body of the County, certain special districts and the Housing Authority. The Board enacts ordinances and resolutions, adopts the annual budget, approves contracts, appropriates funds, determines land use zoning for the unincorporated area, and appoints certain County officers and members of various boards and commissions3. The Board consists of five Supervisors elected to four-year terms by the citizens of Riverside County within each district. Each Supervisor represents a district of approximately 450,000 people. ____________________ 3 County of Riverside Internet web page http://www.countyofriverside.us/AbouttheCounty/BoardofSupervisors.aspx 8 Code Enforcement operates in the unincorporated area of each supervisorial district, and the City of Perris (under contract), responding to violations of County ordinances that are either reported by residents or discovered by Code Enforcement Officers. Once a Code Enforcement case is initiated, it is normally worked to correct all noted violations of County codes and ordinances. This would normally be accomplished in a relatively short amount of time. However, external influences affect the delays and ultimate outcomes of some Code cases. Several Code Enforcement administrators, supervisors, and line staff interviewed under oath said that County Supervisors and their staff have interjected themselves into active Code cases, causing delays and sometimes abandonment of those cases. For example, a property owner who has been given a Notice of Violation by a Code Enforcement Officer might contact his or her district Supervisor about the violation. It is reasonable for the Supervisor or his staff to get information about the ordinance violation in order to assist the constituent with the issue. However, Code personnel at all levels have perceived subsequent contact by the Supervisor’s office as interfering with the Code case. According to testimony, the interference has ranged from asking Code Enforcement to extend the deadlines for property owners to comply with abatement orders to issuing a “stand down” order on selective enforcement actions. Two Code Enforcement employees testified that they had participated in meetings with the Temecula wine country Supervisor/staff where a Third District Code Enforcement Winery Matrix was provided to the Supervisor at his request. A copy of a matrix from 09/24/2010 listed Code cases by number, name, parcel number, violation, and comments. Witnesses stated that Code Enforcement was given the “go ahead” or “stand down” by the Supervisor/staff regarding 10 wine country cases on that particular matrix. Similar meetings were held every month with updated matrixes for an unknown period of time. The Supervising Code Enforcement Officer, who also attended these meetings, enforced the decisions. Witnesses told us that such matrixes were prepared only for the wealthy winery area of the County. Testimony from other witnesses confirmed that the Board of Supervisors and/or its staff had interfered with or hindered some Code Enforcement cases, and this is currently an ongoing issue and concern, prolonging them unnecessarily. In fact, when the Grand Jury asked the retired Code Official about such political interference, he said that he could recall “a handful” of instances that had happened during his tenure as Code Official (3 years.) A Supervising CEO and a Senior CEO testified that Code Enforcement has been advised by Supervisorial staff to suspend ordinance violation citations in selective cases. County of Riverside Code Enforcement Department Policy 1.1 outlines Professional Conduct/Code of Ethics for Code Enforcement. Article VI of that code states, “Staff will not permit personal feelings, prejudices nor influences (political or otherwise) to interfere, prohibit or delay the process of enforcement.” 9
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3: Code Enforcement has no policy, procedure, complaint forms, complaint logs, or anything else to enable that department to follow the directives of Board Policy Number A-56 to adequately address citizen complaints and inquiries. PERCEPTION OF INTERFERENCE BY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS IN CODE CASES The Board of Supervisors is the governing body of the County, certain special districts and the Housing Authority. The Board enacts ordinances and resolutions, adopts the annual budget, approves contracts, appropriates funds, determines land use zoning for the unincorporated area, and appoints certain County officers and members of various boards and commissions3. The Board consists of five Supervisors elected to four-year terms by the citizens of Riverside County within each district. Each Supervisor represents a district of approximately 450,000 people. ____________________ 3 County of Riverside Internet web page http://www.countyofriverside.us/AbouttheCounty/BoardofSupervisors.aspx 8 Code Enforcement operates in the unincorporated area of each supervisorial district, and the City of Perris (under contract), responding to violations of County ordinances that are either reported by residents or discovered by Code Enforcement Officers. Once a Code Enforcement case is initiated, it is normally worked to correct all noted violations of County codes and ordinances. This would normally be accomplished in a relatively short amount of time. However, external influences affect the delays and ultimate outcomes of some Code cases. Several Code Enforcement administrators, supervisors, and line staff interviewed under oath said that County Supervisors and their staff have interjected themselves into active Code cases, causing delays and sometimes abandonment of those cases. For example, a property owner who has been given a Notice of Violation by a Code Enforcement Officer might contact his or her district Supervisor about the violation. It is reasonable for the Supervisor or his staff to get information about the ordinance violation in order to assist the constituent with the issue. However, Code personnel at all levels have perceived subsequent contact by the Supervisor’s office as interfering with the Code case. According to testimony, the interference has ranged from asking Code Enforcement to extend the deadlines for property owners to comply with abatement orders to issuing a “stand down” order on selective enforcement actions. Two Code Enforcement employees testified that they had participated in meetings with the Temecula wine country Supervisor/staff where a Third District Code Enforcement Winery Matrix was provided to the Supervisor at his request. A copy of a matrix from 09/24/2010 listed Code cases by number, name, parcel number, violation, and comments. Witnesses stated that Code Enforcement was given the “go ahead” or “stand down” by the Supervisor/staff regarding 10 wine country cases on that particular matrix. Similar meetings were held every month with updated matrixes for an unknown period of time. The Supervising Code Enforcement Officer, who also attended these meetings, enforced the decisions. Witnesses told us that such matrixes were prepared only for the wealthy winery area of the County. Testimony from other witnesses confirmed that the Board of Supervisors and/or its staff had interfered with or hindered some Code Enforcement cases, and this is currently an ongoing issue and concern, prolonging them unnecessarily. In fact, when the Grand Jury asked the retired Code Official about such political interference, he said that he could recall “a handful” of instances that had happened during his tenure as Code Official (3 years.) A Supervising CEO and a Senior CEO testified that Code Enforcement has been advised by Supervisorial staff to suspend ordinance violation citations in selective cases. County of Riverside Code Enforcement Department Policy 1.1 outlines Professional Conduct/Code of Ethics for Code Enforcement. Article VI of that code states, “Staff will not permit personal feelings, prejudices nor influences (political or otherwise) to interfere, prohibit or delay the process of enforcement.” 9
F4: Interference by the County Board of Supervisors in Code Enforcement cases adversely affects personnel throughout the Department. It is difficult to determine how much of the Supervisors’ involvement coincides with their mandate to represent constituents in their districts and how much may be improper patronage. Regardless, interference affects the morale and alters the chain of command of the Code Enforcement Department, as stated by several witnesses. UNSUPPORTED BILLING IN CODE ENFORCEMENT CASES In 1993, empowered by California Government Code §25845, the Riverside County Board of Supervisors created Ordinance 725 establishing procedures and penalties for violations of Riverside County ordinances and for recovering reasonable costs related to enforcement. Section 7 of the ordinance states: “All abatement costs, administrative costs and related penalties or assessments in any enforcement action to abate public nuisances as stated shall be recovered.” In the projected fiscal year 2015/16 budget, the Code Enforcement Department budget shows that 30% of its total expenditures were to be covered by fines and labor charges paid by property owners. Code Enforcement keeps track of the amount of time its personnel spends working on violations of County ordinances and then charges property owners for the time spent, according to the weighted cost of the personnel involved. For example, a Code Enforcement Officer III is rated at $109 per hour, including pay, benefits, and overhead. Some activities of Code Enforcement Officers are directly billable to the property owner in question and other activities are deemed “non-billable.” According to County of Riverside Code Enforcement Department Policy 4.9.1, all closed cases are audited to determine if they are billable or non- billable. Non-billable cases include unfounded complaints, wrong lot or assessor parcel number, or the property owner complied within 30 days. Non-billable cases are archived without charging the property owner. Along with cases that are totally non-billable, specific actions of Code Enforcement Officers are not billable. For example, contact and conversations with complaining neighbors is not billable to the property owner. Also, any labor billing must be supported by an action entry in the CEO’s report. The Grand Jury learned when attending the Code Enforcement cost recovery administrative hearing that billing errors are not unusual. The Hearing Officer had to adjust several fine amounts due to the CEO’s errors on the citations. A property owner had been billed not only for the CEO’s actions on a certain date, but also for the cost of a trainee who was accompanying the CEO that day. As already mentioned, a 2 ½-year case was dismissed when the Hearing Officer determined that no violation had existed. Other cases reviewed showed double billing for the same reported action, non-owners being fined and charged for violations, and a 10 property owner being charged twice for a single structure that spanned two adjacent properties. Sworn testimony and subpoenaed records showed that unsupported billing and other errors are rife in the Statements of Abatement Costs (SOAC) that are sent as billing invoices to property owners involved in Code Enforcement cases. Numerous witnesses told the Grand Jury that actions taken by field CEOs, and reports subsequently written by those officers, are not overseen or reviewed for errors by the Supervising Code Enforcement Officers assigned to each District Office prior to being sent to Code Enforcement Administration for billing.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R4: Interference by the County Board of Supervisors in Code Enforcement cases adversely affects personnel throughout the Department. It is difficult to determine how much of the Supervisors’ involvement coincides with their mandate to represent constituents in their districts and how much may be improper patronage. Regardless, interference affects the morale and alters the chain of command of the Code Enforcement Department, as stated by several witnesses. UNSUPPORTED BILLING IN CODE ENFORCEMENT CASES In 1993, empowered by California Government Code §25845, the Riverside County Board of Supervisors created Ordinance 725 establishing procedures and penalties for violations of Riverside County ordinances and for recovering reasonable costs related to enforcement. Section 7 of the ordinance states: “All abatement costs, administrative costs and related penalties or assessments in any enforcement action to abate public nuisances as stated shall be recovered.” In the projected fiscal year 2015/16 budget, the Code Enforcement Department budget shows that 30% of its total expenditures were to be covered by fines and labor charges paid by property owners. Code Enforcement keeps track of the amount of time its personnel spends working on violations of County ordinances and then charges property owners for the time spent, according to the weighted cost of the personnel involved. For example, a Code Enforcement Officer III is rated at $109 per hour, including pay, benefits, and overhead. Some activities of Code Enforcement Officers are directly billable to the property owner in question and other activities are deemed “non-billable.” According to County of Riverside Code Enforcement Department Policy 4.9.1, all closed cases are audited to determine if they are billable or non- billable. Non-billable cases include unfounded complaints, wrong lot or assessor parcel number, or the property owner complied within 30 days. Non-billable cases are archived without charging the property owner. Along with cases that are totally non-billable, specific actions of Code Enforcement Officers are not billable. For example, contact and conversations with complaining neighbors is not billable to the property owner. Also, any labor billing must be supported by an action entry in the CEO’s report. The Grand Jury learned when attending the Code Enforcement cost recovery administrative hearing that billing errors are not unusual. The Hearing Officer had to adjust several fine amounts due to the CEO’s errors on the citations. A property owner had been billed not only for the CEO’s actions on a certain date, but also for the cost of a trainee who was accompanying the CEO that day. As already mentioned, a 2 ½-year case was dismissed when the Hearing Officer determined that no violation had existed. Other cases reviewed showed double billing for the same reported action, non-owners being fined and charged for violations, and a 10 property owner being charged twice for a single structure that spanned two adjacent properties. Sworn testimony and subpoenaed records showed that unsupported billing and other errors are rife in the Statements of Abatement Costs (SOAC) that are sent as billing invoices to property owners involved in Code Enforcement cases. Numerous witnesses told the Grand Jury that actions taken by field CEOs, and reports subsequently written by those officers, are not overseen or reviewed for errors by the Supervising Code Enforcement Officers assigned to each District Office prior to being sent to Code Enforcement Administration for billing.
F5: Unsupported and inaccurate billing of property owners by Code Enforcement is common, causing either overbilling or under billing of fines and labor charges assessed as part of cost recovery directed in Ordinance
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R5: Unsupported and inaccurate billing of property owners by Code Enforcement is common, causing either overbilling or under billing of fines and labor charges assessed as part of cost recovery directed in Ordinance
F6: The complaining employee in this matter was treated differently than all other county employee witnesses. This gives the appearance that complaints to the Grand Jury carry less importance or validity than other complaints made under County Policies C-35 and C-25. The complainant also told the Grand Jury that, since the complainant was ordered to use vacation time for appearances, it appeared that supervisors and upper management were trying to dissuade the complainant from giving testimony at a proceeding authorized by law, in violation of Penal Code §136.1(a)(2).
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R6: The complaining employee in this matter was treated differently than all other county employee witnesses. This gives the appearance that complaints to the Grand Jury carry less importance or validity than other complaints made under County Policies C-35 and C-25. The complainant also told the Grand Jury that, since the complainant was ordered to use vacation time for appearances, it appeared that supervisors and upper management were trying to dissuade the complainant from giving testimony at a proceeding authorized by law, in violation of Penal Code §136.1(a)(2). Recommendations Riverside County Code Enforcement Department Riverside County Board of Supervisors
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 6 hallazgos
F1: Riverside County Code Enforcement cases take an inordinate length of time to resolve. The multi-year time frames typical to conclude code enforcement cases adversely affect the citizens of Riverside County who rely on Code Enforcement to timely correct offensive and dangerous property problems in their neighborhoods and commercial districts. As pointed out in two successive audits by the Riverside County Auditor- Controller’s office, the long delays also prevent Riverside County from timely collecting outstanding fines and fees. Investigations extended without legitimate cause ultimately result in unreasonable cost recovery charges being assessed to property owners. Testimony by line supervisors revealed the fact that they also carried an enforcement caseload, which inhibits their supervisory obligations. INABILITY TO HAVE ERRONEOUS FINES REFUNDED The grading-without-a-permit hearing that Grand Jury members observed, as mentioned above, had an anomaly. The property owner received an SOAC showing that he owed $1,872 in labor charges for Code Enforcement’s involvement. Those charges were removed when the Hearing Officer determined that no permit was required for the emergency brush clearance. However, there was no procedure in place for the property owner to be reimbursed $300 in administrative citation fines he paid during the 2 ½-year investigation. The property owner asked the Hearing Officer about refunding the fines, and he was told that the Hearing Officer had no authority to refund fines. The Hearing Officer then told the property owner, “If I were you, I would be writing a nasty letter to someone.” The Grand Jury subsequently interviewed Riverside County Code Enforcement administrative personnel at the supervisor, manager, and code official levels and they confirmed that there is no policy or procedure in place for returning erroneously-charged fines to exonerated property owners. Both expert witnesses interviewed stated that their jurisdictions’ code enforcement departments always refund fines under these circumstances because “it was the right thing to do.”
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1: Riverside County Code Enforcement cases take an inordinate length of time to resolve. The multi-year time frames typical to conclude code enforcement cases adversely affect the citizens of Riverside County who rely on Code Enforcement to timely correct offensive and dangerous property problems in their neighborhoods and commercial districts. As pointed out in two successive audits by the Riverside County Auditor- Controller’s office, the long delays also prevent Riverside County from timely collecting outstanding fines and fees. Investigations extended without legitimate cause ultimately result in unreasonable cost recovery charges being assessed to property owners. Testimony by line supervisors revealed the fact that they also carried an enforcement caseload, which inhibits their supervisory obligations. INABILITY TO HAVE ERRONEOUS FINES REFUNDED The grading-without-a-permit hearing that Grand Jury members observed, as mentioned above, had an anomaly. The property owner received an SOAC showing that he owed $1,872 in labor charges for Code Enforcement’s involvement. Those charges were removed when the Hearing Officer determined that no permit was required for the emergency brush clearance. However, there was no procedure in place for the property owner to be reimbursed $300 in administrative citation fines he paid during the 2 ½-year investigation. The property owner asked the Hearing Officer about refunding the fines, and he was told that the Hearing Officer had no authority to refund fines. The Hearing Officer then told the property owner, “If I were you, I would be writing a nasty letter to someone.” The Grand Jury subsequently interviewed Riverside County Code Enforcement administrative personnel at the supervisor, manager, and code official levels and they confirmed that there is no policy or procedure in place for returning erroneously-charged fines to exonerated property owners. Both expert witnesses interviewed stated that their jurisdictions’ code enforcement departments always refund fines under these circumstances because “it was the right thing to do.”
F2: There is no policy or procedure in place to return fines previously paid when a property owner is exonerated of any violation of county ordinances. BARRIERS TO CITIZEN COMPLAINTS REGARDING CODE ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL The Riverside County Board of Supervisors recognizes the value of comments and complaints from the public for the improvement of public services to County residents. To this end, the Board established County of Riverside, California Board of Supervisors policy number A-56: Standards and Procedures for Public Complaints and Inquiries. Among the provisions of this policy are the following: • County employees are to respond within 72 hours to complaints and inquiries from the public • The person making the complaint or inquiry should be told how long it would take to resolve the issues • In each department, complaints and inquiries must be logged when they are received. Departments will maintain a log that includes a case number, the name of the person making the complaint or inquiry, the date and time it was received, the date and time of the initial follow-up contact, and the resolution. Logs should be maintained for a minimum of one year 7 • If the complaining party is dissatisfied with the resolution, department logs must briefly explain why a complaint or inquiry could not be resolved to the person’s satisfaction It came to the Grand Jury’s attention that the above Board of Supervisors’ policy is not being followed when it was learned that a Code Enforcement Officer was subjected to an administrative investigation and potential discipline for documenting a citizen’s personnel complaint. The Grand Jury conducted a thorough inspection of the “Code Enforcement Policies and Procedures” manual. Nothing was found relating to accepting or investigating complaints or inquiries from the public. The only policy pertaining to input from the public was policy number 1.1.1, Customer Satisfaction Surveys that complies with Board Policy A- 49, Customer Satisfaction Performance Policy. Attached to the policy was a brochure titled How Are We Doing, which is not a complaint form. No Code Enforcement policy that complies with the mandates of Board Policy A-56 was found. During sworn interviews, supervisorial and administrative Code Enforcement officials told us there is no policy in that department regarding the acceptance, logging, review, investigation, or resolution of inquiries and complaints from the public. No complaint/inquiry form exists. Some witnesses said that a complaining citizen would be referred to the field supervisor of the employee; however, nothing is in place to ensure that the matter would be documented or properly handled. Also, no records are kept to enable department managers to track the number and type of complaints in a certain district or against a particular employee.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2: There is no policy or procedure in place to return fines previously paid when a property owner is exonerated of any violation of county ordinances. BARRIERS TO CITIZEN COMPLAINTS REGARDING CODE ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL The Riverside County Board of Supervisors recognizes the value of comments and complaints from the public for the improvement of public services to County residents. To this end, the Board established County of Riverside, California Board of Supervisors policy number A-56: Standards and Procedures for Public Complaints and Inquiries. Among the provisions of this policy are the following: • County employees are to respond within 72 hours to complaints and inquiries from the public • The person making the complaint or inquiry should be told how long it would take to resolve the issues • In each department, complaints and inquiries must be logged when they are received. Departments will maintain a log that includes a case number, the name of the person making the complaint or inquiry, the date and time it was received, the date and time of the initial follow-up contact, and the resolution. Logs should be maintained for a minimum of one year 7 • If the complaining party is dissatisfied with the resolution, department logs must briefly explain why a complaint or inquiry could not be resolved to the person’s satisfaction It came to the Grand Jury’s attention that the above Board of Supervisors’ policy is not being followed when it was learned that a Code Enforcement Officer was subjected to an administrative investigation and potential discipline for documenting a citizen’s personnel complaint. The Grand Jury conducted a thorough inspection of the “Code Enforcement Policies and Procedures” manual. Nothing was found relating to accepting or investigating complaints or inquiries from the public. The only policy pertaining to input from the public was policy number 1.1.1, Customer Satisfaction Surveys that complies with Board Policy A- 49, Customer Satisfaction Performance Policy. Attached to the policy was a brochure titled How Are We Doing, which is not a complaint form. No Code Enforcement policy that complies with the mandates of Board Policy A-56 was found. During sworn interviews, supervisorial and administrative Code Enforcement officials told us there is no policy in that department regarding the acceptance, logging, review, investigation, or resolution of inquiries and complaints from the public. No complaint/inquiry form exists. Some witnesses said that a complaining citizen would be referred to the field supervisor of the employee; however, nothing is in place to ensure that the matter would be documented or properly handled. Also, no records are kept to enable department managers to track the number and type of complaints in a certain district or against a particular employee.
F3: Code Enforcement has no policy, procedure, complaint forms, complaint logs, or anything else to enable that department to follow the directives of Board Policy Number A-56 to adequately address citizen complaints and inquiries. PERCEPTION OF INTERFERENCE BY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS IN CODE CASES The Board of Supervisors is the governing body of the County, certain special districts and the Housing Authority. The Board enacts ordinances and resolutions, adopts the annual budget, approves contracts, appropriates funds, determines land use zoning for the unincorporated area, and appoints certain County officers and members of various boards and commissions3. The Board consists of five Supervisors elected to four-year terms by the citizens of Riverside County within each district. Each Supervisor represents a district of approximately 450,000 people. ____________________ 3 County of Riverside Internet web page http://www.countyofriverside.us/AbouttheCounty/BoardofSupervisors.aspx 8 Code Enforcement operates in the unincorporated area of each supervisorial district, and the City of Perris (under contract), responding to violations of County ordinances that are either reported by residents or discovered by Code Enforcement Officers. Once a Code Enforcement case is initiated, it is normally worked to correct all noted violations of County codes and ordinances. This would normally be accomplished in a relatively short amount of time. However, external influences affect the delays and ultimate outcomes of some Code cases. Several Code Enforcement administrators, supervisors, and line staff interviewed under oath said that County Supervisors and their staff have interjected themselves into active Code cases, causing delays and sometimes abandonment of those cases. For example, a property owner who has been given a Notice of Violation by a Code Enforcement Officer might contact his or her district Supervisor about the violation. It is reasonable for the Supervisor or his staff to get information about the ordinance violation in order to assist the constituent with the issue. However, Code personnel at all levels have perceived subsequent contact by the Supervisor’s office as interfering with the Code case. According to testimony, the interference has ranged from asking Code Enforcement to extend the deadlines for property owners to comply with abatement orders to issuing a “stand down” order on selective enforcement actions. Two Code Enforcement employees testified that they had participated in meetings with the Temecula wine country Supervisor/staff where a Third District Code Enforcement Winery Matrix was provided to the Supervisor at his request. A copy of a matrix from 09/24/2010 listed Code cases by number, name, parcel number, violation, and comments. Witnesses stated that Code Enforcement was given the “go ahead” or “stand down” by the Supervisor/staff regarding 10 wine country cases on that particular matrix. Similar meetings were held every month with updated matrixes for an unknown period of time. The Supervising Code Enforcement Officer, who also attended these meetings, enforced the decisions. Witnesses told us that such matrixes were prepared only for the wealthy winery area of the County. Testimony from other witnesses confirmed that the Board of Supervisors and/or its staff had interfered with or hindered some Code Enforcement cases, and this is currently an ongoing issue and concern, prolonging them unnecessarily. In fact, when the Grand Jury asked the retired Code Official about such political interference, he said that he could recall “a handful” of instances that had happened during his tenure as Code Official (3 years.) A Supervising CEO and a Senior CEO testified that Code Enforcement has been advised by Supervisorial staff to suspend ordinance violation citations in selective cases. County of Riverside Code Enforcement Department Policy 1.1 outlines Professional Conduct/Code of Ethics for Code Enforcement. Article VI of that code states, “Staff will not permit personal feelings, prejudices nor influences (political or otherwise) to interfere, prohibit or delay the process of enforcement.” 9
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3: Code Enforcement has no policy, procedure, complaint forms, complaint logs, or anything else to enable that department to follow the directives of Board Policy Number A-56 to adequately address citizen complaints and inquiries. PERCEPTION OF INTERFERENCE BY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS IN CODE CASES The Board of Supervisors is the governing body of the County, certain special districts and the Housing Authority. The Board enacts ordinances and resolutions, adopts the annual budget, approves contracts, appropriates funds, determines land use zoning for the unincorporated area, and appoints certain County officers and members of various boards and commissions3. The Board consists of five Supervisors elected to four-year terms by the citizens of Riverside County within each district. Each Supervisor represents a district of approximately 450,000 people. ____________________ 3 County of Riverside Internet web page http://www.countyofriverside.us/AbouttheCounty/BoardofSupervisors.aspx 8 Code Enforcement operates in the unincorporated area of each supervisorial district, and the City of Perris (under contract), responding to violations of County ordinances that are either reported by residents or discovered by Code Enforcement Officers. Once a Code Enforcement case is initiated, it is normally worked to correct all noted violations of County codes and ordinances. This would normally be accomplished in a relatively short amount of time. However, external influences affect the delays and ultimate outcomes of some Code cases. Several Code Enforcement administrators, supervisors, and line staff interviewed under oath said that County Supervisors and their staff have interjected themselves into active Code cases, causing delays and sometimes abandonment of those cases. For example, a property owner who has been given a Notice of Violation by a Code Enforcement Officer might contact his or her district Supervisor about the violation. It is reasonable for the Supervisor or his staff to get information about the ordinance violation in order to assist the constituent with the issue. However, Code personnel at all levels have perceived subsequent contact by the Supervisor’s office as interfering with the Code case. According to testimony, the interference has ranged from asking Code Enforcement to extend the deadlines for property owners to comply with abatement orders to issuing a “stand down” order on selective enforcement actions. Two Code Enforcement employees testified that they had participated in meetings with the Temecula wine country Supervisor/staff where a Third District Code Enforcement Winery Matrix was provided to the Supervisor at his request. A copy of a matrix from 09/24/2010 listed Code cases by number, name, parcel number, violation, and comments. Witnesses stated that Code Enforcement was given the “go ahead” or “stand down” by the Supervisor/staff regarding 10 wine country cases on that particular matrix. Similar meetings were held every month with updated matrixes for an unknown period of time. The Supervising Code Enforcement Officer, who also attended these meetings, enforced the decisions. Witnesses told us that such matrixes were prepared only for the wealthy winery area of the County. Testimony from other witnesses confirmed that the Board of Supervisors and/or its staff had interfered with or hindered some Code Enforcement cases, and this is currently an ongoing issue and concern, prolonging them unnecessarily. In fact, when the Grand Jury asked the retired Code Official about such political interference, he said that he could recall “a handful” of instances that had happened during his tenure as Code Official (3 years.) A Supervising CEO and a Senior CEO testified that Code Enforcement has been advised by Supervisorial staff to suspend ordinance violation citations in selective cases. County of Riverside Code Enforcement Department Policy 1.1 outlines Professional Conduct/Code of Ethics for Code Enforcement. Article VI of that code states, “Staff will not permit personal feelings, prejudices nor influences (political or otherwise) to interfere, prohibit or delay the process of enforcement.” 9
F4: Interference by the County Board of Supervisors in Code Enforcement cases adversely affects personnel throughout the Department. It is difficult to determine how much of the Supervisors’ involvement coincides with their mandate to represent constituents in their districts and how much may be improper patronage. Regardless, interference affects the morale and alters the chain of command of the Code Enforcement Department, as stated by several witnesses. UNSUPPORTED BILLING IN CODE ENFORCEMENT CASES In 1993, empowered by California Government Code §25845, the Riverside County Board of Supervisors created Ordinance 725 establishing procedures and penalties for violations of Riverside County ordinances and for recovering reasonable costs related to enforcement. Section 7 of the ordinance states: “All abatement costs, administrative costs and related penalties or assessments in any enforcement action to abate public nuisances as stated shall be recovered.” In the projected fiscal year 2015/16 budget, the Code Enforcement Department budget shows that 30% of its total expenditures were to be covered by fines and labor charges paid by property owners. Code Enforcement keeps track of the amount of time its personnel spends working on violations of County ordinances and then charges property owners for the time spent, according to the weighted cost of the personnel involved. For example, a Code Enforcement Officer III is rated at $109 per hour, including pay, benefits, and overhead. Some activities of Code Enforcement Officers are directly billable to the property owner in question and other activities are deemed “non-billable.” According to County of Riverside Code Enforcement Department Policy 4.9.1, all closed cases are audited to determine if they are billable or non- billable. Non-billable cases include unfounded complaints, wrong lot or assessor parcel number, or the property owner complied within 30 days. Non-billable cases are archived without charging the property owner. Along with cases that are totally non-billable, specific actions of Code Enforcement Officers are not billable. For example, contact and conversations with complaining neighbors is not billable to the property owner. Also, any labor billing must be supported by an action entry in the CEO’s report. The Grand Jury learned when attending the Code Enforcement cost recovery administrative hearing that billing errors are not unusual. The Hearing Officer had to adjust several fine amounts due to the CEO’s errors on the citations. A property owner had been billed not only for the CEO’s actions on a certain date, but also for the cost of a trainee who was accompanying the CEO that day. As already mentioned, a 2 ½-year case was dismissed when the Hearing Officer determined that no violation had existed. Other cases reviewed showed double billing for the same reported action, non-owners being fined and charged for violations, and a 10 property owner being charged twice for a single structure that spanned two adjacent properties. Sworn testimony and subpoenaed records showed that unsupported billing and other errors are rife in the Statements of Abatement Costs (SOAC) that are sent as billing invoices to property owners involved in Code Enforcement cases. Numerous witnesses told the Grand Jury that actions taken by field CEOs, and reports subsequently written by those officers, are not overseen or reviewed for errors by the Supervising Code Enforcement Officers assigned to each District Office prior to being sent to Code Enforcement Administration for billing.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R4: Interference by the County Board of Supervisors in Code Enforcement cases adversely affects personnel throughout the Department. It is difficult to determine how much of the Supervisors’ involvement coincides with their mandate to represent constituents in their districts and how much may be improper patronage. Regardless, interference affects the morale and alters the chain of command of the Code Enforcement Department, as stated by several witnesses. UNSUPPORTED BILLING IN CODE ENFORCEMENT CASES In 1993, empowered by California Government Code §25845, the Riverside County Board of Supervisors created Ordinance 725 establishing procedures and penalties for violations of Riverside County ordinances and for recovering reasonable costs related to enforcement. Section 7 of the ordinance states: “All abatement costs, administrative costs and related penalties or assessments in any enforcement action to abate public nuisances as stated shall be recovered.” In the projected fiscal year 2015/16 budget, the Code Enforcement Department budget shows that 30% of its total expenditures were to be covered by fines and labor charges paid by property owners. Code Enforcement keeps track of the amount of time its personnel spends working on violations of County ordinances and then charges property owners for the time spent, according to the weighted cost of the personnel involved. For example, a Code Enforcement Officer III is rated at $109 per hour, including pay, benefits, and overhead. Some activities of Code Enforcement Officers are directly billable to the property owner in question and other activities are deemed “non-billable.” According to County of Riverside Code Enforcement Department Policy 4.9.1, all closed cases are audited to determine if they are billable or non- billable. Non-billable cases include unfounded complaints, wrong lot or assessor parcel number, or the property owner complied within 30 days. Non-billable cases are archived without charging the property owner. Along with cases that are totally non-billable, specific actions of Code Enforcement Officers are not billable. For example, contact and conversations with complaining neighbors is not billable to the property owner. Also, any labor billing must be supported by an action entry in the CEO’s report. The Grand Jury learned when attending the Code Enforcement cost recovery administrative hearing that billing errors are not unusual. The Hearing Officer had to adjust several fine amounts due to the CEO’s errors on the citations. A property owner had been billed not only for the CEO’s actions on a certain date, but also for the cost of a trainee who was accompanying the CEO that day. As already mentioned, a 2 ½-year case was dismissed when the Hearing Officer determined that no violation had existed. Other cases reviewed showed double billing for the same reported action, non-owners being fined and charged for violations, and a 10 property owner being charged twice for a single structure that spanned two adjacent properties. Sworn testimony and subpoenaed records showed that unsupported billing and other errors are rife in the Statements of Abatement Costs (SOAC) that are sent as billing invoices to property owners involved in Code Enforcement cases. Numerous witnesses told the Grand Jury that actions taken by field CEOs, and reports subsequently written by those officers, are not overseen or reviewed for errors by the Supervising Code Enforcement Officers assigned to each District Office prior to being sent to Code Enforcement Administration for billing.
F5: Unsupported and inaccurate billing of property owners by Code Enforcement is common, causing either overbilling or under billing of fines and labor charges assessed as part of cost recovery directed in Ordinance
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R5: Unsupported and inaccurate billing of property owners by Code Enforcement is common, causing either overbilling or under billing of fines and labor charges assessed as part of cost recovery directed in Ordinance
F6: The complaining employee in this matter was treated differently than all other county employee witnesses. This gives the appearance that complaints to the Grand Jury carry less importance or validity than other complaints made under County Policies C-35 and C-25. The complainant also told the Grand Jury that, since the complainant was ordered to use vacation time for appearances, it appeared that supervisors and upper management were trying to dissuade the complainant from giving testimony at a proceeding authorized by law, in violation of Penal Code §136.1(a)(2).
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R6: The complaining employee in this matter was treated differently than all other county employee witnesses. This gives the appearance that complaints to the Grand Jury carry less importance or validity than other complaints made under County Policies C-35 and C-25. The complainant also told the Grand Jury that, since the complainant was ordered to use vacation time for appearances, it appeared that supervisors and upper management were trying to dissuade the complainant from giving testimony at a proceeding authorized by law, in violation of Penal Code §136.1(a)(2). Recommendations Riverside County Code Enforcement Department Riverside County Board of Supervisors
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 5 hallazgos
F1: Three out of seven polling places had inaccurate addresses for the physical location of the polling places. The voting materials mailed to voters were not in agreement with the Polling Place Request Agreement (contract). The following locations had discrepancies as noted: a. Perris City Hall, 101 N. D Street, Perris The actual polling location was located at 91 N. Perris Blvd. at the City Council Chamber building, one block south of City Hall, not at the listed location of 101 N. D Street. b. Hunt Club Apartments, 1355 S. Perris Blvd., Perris The entrance to the polling place was located on Goetz Road, not Perris Blvd., as indicated on the mailed voter materials. There was inadequate signage and parking. c. Lake Perris Fairground, 18700 Lake Perris Drive, Perris The address Lake Perris Fairgrounds, 18700 Lake Perris Drive, Perris, California 92571 did not adequately describe the address on the sample ballots sent to voters and did not specify the building name. Lake Perris Fairgrounds covers approximately 11 acres occupied with several buildings. There is no address at the entrance to the grounds nor on any building. In previous elections, voters had voted at the Lake Perris Fairground’s Harrison Hall building; however, it was closed and no notice was posted as to where to vote. The Fairgrounds failed to turn on tower lights at dusk and multiple interviewees reported the lighting was not provided. A single small porch light was on behind the building, providing the only outside lighting. The lack of adequate lighting created an unsafe environment for both voters and poll workers. Training
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1: The accurate and physical location address information, including the building number as listed on the Availability Request Agreement, be relayed to the voters. The ROV must comply with the California Election Code §12281 (a) and (b), which states: (a) If, for any valid reason, the polling place designated for any precinct cannot be used and this fact is known in sufficient time to allow a mailed notice to be received before the election, the elections official may designate another polling place and must mail to each voter in the precinct a notice showing this change. (b) If the information is not known in sufficient time for a mailing pursuant to subdivision (a), either the elections official or, in the case of an emergency the precinct board on the day of election, must designate another polling place as near the place first designated as possible, post notice on or near the place first designated, and conduct the election at the new location. The ROV survey or assessment teams will first verify addresses of each polling location. The survey team is to coordinate and meet with representative(s) of polling locations to confirm all aspects of how the site will be utilized. Polling locations are not to be used unless adequate lighting, signage, and accessibility can be provided.
F2: Polling places are managed by precinct inspectors (captains) who are assisted by election officers (poll workers) who are all volunteers. At multiple polling locations; the poll workers were inexperienced. Poll workers receive training utilizing classroom instruction, instructional CDs, and the Election Officers Handbook. Training was inconsistent among poll workers. The voting equipment was already in place, which does not allow poll workers the opportunity to arrange the equipment as required by the State of California Election Code. Another area that lacked training was the requirement for captains to correctly and accurately document issues on the Election Officer’s Comment Sheet. The training program does not emphasize the requirements of completing the comment sheets and the importance of the information they provide. Accessibility Kit
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2: The ROV to assign poll workers of mixed experience to achieve a knowledgeable and organized operation. The ROV to add specific training on the use of comment sheets and how they are used to improve polling operations. The comment sheets are required to be accurate and detailed throughout the Election Day. The ROV training program must comply with the State of California elections training requirements for hands-on training to include configuring of polling equipment.
F3: Three polling places were not arranged according to the Accessibility Kit photographs taken by the ROV survey or assessment teams. They did not accurately photograph the polling locations, such as the entrance to the polling place. Security Seals
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3: The owners of the properties that the ROV has selected as polling places adhere to the contract with the ROV, by providing access to the building that was agreed upon and permitting the poll workers to arrange the site the night before the election. The ROV to provide quality control ensuring the site is arranged properly. They will organize the site to agree with the photographs the ROV has provided. The ROV survey or assessment team first verifies addresses of each polling location. This will be done before the team coordinates with representative(s) of the polling location to confirm how the site will be used.
F4: At two polling locations, a blue ballot box had one of two red plastic security seals broken and was not locked. At another location, Team members observed a poll worker get a new red plastic seal and replace the broken one. This issue was not reported to ROV officials nor was it documented on the Election Officer’s Comment Sheet. Accessible Voting Unit
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R4: The ROV Section No. C-23 requires that if a seal is broken on a ballot box, immediate measures must be taken. It reads as follows: Any individual who is authorized by the Registrar of Voters (ROV) and assigned to transport, deliver, store, setup, open & close the polls, or collect voting material and voting equipment before, during, or after an election must take an Oath of Allegiance and be required to report immediately to the ROV when there is any evidence, or suspicion of tampering with the paper ballots or voting equipment. The ROV to add specific training on the use of comment sheets and how they are used to improve polling operations. The comment sheets are required to be accurate and detailed throughout the Election Day. 5
F5: To comply with the disability access requirements of the Help America Vote Act, precincts have an Accessible Voting Unit (AVU) to provide audio voting for voters who may have visual problems, low literacy proficiency, and other reasons. All precincts have an AVU that has an audio only add-on control box and head phones for visually impaired voters. The precincts observed by the Team did not have the AVU system ready for voters’ use. At one polling location the audio control box and head phones were still in the storage location; there was no signage display available for the visually impaired. The Team observed the activation button being pushed by the precinct inspector and the range inspector to troubleshoot the audio control box that was not functioning; the AVU Election Officer’s Yellow Activation Button User Log was not completed.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R5: The ROV to have specific postings on the use of the AVU and audio voting capabilities. This posting to be separate and specific from other postings. The ROV provide quality control training so the site is arranged properly. The ROV must demonstrate how the equipment is arranged during training as required by the State of California Polling Place Accessibility Guidelines. Report Issued: 04/27/2016 Report Public: 04/29/2016 Response Due: 07/26/2016 6
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 4 hallazgos
F1: The McCoy Wash Flood Improvement District (McCoy Improvement) was established in December 1987 as part of PVRCD. On December 9, 1991, the district was split into two separate special districts by resolution of the PVRCD board of directors without obtaining the approval of LAFCO. This was done to accommodate McCoy Flood Control District (McCoy District) to establish the power to assess Blythe citizens within McCoy Wash area for construction of the dam. Arrangements were established with the County to collect these funds. The PVRCD does not have the authority to establish the McCoy District as a special district. The PVRCD, under provision of Division 9 of the California Public Resources Code, does have the authority to form an improvement district for constructing, both in or for the improvement district, one or more flood prevention improvements, including structural and land treatment measures. The PVRCD resolution reads as follows: RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF PALO VERDE RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT Whereas Palo Verde Resource Conservation District (PVRCD) has sponsored the creation of the McCoy Wash Flood Control District (McCoy), and furthermore that McCoy is now a separate Special District with a directorship concurrent to that of PVRCD and furthermore, that McCoy receives property tax revenues that are for the sole benefit of McCoy. Herewith be it resolved the Riverside County Auditor-Controller’s Office is requested to establish a Trust type “fund” for McCoy (request attached) for the purpose of properly segregating McCoy revenues and expenses from those of PVRCD. This document was signed by the President and Secretary/Treasurer, who are also the current President and Secretary/Treasurer.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1: The resolution of 1991 be voided. The County Auditor-Controller cancel the requested audit from the McCoy District and include them as a part of the PVRCD for audit.
F2: The PVRCD has not submitted an audited financial statement to the Controller or the County Auditor-Controller’s office since 2007. Government Code §26909 requires a financial report be filed annually with the Controller and with the County Auditor-Controller within 12 months of the fiscal year. The PVRCD has received a letter of non-compliance from the County Auditor-Controller’s office giving the district until December 21, 2015, to comply. To date the PVRCD has ignored the County Auditor- Controller’s request. 3
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2: The board of directors be overseen by Riverside County Counsel and instructed to comply with California Government Code §26909(a)(2). After combining the two districts, the PVRCD has sufficient funds to complete the required audit and comply with the County Auditor- Controller’s request.
F3: The duties of the PVRCD board of directors have been performed in an inconsistent manner. The PVRCD Secretary/Treasurer stated: The Supervisors have the ability to provide significant relief, contingent on moving all funds into the “county financial system,’ and gaining Supervisors” approval. This action would remove us from AUDIT to REVIEW status. The PVRCD has not in the past nine years requested this action. The California Association of Resource Conservation Districts and various list servers are used to find potential funding sources. The PVRCD had chosen not to perform any service that could provide an income to the district such as requesting grants and loans from both state and federal sources. They had not requested assistance from the California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection, RCD Assistance Program. They have no policies and procedures in place, do not have a budget, and they do not have regularly scheduled meetings. The directors have the ultimate fiscal responsibility for the district’s financial management.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3: The PVRCD establish and follow procedures for operating an RCD such as those outlined in the California Resource Conservation District Handbook as follows: • Director’s basics • Power and authority • Organization and administration • District finances • Partnership • Planning
F4: Documents provided by the board of PVRCD have shown evidence of incompatibility of office, pursuant to California Government Code §1099(a) which states: A public officer, including, but not limited to, an appointed or elected member of a governmental board, commission, committee, or other body, shall not simultaneously hold two public offices that are incompatible. California Government Code §1099 says that offices are incompatible when any of the following circumstances are present:
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R4: The Board of Supervisors vets appointments to offices on RCDs and special districts for incompatibility. Report Issued: 06/28/2016 Report Public: 06/30/2016 Response Due: 09/26/2016 5
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 4 hallazgos
F1: The McCoy Wash Flood Improvement District (McCoy Improvement) was established in December 1987 as part of PVRCD. On December 9, 1991, the district was split into two separate special districts by resolution of the PVRCD board of directors without obtaining the approval of LAFCO. This was done to accommodate McCoy Flood Control District (McCoy District) to establish the power to assess Blythe citizens within McCoy Wash area for construction of the dam. Arrangements were established with the County to collect these funds. The PVRCD does not have the authority to establish the McCoy District as a special district. The PVRCD, under provision of Division 9 of the California Public Resources Code, does have the authority to form an improvement district for constructing, both in or for the improvement district, one or more flood prevention improvements, including structural and land treatment measures. The PVRCD resolution reads as follows: RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF PALO VERDE RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT Whereas Palo Verde Resource Conservation District (PVRCD) has sponsored the creation of the McCoy Wash Flood Control District (McCoy), and furthermore that McCoy is now a separate Special District with a directorship concurrent to that of PVRCD and furthermore, that McCoy receives property tax revenues that are for the sole benefit of McCoy. Herewith be it resolved the Riverside County Auditor-Controller’s Office is requested to establish a Trust type “fund” for McCoy (request attached) for the purpose of properly segregating McCoy revenues and expenses from those of PVRCD. This document was signed by the President and Secretary/Treasurer, who are also the current President and Secretary/Treasurer.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1: The resolution of 1991 be voided. The County Auditor-Controller cancel the requested audit from the McCoy District and include them as a part of the PVRCD for audit.
F2: The PVRCD has not submitted an audited financial statement to the Controller or the County Auditor-Controller’s office since 2007. Government Code §26909 requires a financial report be filed annually with the Controller and with the County Auditor-Controller within 12 months of the fiscal year. The PVRCD has received a letter of non-compliance from the County Auditor-Controller’s office giving the district until December 21, 2015, to comply. To date the PVRCD has ignored the County Auditor- Controller’s request. 3
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2: The board of directors be overseen by Riverside County Counsel and instructed to comply with California Government Code §26909(a)(2). After combining the two districts, the PVRCD has sufficient funds to complete the required audit and comply with the County Auditor- Controller’s request.
F3: The duties of the PVRCD board of directors have been performed in an inconsistent manner. The PVRCD Secretary/Treasurer stated: The Supervisors have the ability to provide significant relief, contingent on moving all funds into the “county financial system,’ and gaining Supervisors” approval. This action would remove us from AUDIT to REVIEW status. The PVRCD has not in the past nine years requested this action. The California Association of Resource Conservation Districts and various list servers are used to find potential funding sources. The PVRCD had chosen not to perform any service that could provide an income to the district such as requesting grants and loans from both state and federal sources. They had not requested assistance from the California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection, RCD Assistance Program. They have no policies and procedures in place, do not have a budget, and they do not have regularly scheduled meetings. The directors have the ultimate fiscal responsibility for the district’s financial management.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3: The PVRCD establish and follow procedures for operating an RCD such as those outlined in the California Resource Conservation District Handbook as follows: • Director’s basics • Power and authority • Organization and administration • District finances • Partnership • Planning
F4: Documents provided by the board of PVRCD have shown evidence of incompatibility of office, pursuant to California Government Code §1099(a) which states: A public officer, including, but not limited to, an appointed or elected member of a governmental board, commission, committee, or other body, shall not simultaneously hold two public offices that are incompatible. California Government Code §1099 says that offices are incompatible when any of the following circumstances are present:
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R4: The Board of Supervisors vets appointments to offices on RCDs and special districts for incompatibility. Report Issued: 06/28/2016 Report Public: 06/30/2016 Response Due: 09/26/2016 5
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 3 hallazgos
F1: The applicant is the daughter of the Superintendent of TVUSD. The daughter was charged with a felony and pled guilty to misdemeanor (PC §487(b) (3)) prior to seeking employment with TVUSD. Employment applications require an explanation (statement) if the applicant was previously convicted of a felony or a misdemeanor. Applicant’s original application was for a classified (non-teaching) substitute position. The process for hiring a classified substitute requires a background verification, which results in a Department of Justice (DOJ) report finding. In this case, the DOJ report indicated a misdemeanor conviction. According to interviews with the former Assistant Superintendent of Human Resources and the Director of Human Resources for classified personnel, a second statement was requested from the applicant. During both non-sworn and sworn interviews, the Superintendent said he delivered the applicant’s second written statement to the Human Resources Department. This was corroborated in a sworn interview by the former Assistant Superintendent of Human Resources, and in non- sworn interviews by the Director of Human Resources for classified personnel. However, the applicant stated during two separate interviews that the statement was personally delivered to the Human Resources Department. This second statement indicated that the applicant was asked to leave a previous employer, Pala Casino that was not listed on the application. This omission was repeated on six subsequent applications for other positions within TVUSD. The applicant also checked “NO” to the question “Have you ever been dismissed or asked to resign from any position?” on the subsequent applications. Both the former Assistant Superintendent of Human Resources and the Director of Human Resources for classified personnel indicated that it was normal practice, but not written policy, to interview an individual when a positive DOJ report was received. In this instance, no interview was conducted to determine when or where the incident occurred or the outcome of the judicial proceedings. The circumstances of the crime and her subsequent conviction have never been discussed with the applicant. According to Superior Court of California, County of San Diego North County Division Case Number 2 CN286821, the applicant pled guilty to misdemeanor charges. The court sentenced her to three years’ summary (non-supervised) probation and five days public works (community) service, and she agreed to pay restitution in the amount of $18,676.00 to Pala Casino. The former Assistant Superintendent of Human Resources met with the Superintendent to discuss the applicant’s background, and was told by the Superintendent, “She would not hurt the district.” The Superintendent corroborated this statement.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1: That TVUSD develop and follow written policy to ensure all applicants are treated equally in the screening of their applications. Said policy is to include step by step procedures that are followed in all situations. That TVUSD develop a more comprehensive written policy on the employment of relatives. Immediate relatives of the Superintendent, Assistant Superintendents, or Department Directors be thoroughly vetted in accordance with written policy prior to being approved to work in the district offices avoiding the appearance of undue influence. 3
F2: Consent Calendars for BOE meetings in January and March 2013 contained listings of classified substitutes being offered employment. The applicant’s name did not appear on the Consent Calendar for the BOE meeting in April 2013, or anytime thereafter, prior to the applicant obtaining permanent employment with TVUSD in a classified position. When the applicant was initially hired for a permanent classified position, and promoted to another classified position, the applicant’s name did appear on the Consent Calendar for the BOE meetings. No member of the BOE sought further clarification on the identical last names of the Superintendent and his daughter, nor did the Superintendent make it known to the BOE that the applicant was the daughter of the Superintendent. During interviews, two members of the BOE stated they did not read the Consent Calendar in detail and did not notice the same last name. The Superintendent stated he did not find it necessary to address this topic.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2: That TVUSD ensure all classified substitute applicants are listed on the Consent Calendar. Any relative of an existing employee be identified as an applicant, regardless of the supervisory or evaluation responsibility for the applied for position.
F3: Prior to the academic year beginning in August 2012, the Superintendent was approached by representatives of the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department (RCSD) to discuss the enrollment of undercover Sheriff’s Department personnel into a high school in TVUSD to investigate possible violations of drug laws. The Superintendent agreed with RCSD to conduct the operation without seeking legal advice as to the potential liabilities to TVUSD.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3: That the Superintendent seeks legal advice, to include potential liabilities, on all future requests for operations from law enforcement agencies. Report Issued: 05/25/2016 Report Public: 05/27/2016 Response Due: 08/23/2016 4
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 3 hallazgos
F1: The applicant is the daughter of the Superintendent of TVUSD. The daughter was charged with a felony and pled guilty to misdemeanor (PC §487(b) (3)) prior to seeking employment with TVUSD. Employment applications require an explanation (statement) if the applicant was previously convicted of a felony or a misdemeanor. Applicant’s original application was for a classified (non-teaching) substitute position. The process for hiring a classified substitute requires a background verification, which results in a Department of Justice (DOJ) report finding. In this case, the DOJ report indicated a misdemeanor conviction. According to interviews with the former Assistant Superintendent of Human Resources and the Director of Human Resources for classified personnel, a second statement was requested from the applicant. During both non-sworn and sworn interviews, the Superintendent said he delivered the applicant’s second written statement to the Human Resources Department. This was corroborated in a sworn interview by the former Assistant Superintendent of Human Resources, and in non- sworn interviews by the Director of Human Resources for classified personnel. However, the applicant stated during two separate interviews that the statement was personally delivered to the Human Resources Department. This second statement indicated that the applicant was asked to leave a previous employer, Pala Casino that was not listed on the application. This omission was repeated on six subsequent applications for other positions within TVUSD. The applicant also checked “NO” to the question “Have you ever been dismissed or asked to resign from any position?” on the subsequent applications. Both the former Assistant Superintendent of Human Resources and the Director of Human Resources for classified personnel indicated that it was normal practice, but not written policy, to interview an individual when a positive DOJ report was received. In this instance, no interview was conducted to determine when or where the incident occurred or the outcome of the judicial proceedings. The circumstances of the crime and her subsequent conviction have never been discussed with the applicant. According to Superior Court of California, County of San Diego North County Division Case Number 2 CN286821, the applicant pled guilty to misdemeanor charges. The court sentenced her to three years’ summary (non-supervised) probation and five days public works (community) service, and she agreed to pay restitution in the amount of $18,676.00 to Pala Casino. The former Assistant Superintendent of Human Resources met with the Superintendent to discuss the applicant’s background, and was told by the Superintendent, “She would not hurt the district.” The Superintendent corroborated this statement.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1: That TVUSD develop and follow written policy to ensure all applicants are treated equally in the screening of their applications. Said policy is to include step by step procedures that are followed in all situations. That TVUSD develop a more comprehensive written policy on the employment of relatives. Immediate relatives of the Superintendent, Assistant Superintendents, or Department Directors be thoroughly vetted in accordance with written policy prior to being approved to work in the district offices avoiding the appearance of undue influence. 3
F2: Consent Calendars for BOE meetings in January and March 2013 contained listings of classified substitutes being offered employment. The applicant’s name did not appear on the Consent Calendar for the BOE meeting in April 2013, or anytime thereafter, prior to the applicant obtaining permanent employment with TVUSD in a classified position. When the applicant was initially hired for a permanent classified position, and promoted to another classified position, the applicant’s name did appear on the Consent Calendar for the BOE meetings. No member of the BOE sought further clarification on the identical last names of the Superintendent and his daughter, nor did the Superintendent make it known to the BOE that the applicant was the daughter of the Superintendent. During interviews, two members of the BOE stated they did not read the Consent Calendar in detail and did not notice the same last name. The Superintendent stated he did not find it necessary to address this topic.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2: That TVUSD ensure all classified substitute applicants are listed on the Consent Calendar. Any relative of an existing employee be identified as an applicant, regardless of the supervisory or evaluation responsibility for the applied for position.
F3: Prior to the academic year beginning in August 2012, the Superintendent was approached by representatives of the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department (RCSD) to discuss the enrollment of undercover Sheriff’s Department personnel into a high school in TVUSD to investigate possible violations of drug laws. The Superintendent agreed with RCSD to conduct the operation without seeking legal advice as to the potential liabilities to TVUSD.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3: That the Superintendent seeks legal advice, to include potential liabilities, on all future requests for operations from law enforcement agencies. Report Issued: 05/25/2016 Report Public: 05/27/2016 Response Due: 08/23/2016 4
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 3 hallazgos
F1: Unscheduled vacancies (boards, commissions, committees) have not been posted at the public library as required by California Government Code Sections 54970-54974 also known as the “Maddy Act.” The vacancy notices have been posted only at the City Clerk’s office. 54974. (a) Whenever an unscheduled vacancy occurs in any board, commission, or committee for which the legislative body has the appointing power, whether due to resignation, death, termination, or other causes, a special vacancy notice shall be posted in the office of the clerk of the local agency, the library designated pursuant to Section 54973, and in other places as directed by the legislative body,…
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1: Develop policy and procedure ensuring the city complies with the “Maddy Act” by posting all vacancies at the city clerk’s office, the public library and other designated location(s).
F2: The postings at the library are for the City Council agendas and other boards, such as Wildomar Cemetery District and Planning Commission. The postings are on a securely locked bulletin board located near the entrance of the Wildomar Public Library. Parts of the agendas posted are obscured by the door frame. However, a small note is located at the bottom of the bulletin board door, which states “Please ask library staff to view the entire agenda.”
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2: The bulletin board currently being used at the Wildomar Public Library be replaced with a secure bulletin board, large enough to display the entire postings.
F3: Postings at the U.S. Post Office in Wildomar are posted by the city clerk, or her deputy on a clip board that is unsecured. 2
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3: If the U.S. Post Office in Wildomar is continued to be utilized a secure bulletin board of adequate size be used, otherwise, a different location be designated, such as the city website or local fire station. Report Issued: 06/22/2016 Report Public: 06/24/2016 Response Due: 09/20/2016 3